![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Last night I pulled out my copy of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (released in 1998). My first thought while watching the movie was that I'm glad I didn't pull this out to watch while my fever was at 103. It possibly would have been worse than the banjos. Even though I'm well on the road to recovery, I still dreamed about Raoul Duke all last night, only it took place in a wooded area out in the middle of nowhere instead of Las Vegas. Surreal just the same though.
Fear and Loathing is not a movie for everyone, I'll grant you that. People either love this movie or hate it with equal passion. I've seldom run into the person that is indifferent. A few days ago my friend and I ran into a guy at a CD shop that said he fell asleep to the movie every night, he loved it so much. My friend gave him the good news that Johnny and Benicio were in the process of filming The Rum Diary. I'm never sure if offering that sort of info to the die-hard fan is a good thing. One is never sure if they are Johnny fans, Hunter S. Thompson fans or simply fans of the stash in the trunk of the red convertable. But this guy seemed generally thrilled - I'd say he was possibly a fan of all three.
I read Ebert's review of it a while ago. He hated it. Gave it one star. I guess in terms of cohesion and plot development, I can't blame him. But for the phenonenal performance of Johnny Depp and Benicio Del Toro, I would have at least given it 2 or 2 1/2 stars. But Ebert seemed to miss the point of the movie altogether. He seemed to think the movie should have given a stronger anti-drug line, it should have been deeper, should have shown the descent of these characters in a more poignant way. My God did he misunderstand the point. Fear and Loathing is not a drug movie in the same way, say, Requiem for a Dream, is a drug movie. After Requiem, I was forced to review my addiction to NyQuil in a very serious way. Don't worry, the first sign of a sniffle and I was back on the Q, but Requiem is such a powerful antidrug movie that you're forced to reconsider the little over the counter drugs as well as the heavy narcotics.
In Fear and Loathing you're left wondeing just how exactly it is that one scores ether. It's not an antidrug movie. It's also not a drugs-are-cool movie. No one watching these guys wants to be just like them. This is a movie about the last days of the the American counter culture drug scene. It's not pretty. The movie is funny, but with a sense of remorse and sadness in the tone. You only get a few glimpses of it, such as in scenes where Raoul Duke, played by Johnny Depp, has finally gotten his lawyer to calm down and sleep off his drug induced rage in the bathtub, and he has a moment alone in his room with his typewriter. He reflects on the counter culture movement that was in full swing only five years before. He remembers the momentum and how full of energy his generation was. They were going to get things done and they had God on their side. There is a tinge of sadness in his recollection. What happened to it all? Later he gives a criticism on Timothy Leary - how he gave instruction on mind expansion, but didn't give any answers on what to do once the whole culture was caught up in the drug movement. It burned itself out and what was left was this remnent that he was caught up in now.
In many ways, Thompson is trying to tell us that what happened in Las Vegas was the death cry of a generation. it was the absurd conclusion to an absurd time. The counter-culture, law-enforcement, and political scene were all part of the same insanity which led to a breakdown of a nation. And what better place to do that then Las Vegas.
I don't think that Terry Gilliam was very sucessful at translating the book to film, but he did the best that anyone could given the material. Some things just don't translate well. Drug induced visions of a gonzo journalist hyped up on acid, mescaline and ether while on the merry-go-round bar at Circus, Circus are an example of those things.
But God did Johnny do a wonderful job. No other actor could have done this role. After all, Johnny is the epitomy of this lifestyle during his earlier years as an actor. He's one of the few that did it successfully and lived to tell the tale. One wonders if that's why he took the role. One thing is for certain, he did this work stone sober. He had to have. The carpeting alone would have killed him otherwise.
I liked the movie. But then, I love the book. The movie offers a visual to Hunter S. Thompson's vision that actually aid in understanding his point of view. I'm not sure I'd recommend the movie without having read the book first, but I suppose if some people can fall asleep to it every night for the past five years, then perhaps it not such a bad watch. Maybe.
One final note on the movie - I didn't realize before that Tobey McGuire was the hitchhiker. Jesus. I've always liked Tobey, but I think now he's cemented in my mind as eternally cool.
Fear and Loathing is not a movie for everyone, I'll grant you that. People either love this movie or hate it with equal passion. I've seldom run into the person that is indifferent. A few days ago my friend and I ran into a guy at a CD shop that said he fell asleep to the movie every night, he loved it so much. My friend gave him the good news that Johnny and Benicio were in the process of filming The Rum Diary. I'm never sure if offering that sort of info to the die-hard fan is a good thing. One is never sure if they are Johnny fans, Hunter S. Thompson fans or simply fans of the stash in the trunk of the red convertable. But this guy seemed generally thrilled - I'd say he was possibly a fan of all three.
I read Ebert's review of it a while ago. He hated it. Gave it one star. I guess in terms of cohesion and plot development, I can't blame him. But for the phenonenal performance of Johnny Depp and Benicio Del Toro, I would have at least given it 2 or 2 1/2 stars. But Ebert seemed to miss the point of the movie altogether. He seemed to think the movie should have given a stronger anti-drug line, it should have been deeper, should have shown the descent of these characters in a more poignant way. My God did he misunderstand the point. Fear and Loathing is not a drug movie in the same way, say, Requiem for a Dream, is a drug movie. After Requiem, I was forced to review my addiction to NyQuil in a very serious way. Don't worry, the first sign of a sniffle and I was back on the Q, but Requiem is such a powerful antidrug movie that you're forced to reconsider the little over the counter drugs as well as the heavy narcotics.
In Fear and Loathing you're left wondeing just how exactly it is that one scores ether. It's not an antidrug movie. It's also not a drugs-are-cool movie. No one watching these guys wants to be just like them. This is a movie about the last days of the the American counter culture drug scene. It's not pretty. The movie is funny, but with a sense of remorse and sadness in the tone. You only get a few glimpses of it, such as in scenes where Raoul Duke, played by Johnny Depp, has finally gotten his lawyer to calm down and sleep off his drug induced rage in the bathtub, and he has a moment alone in his room with his typewriter. He reflects on the counter culture movement that was in full swing only five years before. He remembers the momentum and how full of energy his generation was. They were going to get things done and they had God on their side. There is a tinge of sadness in his recollection. What happened to it all? Later he gives a criticism on Timothy Leary - how he gave instruction on mind expansion, but didn't give any answers on what to do once the whole culture was caught up in the drug movement. It burned itself out and what was left was this remnent that he was caught up in now.
In many ways, Thompson is trying to tell us that what happened in Las Vegas was the death cry of a generation. it was the absurd conclusion to an absurd time. The counter-culture, law-enforcement, and political scene were all part of the same insanity which led to a breakdown of a nation. And what better place to do that then Las Vegas.
I don't think that Terry Gilliam was very sucessful at translating the book to film, but he did the best that anyone could given the material. Some things just don't translate well. Drug induced visions of a gonzo journalist hyped up on acid, mescaline and ether while on the merry-go-round bar at Circus, Circus are an example of those things.
But God did Johnny do a wonderful job. No other actor could have done this role. After all, Johnny is the epitomy of this lifestyle during his earlier years as an actor. He's one of the few that did it successfully and lived to tell the tale. One wonders if that's why he took the role. One thing is for certain, he did this work stone sober. He had to have. The carpeting alone would have killed him otherwise.
I liked the movie. But then, I love the book. The movie offers a visual to Hunter S. Thompson's vision that actually aid in understanding his point of view. I'm not sure I'd recommend the movie without having read the book first, but I suppose if some people can fall asleep to it every night for the past five years, then perhaps it not such a bad watch. Maybe.
One final note on the movie - I didn't realize before that Tobey McGuire was the hitchhiker. Jesus. I've always liked Tobey, but I think now he's cemented in my mind as eternally cool.
</td><td valign="top">You are a geek. Good for you! Considering the endless complexity of the universe, as well as whatever discipline you happen to be most interested in, you'll never be bored as long as you have a good book store, a net connection, and thousands of dollars worth of expensive equipment. Assuming you're a technical geek, you'll be able to afford it, too. If you're not a technical geek, you're geek enough to mate with a technical geek and thereby get the needed dough. Dating tip: Don't date a geek of the same persuasion as you. You'll constantly try to out-geek the other.</td>