Responses to this message:
I don't usually agree with the too-straight, ass-kissing pro critic Leonard Maltin, but he "bombed" this flick and if you read why in his short summary at http://us.imdb.com/Maltin?0120669 you'll find why. Basically it's because of a typical problem with movies of books: they're usually nowhere near as good.
But first of all, I'm getting really sick & tired of the idiots who think Mr. Cranky should have liked this or that movie. Hey, Dumb Fucks!! Mr. Cranky is a web site that's sole purpose (NOTE: SOLE PURPOSE) is to pan movies in a humorous manner. This is Jewish styled, sarcastic, cynical comedy, as in Don Rickles & Walter Matthau. Get a brain and realize that Mr. Cranky IS NOT SUPPOSED TO LIKE ANY MOVIE. Duh!!!!!!
Hunter S. Thompson's book was a figure of its time. Like Ken Kesey's "Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test" it described the lives of California hippies, bikers etc. during the late 60s & 70s. But also, in speaking for many of us in the counter-culture who read books then (which was a much larger percentage of the population than do today), included in such books were the political and social criticisms fashionable during that period. This is the chief problem with making a film of such a book today: much of the social criticism fashionable then, though still valid today, has been sadly forgotten. For it is a social criticism that was not only fashionable during the hippie revolution, but is valid for all humanity at all times that conformity of thought rears its ugly head. Many conservatives who wish to suppress this fact are today involved in painting such social criticism as nothing more than a fashion of the 60s-70s. This is the most dangerous aspect of political satire today; that it makes light of such serious issues and thus demeans them.
At the head of these issues is that of social repression and behavioral conformity. Hence the title. For the hippies stood for freedom of expression against the tyranny of such conformity, otherwise known as the "establishment" of "rednecks," "blockheads" and other conservatives who were sexist, had crew-cut haircuts and believed that Americans should "Love it or Leave it" (meaning: love your country and a Christian god at the expense of thinking for yourself). Such conservatives were in power and had been so since the second world war. They tyrranized America through a subtle behavioral conformity (described well in A. Huxley's "Brave New World Revisited") and much behavior that is free to express in public today was policed and persecuted then, which is why it was scary to be a hippie traveling through a conservative, largely cowboy/redneck town like Las Vegas. Today the post-Nancy-Reagan-Drug-Wars Nevada is still very conservative & anti-Bohemian, though long haired men are tolerated to some extent (as long as they don't look too feminine), as is most of middle America. Little has changed, behavioral conformity & sexism is still a chief part of the middle-American culture and, in fact has escalated as a reaction to some of the hard won social advancements in the freedoms of women, ethnic minorities, homosexuals, speech and sexual behavior.
The movie didn't explore these social criticisms very much, not nearly as much as Thompson's novel did (though it should be stated that much of the novel's social criticism was subtly portrayed within a veil of satire). Instead, what little social criticism can be found in the film is more thoroughly hidden underneath dialogue that is itself so sketchy that making sense of it is too difficult for today's average viewer. Meanwhile the rest of the production concentrated on the satire of being stoned on illegal drugs, what with the artsy camera angles, silly characterizations etc. Consequently the gist of the novel, found in its title which suggests a socially subversive experience, was completely lost. This is why Hunter's novel is a satire AND an important social criticism, while this movie is simply a satire, and a silly one at that.
Funny thing is, this vital missing ingredient to the story is exactly parallel to the difference between today's phony, coffee-house Bohemian and the true hippies of yesteryear. Those kind of hippies may still be found in California today. However, they are hidden in enclaves of Northern California or rat-holed in S.F & L.A. You won't see much of them, and you certainly won't be reading any books or, much less, seeing any films about these surviving heros from the revolution. It doesn't take a genius to understand why, either. They've been suppressed. In fact, the most valid statement of unearthing Thompson's book today is to reveal just how much such subversive Americans have lost the war against conformity and suppression of thought & behavior in America.
I, for one, experience much fear & loathing every time I step out of my home here in L.A., everytime I have to go into the dreaded (AAaarrgghhhh!!!) supermarket, that bastion of all redneck suburbia. And as for Las Vegas, I've worked there several times (I'm a jazz musician) and every time I leave I sigh in relief from its middle American, redneck, fenced-in-security-landscaping-for-$1,000-a-yard mentality. Gated communities may be desirable to some folks, but to a hippie they are a particularly poignant nightmare to behold.
Responses to this message:
Post a response to this discussion thread