HOWL

Deb 9 Me 7

I was very excited about seeing this movie. We have stumbled across a string of really good movies lately and my hopes were high. Yet, I am always skeptical about these movies. Too often movies about artists are made by people who don’t understand the art, or resent the art and make a hatchet job portrait. Rob Epstein and Jefferey Friedman created a sympathetic and effective way to pay tribute to this epic poem.

It is made in four parts, like the poem itself, and they are blended in an easy to follow way. There are actors who portray the central characters, and I know them all too well, Kerouac, Cassady, Burroughs, Ferlinghetti, Huncke and of course, the author of HOWL, Alan Ginsberg. Over time I have developed a paternal need to protect them from their detractors but for some reason I didn’t feel like this film was going to be a problem, and it wasn’t. The actors were certainly capable, and with the exception of Ginsberg, they didn’t try to cast ringers (which I would have liked, since there wasn’t a lot of depth to any of the supporting beats).

The film’s text was made from tapes and notes and transcripts and divided into four parts. One sequence was an interview, presented in a realistic manner, with Ginsberg expounding on his work in an honest and straightforward monologue, supported with an effective visual atmosphere.

Another segment was Alan reading his work to his peers in a compact coffee house that has become the icon of the period. I was happy they didn’t use the brick wall of the Hungry Eye that every club across America has appropriated.

The third element was the trial that Lawrence Ferlinghetti went through for publishing the work. This was skillfully adapted and I’m sure compiled from transcripts. I wanted more meat here; it seemed like the prosecution only presented a superficial attempt at banning the book. I was impressed with the casting choices too. It seemed that actors were excited about being involved with the film.

The last segment was the weirdest one for me. There was animation woven in as a sort of illustration of the text of HOWL. This took me by surprise, and I probably shouldn’t have told you (sorry) and redeemed itself pretty quickly. It was done by a guy named Eric Drooker. Ginsberg was a big fan of Eric, collected his work and initiated a collaboration with Drooker to do HOWL in its entirety. This was told to us in graphics at the beginning of the movie and I’m happy about that, it gave credibility to something that otherwise seemed strange. After the initial shock of seeing animation I quickly acclimated and really enjoyed the imagery that was created to support the words.

Everything about the movie is just what I wanted it to be, with one exception (which could be me). I was never involved. I was just watching. It had a clinical feel to it. This is a very emotional, passionate, piece of art that we are focusing on and yet the movie felt like an analytical exercise. But it was a positive movie and one that might encourage others to use their tools for honest expression.