#jeffreyfriedman

'HOWL' Film Screening After Party, New York.

22 set 2010

By Marion Curtis/​Starpix/​Shutterstock.

While recently doing a gig at Cheer Up Charlie’s in Austin, I found myself enthralled by the animations I was seeing on the screen.  The imagery was bold, symbolic, informative and free-flowing, and it definitely got the gears rotating in my mind.  Then, an image jumped out at me, because I recognized the symbol... the inference... I saw Jack Kerouac and Neal Cassady portrayed famously as the duo in On The Road, a book that forever changed my perspective on both creativity and the general way one leads one’s life.  I asked the bartender what was on the TV, and that was how I found out about Howl. 

The late 1950′s in America were a time of polarizing transitions, as the ‘wholesome’ lifestyle presented by the country was beginning to take a backseat to a new generation of inquisitive and curious minds set on changing the world.  From the West Coast came a movement of poets known collectively by the cultured masses as the Beat Generation, with their San Francisco Renaissance forever changing the landscape of literature, poetry or otherwise.  Their initial declaration came in the form of Howl, a four part poem by Allen Ginsberg (James Franco) full of shocking truths and colloquial language that perfectly described the angst and disconnect found in young Americans.  From its initial reading at the Six Gallery in October of 1955, to the obscenity trial that surrounded its release via City LIghts Bookstore co-founder Lawrence Ferlinghetti (Andrew Rogers), and beyond, the work has continued to remain as influential, polarizing and on the nose today as it was nearly 80 years ago. 

The three-prong approach that this film uses is perfectly balanced in regards to the way it presents events and ideas on both a historical and deeply informative level.  The meat of the film is made up of the court trial, shot very much like a standard court drama with all of the rich, golden colors and intellectual sparring one would imagine as a way to frame and glorify the idea of free speech, and the way it nurtures thought outside of the box.  The story of Ginsberg and his growth to prominent poet are mostly shot in black and white flashbacks, if not flashbacks with muted color, providing a fresh look at a nostalgic time.  The centerpiece of the film is definitely the animated portrayal of the poem Howl, with literal interpretations turned into psychedelic brushstrokes for a bigger picture that slowly reveals itself over the course of the poem’s four parts.  The film is so artistic because of how bold, fresh and groundbreaking the artist at the center of it was... his work was challenging, and therefore, the presentation of his work cannot be run of the mill.

This challenging nature really works for the film, as it seemingly aims to challenge viewers very much in the same way that Howl did both in terms of presentation and substance.  The presentation of both the poem and the film are hectic at the onset, with so much stimulating material thrown at you that you’re not sure rather or not you should relish in it or be embarrassed by it.  It is only after you become awash in the foul language, sexual ideas and observations on the society that you are able to get over personal hang-ups and actually examine them on a base level, at face value.  Much like Ginsberg speaks on his methods for opening the lines of conversation about homosexuality, Howl did the same thing in regards to racial prejudice, how people look at the government, and even provided much needed insight into the eventual era that was the Hippie generation. 

The film itself is shaped very much like a documentary, with the main exception being that actors are cast in all of the roles.  Once you get over the familiar faces and the slightly embellished stylized touches (used tastefully, most certainly), you really find yourself falling right into the crux of the matter in regards to where you stand on if the material is obscene or not.  The insight provided by both those in the court proceedings and by Ginsberg via James Franco’s theatrical presentation of his recorded interviews provide context and a deeper understanding into the poems, the times, and some of the iconic figures that emerged from the times.  As mentioned before, the three distinct presentation styles of the three main story arcs work well with one another, making an already relatively short movie fly by like an intellectual roller-coaster ride.

James Franco is much more measured, calculated and controlled in his portrayal of Ginsberg than he is in most roles, maybe as a sign of respect to the poet and his vast influence.  Jon Hamm is charming, sly, calculating and cunning as the defense attorney, managing to be sharp without ever overstepping the boundaries into the realms of attacks.  David Strathairn plays by the book as the prosecutor, setting up Hamm without ever acquiescing to full victim-hood, and managing to get valid points in despite his inevitable losing status.  Bob Balaban does his usual thing as the judge, giving those reactions that only he can.  Jon Prescott has big shoes to fill as Neal Cassady, but he does manage to bring a magnetic aura to his personification of the legend.  Aaron Tveit is sweet in his connection with Franco, managing to give viewers a true sense of love in their on-screen relationship.  Appearances by Treat Williams, Jeff Bridges, Todd Rotondi, Mary-Louise Parker, Alessandro Nivola and Andrew Rogers round out the main cast.

1 hour 32 minutes

Rated R (Strong Sexual Content, Nudity, Language, Drug Use and Some Domestic Violence)

Directed by Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman

Starring Amanda Seyfried, Peter Sarsgaard, Hank Azaria, Wes Bentley, Adam Brody, Bobby Cannavale, James Franco, Debi Mazar, Chris Noth, Robert Patrick, Eric Roberts, Chloe Sevigny, Sharon Stone, and Juno Temple

2.5 out of 4 stars

IN THEATERS AND ON DEMAND NOW.

I think everyone has heard of Deep Throat. Incase you haven't, it's a 1972 porno about a woman who (get ready) discovers that her clitoris is at the back of her throat. Don't ask me why. I haven't seen the movie (but I kinda want to now just to see how ridiculous it is). The movie was a box office success and revolutionized pornography culture. It's even credited as being the first porno ever (or, at least the first really successful one). Deep Throat was also the pseudonym given to the informant who delivered information about Watergate to Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Lovelace isn't a remake of the movie but a biography of its star, Linda Lovelace. Born Linda Boreman, Linda led a tormented life of abuse by her husband, Chuck Traynor. The abuse was so bad that she stopped doing porn and became a spokesperson for the anti-pornography movement.

This movie has been trying to get made for what seems like forever. First Lindsay Lohan was announced to play the star, but then she got in too much trouble with the law. Then Kate Hudson was involved. Then Malin Akerman. Finally Amanda Seyfried stood up to the plate, put on brown contacts, and tackled this difficult role. She's excellent, except the script she's been given isn't powerful enough for her to explore the depth of Lovelace as a person. Instead all it really has her do is look like a victim of abuse. She was, yes, but there are unanswered questions that the movie fails to explore. WHY did Lovelace choose porn in the first place? Why couldn't she just escape Chuck? What was it about this woman that fomented porn culture? Surely it wasn't just because she was good at fellatio.

When we first see Linda, she's a smily 21 year old living with her strict Catholic parents (Robert Patrick and an unrecognizable Sharon Stone). One night she and her best friend (Juno Temple) go-go dance at a roller rink and catch the eyes of Chuck (Peter Sarsgaard). He's one of those intimidating presences whose control over Linda quickly escalates. They start seeing each other and Chuck asks her if he can meet her parents. She says they won't like him. He makes a deal with her: if they like him, she has to spend the night with him. Right away this guy is trouble.

They soon get married and Chuck, low on money, suggests Linda try acting to pay for his debts. She gives a bad audition to a director, Gerard Damiano (Hank Azaria). Chuck, having taught his wife how to give fellatio, shows him a video he made of Linda doing her job (no pun intended). She's instantly cast in his movie, Deep Throat, alongside the actor she'll have to perform on, Harry Reems (Adam Brody). The movie is a huge success, of course, and soon Linda is on the red carpet chatting with Hugh Hefner (James Franco). Her fame comes with a price, however, as Chuck becomes maddeningly more controlling of every miniscule decision she makes. He beats her up, forces her into prostitution, and in one scene shoves her into a freezing cold shower because she forgot to tell him about a money deal one of the producers offered her.

Directors Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman fabulously recreate 70s Hollywood culture in Lovelace. The mood, the music, the clothing, the drugs, etc. It's all super cool. Seyfried and Sarsgaard are superb and stay truthful to Linda's story. Stone and Patrick, as well, are equally sublime as the loving parents ashamed to see their daughter publicized as a vulgar joke. The recreation of the filming of Deep Throat is also very funny. The only problem with the movie is Andy Bellin's script. In the first half Linda's life seems perfect and Chuck doesn't abuse her. Suddenly, Bellin simply shows us everything we've just seen but includes the abuse scenes. I think I get what he's trying to do. We're watching Linda's public life, that is, the way the world perceived it to be, and then her private life. I wish that instead of rewinding Linda's life Bellin dove deeper into the lead characters. Chuck is dangerous but we never find out why. Where did this super controlling personality come from? The movie also doesn't go far enough in depicting Chuck's brutality, which makes it less believable for us to see why Linda spoke against pornography in her later years.