 |
| an incendiary bomb of a poem |
So the verdict? and this is a movie that revolves around judgement and verdict. Is Ginsbergs poem obscene or isn't it? Is it likely to 'arouse lustful desires' or isn't it? Is this film good or is it, well.. crap? Would Allen be turning in his grave or would the old angel headed hipster be quietly amused, or screaming with joy even!!!
To begin with I was ready to dislike this movie, thinking of punning put-downs-howls of derision, a Howler etc. I must confess my aversion to biopics, which are usually far too literal and pedestrian in my opinion. I was ready to take exception with the multitude of representational devices and forms; the switching from black and white to colour, from live action to animation. I was ready to be insulted and offended by cinematic mediocrity, ready to defend the integrity of Allen's vision, his prophecy. It took real conviction to write Howl (much of it is about madness, the madness that had destroyed not just the best minds of his generation and nearly his, but his mothers too) and stand up and read it in public for the first time, to stand up for his truth, to confront the censors. To begin with I felt this film was singularly lacking in any kind of comparable artistic conviction. For heaven's sake why two directors (Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman-almost a committee)? Here's a film that initially looks like its trying too hard to be experimental, with too many cooks stirring the bohemian broth.
BUT...
wait a minute, stick with it, this film ain't half bad and if like me you're moved by Ginsberg, the man and his work you might not be totally disappointed, and dare I say it maybe even a little inspired, or re-inspired. In fact it'll probably make you want to return to the original text, which really can't be beat and still sounds impressive fifty years since it's first public reading, and is surely just as relevant today. The directors vision might not meet everyone's expectations, or the animated sequences, which have been described as a kind of Beat Fantasia, Disney on acid, dope, or peyote.
 |
| The film switches from black and white to vintage slightly washed out colour in the live action and to brilliant saturated colour for the animated sequences. |
Yes, this film is actually rather good. Hats off to James Franco for his lovely understated performance; a nice mix of nerdy 'n' intense, sexy 'n' intelligent. The DVD notes and packaging say he is Allen Ginsberg, and this is no idle boast he really seems to have got under the skin of the lovely man and embody him and his sensibility (more than can be said for the actor who plays Kerouac). Some of the best scenes are of Ginsberg as young writer in his run down apartment being interviewed about the use of candour in writing, an interview which includes a touching recollection of an exchange with his psychotherapist.
I don't usually like courtroom dramas, but I loved all the deliberating and philosophising (surprisingly intelligent and sophisticated) on what is and isn't obscene. By the way did anyone else notice the resemblance between one of the uptight prosecution witnesses (Gail Potter 'you feel like you are going through the gutter when you read that stuff') and one time Republican hopeful and hockey mum Sarah Palin? I found the defence attorney and judges closing statements about the dangers of censorship adding fuel to the fire of ignorance, very moving.
As one of the defendants reminds us in the courtroom proceedings you 'cant translate poetry into prose..and that's why its poetry'. I guess you could also say you cant translate poetry into film but this movie gets pretty close to capturing the spirit of Ginsberg.
 |
| trippy animation |
I rather liked Eric Drooker's trippy animated sequences, I know lots of reviewers didn't. Its just a pity the animated sequences can't be watched uninterrupted, illustrating the poem Howl in its entirety. I thought you might be able to do this in the extras section but there's no such facility. I liked the sexual playfulness (lets face it you don't see many dicks and ejaculatory fireworks in Pixar), the jazzy boho chic urban lansdcapes, the hallucinatory Van Gogh like starry New York night skies and I especially the liked the sequences depicting the all consuming monstrous nightmare of Moloch.
 |
| 'Moloch! the heavy judger of men' |
Ginsberg's railing against Moloch ('what sphinx of cement and aluminum bashed open their skulls and ate out their brains') is one of the most powerful passages in HOWL. From a Buddhist perspective it's interesting to consider exactly what Ginsberg was getting at here. Later in his life Ginsberg offered more of a dharmic interpretation saying Moloch was in fact a reference to the machinations of the mind, the hell we create with the mind; dualism? I guess in Blakean terms you could say Moloch is all that keeps our mind forged manacles in place.
 |
| 'Moloch who frightened me out of my natural ecstasy' |
Any doubts I had about his movie were swept away in the closing sequences with the recitation of the brilliant footnote to HOWL- the delirious declamatory epiphany 'Holy' (which incidentally Patti Smith has done a rather good cover version of) a challenge to splitting and spiritual bypassing, a celebration of the non-dual. And then a poignant touch, we finally see moving footage of the real Allen, a kind genteel elderly Ginsberg reciting his poem Father Death not long before his death, welcoming impermanence, facing it with dignity and equanimity.
So reader you've probably realised I rate this movie, it's not the greatest movie ever made, but yes I liked it, 'the whole boatload of sensitive bullshit', and I think this movie may be of particular interest to anyone interested in spiritual emergence and spiritual emergency.
