Talk:Vincent Gallo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to actors and filmmakers on Wikipedia.
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.


Contents

[edit] what?

how is he not notable? why is this article tagged as such? as an actor he's starred in many movies, some major or associated with other "major" figures (e.g. arizona dream, the funeral). he's written and directed two feature films. he has released two albums. he was also a painter indentified with the downtown new york scene in the early/mid 80s and had gallery showings (under anina nosei) way before he was ever even in movies. any one of these makes him notable in and of itself not to mention a variety of other things he's been known for (modeling, noted collector of hi-fi gear, in a band with basquiat, etc etc). there are a lot of people on here who've done much less and who have entire articles about themselves. while he may be a "controversial figure", i don't see what that has to do with notability. --Doinelita 08:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

yea, gallo is racist so people are attacking the article. this action only embarrassess wikipedia, not gallo. gallo is racist piece of shit, but let's not fuck up wikipedia by lying and protesting like morons.


Is this idiot full of himself or what? What a self centered piece of dog squeeze he is? If all of this in this article is true....he should just move to France...he would fit in better with those bunch of ropesucking self centered goat molestors.



I find it unfortunate that (with some noteable exception) everyone seems to have missed the point. Vincent Gallo is not a "racist piece of shit". Don't be so silly. I respect your opinnions but, really, violent negatives arn't going to do any good. Dropping hateful slurs only puts you on the same level you see Gallo on, dosn't it? Vincent Gallo may say things that are very controversial, and potentially insulting to some. He may also do things that are very controversial. Vincent Gallo does not care if you take offence, because, it seems to me, Vincent Gallo isn't taking things so seriously as you are. Vincent Gallo is very much in the public eye. He has lots of jewish friends, and lots of black friends. Of course he does. He grew up in Buffalo. He lives in New York. He probably has lots of Mexican friends too. He's lived in Los Angeles. He's dated jewish girls. If this wikipedia article was more acurate, it might mention those things.

I think it is very biased. It is not neutral. It was written, clearly, by someone who is bitter and lonely and wants to take the wee-wee out of a lesser-known cult celebrity. There may be bad to Vincent Gallo, but he still deserves as un-biased an article as anyone does. Phil Collins has an un-biased article. Who are we to split the hairs? We arn't anyone. Tomato, tomato. I'm sure Phil Collins has said some unceremonious things in his life. I bet he's drunkenly slurred hate-words to a bouncer. I'm sure he's used an N-bomb in traffic. I love Genisis and Genisis is the best, but Phil Collins on his own was, although a prolific member of the 80's rock movement, generally a bit of a monkey. In my oppinion. But wait. Does my oppinion really matter? Well, in the forum here I have the room to speak my mind. In an article I do not. An article is un-baised. Isn't it.

We must also note that Vincent Gallo, must obviously enjoy the fevered controversy that errupts when he does something so obviously targeted at people who are too insecure to understand. His tounge is in his cheek. You know what I mean? You can see it. I can see it. If lonely people where not so desperate to pee at the foot of a successful individuals likeness, Vincent Gallo would not have had such a solid platform for his success. Can't everyone see that?

And! The over-saturated cherry on the top of your bitter banana split is that Vincent Gallo is very wealthy. He wears Yves Saint Laurent suits and he is generally considered to be very handsome. His films are watched, loved and purchased as much as they are critisized. He drives luxury cars, dosn't he? He releases albums and people listen, he performs shows and people buy tickets to see him perform. He does not care what you think, even worse. Women desire him. Even black women. Even jewish women. Even asian and hispanic women.

If you really wanted to spite Vincent Gallo, I would think it more logical to ignore him just like he ignores you. It is only a vicious, unforgiving circle to wrap yourself into: Loving to hate, desperate to provoke anger, only to find yourself a slightly under-athletic individual, sitting on a IKEA chair in the bedroom of your basement suite, wearing trackpants and clicking away pornographic pop-ups.


I am, however, a lucky majority. I am a white, blue eyed, large chested, naturally born female with Mediterranean-Anglo background.

So I have nothing to worry about. Right?


PS; Desperately throwing in an insult at the French is both unadmirable and flimsy. Perhaps you didn't strike out with that French exchange student, and have been bitter ever since. Perhaps you saw a forign film once that you didn't understand. Regardless- When the closest you've come to the French is french fries, I don't think you have the authority to throw cultural barbs.

Besides- Doesnt the large part of the Gallo argument revolve around the fact that Gallo himself exercises racial stereotypes in his personal website?

Blockhead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janefondalovesamerica (talk • contribs) 21:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What about the post-modernism!?!

Forgive me if I discuss this in a very non-encyclopedic way, opting instead for a bit of an opinionated waffle. It seems short-sighted that so many people are citing Gallo as 'up his ass' - certainly he's a pretentious and highly controversial artist, but his work is nonetheless intriguing, if you can be bothered to consider it a little deeper than at face value, and avoid the reactionary stance so many wikipedians seem to be taking here. The following (long) series of points is not intended to celebrate Gallo's work, but rather to draw your attention to some ideas/topics currently neglected by the Wiki entry. I don't profess to be a scholar in Gallo's work, but I know a thing or two about it! I'd appreciate any comments for or against the inclusion of the following ideas (obv rewritten - it takes effort to 'discuss' in an objective manner, so ive typically slipped into subjectivity a lot along the way) because i think at the moment this article is a bit of an embarrassment to the Wiki ideal - we should be perpetuating info/knowledge, not just personal feelings/opinions. Again, apologies for the length of this section, but there IS a lot missing IMO.

Surely Gallo can only be seen through the (flawed) eyes of the post-modernist thinker. The way he applies his name to releases on such a broad spectrum of mediums is hint enough. "Vincent Gallo" is arguably a creation, a character - in much the same way that authors such as Paul Auster suggest autobiographical content through parallels between his characters and his 'about the author' bios, to further mythologise themselves, and thus shift the boundaries of reality/fiction - played by one (or many) artists as a means of post-mod art. Note the strong hints towards auto-biographical content in Gallo's film work; he seems to invite us to believe that he isnt acting at all, but rather recounting his past.

Gallo has frequently proclaimed himself a genius, and appears to categorise himself with other broadly talented artists, such as those of the Classical and Rennaisance periods. Possibly, he's crazy, or else somehow infected with the peter-pan-like qualities of the spoilt youth who feels his contemporaries are irredeemably beneath him.

Consider Gallo's early self promotion - he claims (and photographs back up these claims) that when he was a student in New York, he graffittied his name all over the city, apparently as a means of subliminal self-promotion. This in itself again points toward one of the two main theories - he's either mad, or else its an example of post-mod art. Either explanation would account for any one of his 'projects', but for a madman to achieve so much seems problematic, so we are left with the assumption that he is consciously and coherently attempting to put forward ideas via the unusual medium of - well, himself.

Also, very little seems to be known of his 80s-90s career as a dancer - I have found many photos, seemingly of the same person (but once you start to look into Gallo's work, reality becomes twisted and you start to question whether they are indeed all of one man; he has a striking, but not uncommon set of features, and it would not be hard for a man of such resourcefulness to plough a series of photo collections, looking for doppelgangers) and I once saw a blurry, video-camera-recorded clip of him performing on a TV show. He seems to be creating a past-career as a ghost; always around, working, but never centre-stage.

His films borrow heavily from other directors/writers, stylistically and in terms of storyline (Buffalo 66 and Brown Bunny are full of references to other works of their era, and long before). The use of such techniques as real-time sections and POV camera-angles, coupled with natural lighting, suggest a typical modernist art-house director, but Gallo augments these sections with moments of hyper-reality, sudden jump-cuts, and special effects. Humour is employed in a way that the audience initially finds comic relief, but then becomes uncomfortable (most obvious examples being Billy's struggle to find a place to pee at the beginning of Buffalo 66, or his father's later performance/mime of the Sinatra track).

The constant reference to 'Brown' (heroin) throughout his works (film and music particularly) might point to the cause of his chaotic approach to art, but is more likely another red herring - it seems a little less than plausible that anyone could be so prolific under the throes of addiction; while some psychological studies into addiction would disagree with me, the cases of Pete Doherty and/or Kurt Cobain seem to prove my point well enough.

The documented (and much overhyped) 'spat' between Gallo and the critic Roger Ebert again suggests a man more concerned with *portraying* himself as uncompromising and volatile, than one willing to take critics seriously - one would expect Gallo, (supposedly) inspired thinker and creator of so much, to have better argument than to resort to verbal abuse. This again points toward the sort of self-promotion common in modern and post-modern visual artists (D. Hurst/T. Emin). It also puts me in mind of Andy Kauffman's work with the wrestler - is it not possible that Ebert and Gallo were in cahoots?

The question of his offered sperm and political/rascist standings further emphasises the likelihood of 'Gallo' being an artist's creation rather than a real person. Racism/anti-semitism is not at all uncommon, but it is uncommon for people working in the entertainment industry to openly discuss their own harbouring of such repugnant views (sorry, I warned you this isnt very encyclopedic). The fact that Gallo is a member of the Independant Film Industry would be seen as a direct contradiction of these views, thus allowing the possibility of satire.

While it is possible that Vincent Gallo is a disturbed bigot, it seems wholly more likely (considering all of the above, his background, and his general sense of humour) that this is a ploy to demonstrate how someone unequivocal, unusually vocal, and unrepentant of his abhorrent white-supremacist beliefs/prejudices, is freely welcomed into the Republican party. While I have no doubt that Gallo is patriotic, I would be surprised if any of the conditions of his 'sperm donation' or his joining of the Republicans is anything other than a clever political message. "Hey, they let me in, and I could be the next Hitler!" he's saying, one step beind the mask of Vincent Gallo. Again, this is very post-modern, if you consider the "War on Terror"'s early recruitment of many A-List Hollywood actors, to back the war and the president. In fact, its about the best use of post-modernism in politics I can remember, if you care to see it my way.

As has been remarked already, I have no doubt Mr Gallo delights in the thought of discussions like these, and I am equally positive that he would deny all of the above (otherwise, what would be the point in making the statements in the first place?). But, as far as I'm concerned, Vincent Gallo is one of the best post-modernists around, and the only person I know of to have made his own life a work of art. I find it extremely odd that this article focusses so much on his faux-pas and not the framework within which he clearly works. Obviously - as pointed our below - needless hyperbole must be avoided, but there is more to this man than his sperm and a few dubious racial comments on his website: consider the whole.

bish 18:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah, save it for your thesis, your write-up, while not entirely dumb, has no place on wikipedia. This isn't the IMDB discussion boards.
Actually I think you have a point. I doubt that anyone who was friends with Basquiat and tours with Yoko Ono can have Bush and George Will as role-models. His "racism" is probably an equally oh, so clever "ironic commentary" on society, or other such nonsense. The thing is, I don't really care that much if he's being postmodern or serious, he's still a pretentious douche. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.110.2 (talk) 02:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This page is a means to relay factual information regarding Gallo, not a creation meant to further an agenda to either slander or praise him. The page in its current incarnation does indeed struggle with a skewered POV, but that is by no means an invitation to include inconsequential meanderings about his importance or apparent embodiment to a philosophical movement in order to balance the tides. Our task is to continue making this page as neutral as possible and leave the rest for place more suitable to passionate diatribes. I have little to no interest in Gallo as an individual (before today, I hadn't even heard of him and in fact discovered him only by way of a Buffalo 68 mention in a King Crimson album article) so hopefully I will be able to abstain from a bias and contribute meaningful information to the article.

Charles M. Reed 09:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


Well written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.201.245 (talk) 01:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another rant

I thought he had some potential in playing extremely alienated characters living in a depressing type of altered reality that merged disturbing and macho and criminal elements pretty well, in a sort of out-of-the-loop type of "self made" guy living in a very boring world But he so ruined Brown Bunny by switching gears a third of the way thru and turning it into some type self-serving director's cut that seemed to me to be exploitive in a way that was definitely not cool. After that I had to totally just shake my head and wonder if anyone could possibly be that vain or was it some kind of goof on the audience. He was no longer an artist to me, but just another hollywood manipulator with issues that aren't even something I am interested in. I felt betrayed in that he suddenly sprang that in, and it made the early parts of the film make absolutely no sense to me. Did he just self-destruct? I didn't even get to the blantant parts mentioned and had no idea it was going to go there as the vibes I got told me, it was a mistake to rent it. Almost always I watch the entire film even if its not enjoyable, but this was like beyond the pale. This was anything but a work of genius or whatever it was fantascized to be. I had never seen a film crater so fast.

[edit] Cleaned up Intro

Removed the part that called Gallo "the most multi tasking filmmaker in history" (or something similarily hyperbolic). I aslo removed a short section at the end of the intro that just repeats the information at the beginning of the intro. Someone basically re-stated the bit about his sperm donation in a seperate paragraph, so I merged the two.

[edit] $500,000 additional charge for "natural" insemination

Um, isn't this called prostitution? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
This is Vincent Gallo we're talking about here. 129.96.120.254 00:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Republican?

Vincent Gallo is many things - A provocateur, a professional self-obsessed pain in the behind, but a Republican? Vincent Gallo is so steeped in his personae that it can be hard to tell what he actually believes, but if the writings referenced on his website are any indication, I would draw the conclusion that he is a great absurdist contrarian who's in touch with his close-minded, conservative side, but only as much as it can be used to create a satirical version of himself that is a joke that only he and his friends get. I could be wrong, and I don't know how to represent this interpretation of Gallo in this article, but since it is such a primary point of reference for this man, I thought perhaps it should be addressed.Dwiki 18:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't disagree, and I think you state it quite well, but I don't know how to make that encyclopedic without using weasel words or original research. --Misterwindupbird 02:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, he supported Bush in 2000 and attended the Republican convention as a delegate in 2004. I'd say that qualifies him. In order for his behavior to be interpreted as satirical, there would have to be some element visibly subverting or undermining the surface meaning. (see The Yes Men) If that's happening, I'm missing it. I'd be hesitant about using the word "great" in connection with Gallo unless immediately followed by "pretentious ass". --Skyraider 00:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I worry that Mr. Gallo fantasizes that discussions such as this occur.  :) Dwiki 02:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I worry that he will direct another movie. Trieste 17:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought prostitution was illegal. Maybe Gallo is in court right now? He doesn't answer my e-mails. 65.95.111.175 21:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)amour.

Instead of satire maybe irony? I think he is actually a sweet man. Provocative, of course, and a master of publicity stunts. Sweet nonetheless. 65.95.111.175 21:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)amour.

  • Gallo is most definitely a Conservative Republican which is quite stunning considering that Hollywood is associated with being extremely liberal (especially the Independent Film industry which Gallo is a part of).

I'd like to think it's a joke.

I think the 'political ideology' section here is probably just wrong. It's speculative (possibly wishful thinking?) in the extreme and I think would count as original research. I don't see any reason not to take his stated political ideology at face value (even though individual statements might be a bit exaggerated). I think it should be heavily edited by someone with a better eye for subtlety than me, but I'll keep an eye on it and edit it myself if nothing is forthcoming. Mr-Thomas 01:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Also I removed the comment which seemed to state that his quote on being a 'conservative radical' was contradictory - radical conservatism is not oxymoronic. Mr-Thomas 01:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Does it matter if he fancies himself an "agent provocateur" or if he's actually committed to the "conservative cause"? I think not (although I tend to think his friendships with many "counter-culture" celebrities kind of give him away in the end). I only know who this guy is because apparently he'll be starring in an upcoming movie about the life of Elizabeth Bathory, which sounds pretty cool, unlike that turd bunny movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.110.2 (talk) 02:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Buying Vincent Gallo's sperm

There is no way that he's actually making such an offer, right? Here are some possibilities:

1. Its a legitamate offer that he'll follow through if someone buys it 2. He doesn't really mean it and does not expect anyone to actually purchase it

So, is it a joke or isn't it? I'm confused.--131.104.139.250 21:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Until such time as Gallo asserts that he is not serious, it's our responsibility to treat the information as legitimate. He has now also added a section on his web page simply offering his services as a sexual escort, willing to have intercourse with any woman, "even black chicks." So Gallo is either trying to be ironic, or he is an unashamed racist. Pacian 07:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article bias

This article seems biased. It concentrates on Roger Ebert and Gallo's alleged racism, rather than his artistic work. This is an encyclopaedia rather than a celebrity gossip magazine, so I find this quite weird. Putting away everyone's personal feelings of the man, wouldn't anyone rather see a more encyclopaedic article here? I would prefer to see the article concentrate more on the man's work, than controversies in the press and blog world. Sure, the Ebert and Racism things deserve a teeny tiny little place in the article, but not let's not have the article taken over by people's personal feelings of the subject. User:Joyrex

I would oppose reducing those sections to a "teeny tiny" portion of the article: IMO, Gallo is more notable for using controversy to self-promote than for his films themselves. Skyraider 23:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Please ignore the "teeny tiny" phrase. The racism quotes can merely exist in the article as a link to the website in question, no? Well, there's plenty of articles and sources online to suggest that there is a large amount of potential content for the Vincent Gallo article. User:Joyrex
So by all means expand the article! Personally I don't have any interest in writing about his "art" because I don't find anything even remotely interesting about it. If you do, then go ahead and write. Ramanpotential 05:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Why did you write "art" instead of art? User:Joyrex
To convey my dubiousness about his artistic ability. We don't have to be NPOV on talk pages. :-) Ramanpotential 11:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I think Vincent Gallo is a big asshole. I'm interested in expanding this article to reflect the wealth of sources available on Vincent Gallo, and I hope other people will join me in contributing to and expanding this article over the next couple of years. Thank you. Joyrex
What wealth of resources?

[edit] Potential Sources

Drowning in Brown

Gallo Appreciation

Is there a source for a published journalist who has criticised Gallo's racism? I'd like to see third party criticism of his racism, but I can't find an article (I'm sure there are plenty). Thanks.User:Joyrex

I doubt there are any. The only people who take him seriously are his fans. Ramanpotential 11:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] French interview re: Iraq war

Curious to hear it from the horses mouth. Could somebody provide a source/link/citation? -c.m. 4/1/06

You'll be more likely to find it at the horse's other end. . . Skyraider 17:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] res publica

I am surprised to see how little this page supposedly discussing Gallo is about art and camera and how much it is about certain politics and the one scene in the brown bunny that the very average viewer only knows how to "discuss". The editing of this article is very telling of the whole "encyclopedia" and shows its true color. Even knowledge is being downgraded these days. Typical mainstream mediocrity. Very disturbing. French observer.

That's keen and all, but the encylopedia tends by its very nature to focus on the things that viewers are interested in. A majority of viewers just don't give a damn about the puff-piece parts of it; it's neat that he's a motorcycle racer, but he stands out mostly because of his assholery and his presentation of a blowjob to Cannes. Wikipedia is mainstream. If you want elitism... well, I guess you can just walk outside.--Agbdavis 05:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for admitting your bias. The weird thing is, there are enough sources to make the perfect Vincent Gallo article which is accurate and not biased while satisfying everyone including people who have a personal dislike of Vincent Gallo. Yet nobody bothers. Weird. I have a very personal dislike of putting a wikipedia subject through a very strict youthful and stupid left-wing camera obscura based on tabloid bollocks, even though I disagree with Gallo's politics.
So... you can edit the article... that's what Wikipedia is all about... so you can use all those "enough sources" to make the article exactly how you want it to be. And then if the rest of us disagree with you, we can edit your article. And then you can edit it again. Yay!

[edit] Trivial?

The heading Website merchandise was deleted, as it was "trivial". Is it? I know you can buy a lot on the interweb these days, but sperm, natural insemination, and male "escorts"? Wow[1] (check the top and bottom of that page). --Ryan! 06:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's trivial. This guy has a 20 year+ career, and all this article concentrates on is some controversy grabbing stupid merchandise website. You guys are the retard children of the lamer part of the left wing.
If his 20 year+ career was important, than people would talk about it. Nobody I have talked to (and I work in the industry) has anything to say about Gallo except regarding the his ego and the enormously vain stunts he pulls to keep himself in the news. Nobody has his paintings. Nobody listens to his music. Does that mean he's a gloriously obscure artist who remains untouched by the rot of mainstream acceptance? Sure, why not. It doesn't make his work any better. If he wanted to be known for his artistic work, then he'd put more effort into it and less into getting sophmoric attention with blowjobs and escort services.
I think this is not only important as to who the subject is, but also as to what the subject believes. Being a nazi and/or racist is included in many historical figures biographies, why should it be excluded from this one? "Mr. Gallo maintains the right to refuse sale of his sperm to those of extremely dark complexions. Though a fan of Franco Harris, Derek Jeter, Lenny Kravitz and Lena Horne, Mr. Gallo does not want to be part of that type of integration. In fact, for the next 30 days, he is offering a $50,000 discount to any potential female purchaser who can prove she has naturally blonde hair and blue eyes. Anyone who can prove a direct family link to any of the German soldiers of the mid-century will also receive this discount. Under the laws of the Jewish faith, a Jewish mother would qualify a baby to be deemed a member of the Jewish religion. This would be added incentive for Mr. Gallo to sell his sperm to a Jew mother, his reasoning being with the slim chance that his child moved into the profession of motion picture acting or became a musical performer, this connection to the Jewish faith would guarantee his offspring a better chance at good reviews and maybe even a prize at the Sundance Film Festival or an Oscar." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.169.4.17 (talk) 12:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC).
The thing is, it's not very good proof of what his beliefs are. There's a section for the website controversy, but that is no reason to plaster the article with things calling him racist. Let there be a website controversy section, and let that section speak for itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.0.122.225 (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Run DMC's Manager?

I heard Gallo was Run DMC's manager at some early stage of the group's career. I think that's one of the most interesting things about him and should be mentioned, if it's true. Can someone verify this? I can't find anything related to this besides the brief Run DMC reference in the "Prince Vince" article on YouTube.

he managed the break dancing group the New York City Breakers, i think. --24.181.228.103 23:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sarcastic offers?

I don't know whether this guy is being serious or not about the sperm donations. It took me a about 30 minutes of searching to come to my conclusion that he's probably joking, so I added a link to the blog that helped make my mind, and marked this for cleanup. Hopefully this goes some way to explaining what the fuck this guy is all about. I've never seen any of his films, so it's hard for me to say. Hopefully someone knowledgable finds this page. --CalPaterson 02:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I see no proof that the webpages where all this came from are legitimate. They look like garden variety troll sites to me. Even if VG wrote it that doesn't make it a reliable source. They say any press is good press so it could very well be an attempt at self promotion. That isn't what wikipedia is about though.-Crunchy Numbers 18:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
They are real. Go to Gallo's official site and see for yourself: [2][3]. 68.85.185.223 16:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I looked before I posted before. Just because it has his name on it doesn't make it real. Anyone can put up a webpage and call it official. I'm not the only one here who has challenged this material. Even if he did put up the webpage that doesn't make it encyclopedic. In that case it is just a publicity stunt. I recently saw a band perform who introduced themselves as Johnny Bench, Dave Concepcion, Pete Rose and Sparky Anderson. It was just a joke and I didn't run to wikipedia to report that they had changed their names.
Those webpages shouldn't be here either because they are spam.-Crunchy Numbers 16:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
They are Gallo's official sites and he's mantained his main site (vincentgallo.com) since at least 2003. Wikipedia encourages linking to and using information from official websites per WP:EL. This is the exact opposite of spam. It probably is a joke or publicity stunt, but Gallo has yet to confirm that it is. His postings were covered in the press and are definitely notable. Crumbsucker 00:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Father?

On the "Buffalo '66" soundtrack, "Fools Rush In" is credited to Vincent Gallo Sr. Is Gallo's father a singer? Or was that a joke on Gallo's part. If the former, it probably has a place in the article.Bjones 05:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

yes it is his father singing it. he's talked about that in various interviews.


"Fools Rush In" (Mercer/Bloom) Preformed by Vincent Gallo Sr.

As stated in Buffalo 66' Film Credits

[edit] Good Job

Chances are taht Gallo himself have asked his fans to edit his page. Keep the Wikipedia Neutral, don't allow it's use as a self-promotion tool. --201.246.227.179 05:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... I also heard Gallo might've told some fans to stop a homeless man that lives under a bridge in Japan from badmouthing him too. Let's keep things neutral, guys. Let homeless people have their say, don't let them become walking billboards. --202.134.251.206 05:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


Do you have any citable basis for that claim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.201.245 (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Gallo is also a recognized painter, male fashion model, musician, motorcycle racer, prophet, and breakdancer."

Prophet? WTF? Yeah, I'm removing that. Sion 18:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "The latter was controversial as it contained a scene in which actress Chloë Sevigny performs fellatio on Gallo. "

While this may have brought it some cheap controversy, (especially the infamous billboard), I thought this film was more controversial due to its terrible reviews and its near-universal reception as the worst film at Cannes. NTK 19:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)