Movie: Howl
My Rating: 2 stars
This movie is the perfect example of how sometimes, historically and culturally important phenomena may not translate perfectly onto film. Or, it at least demonstrates how sometimes, directors may get too caught up in the abstract idea of a movement to tell a very compelling narrative story about it. That’s what happened here in this film about the famous beat poet, Allen Ginsberg’s, poem Howl. Directors, Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman, could have made this movie an accessible (if commonplace) courtroom drama about the landmark obscenity trial surrounding the shocking (for the time) poem. The drug-infused, homoerotic content was quite sensational at the time of its publication, in the morally-repressed and prudish 1950s America. And, the case was a real milestone for the advancement of freedom of speech. It really reaffirmed the (now) common sense logic of: just because you, personally, don’t like something, doesn’t mean it has no merit as speech. And it also asks the cheeky question: if you’re so offended by this “pornographic” material, then why have you run out and purchased the book and read it from cover to cover? This isn’t radio or TV we’re dealing with. People can control their exposure to this sort of material.
This line of free speech cases really established many of the freedoms we take for granted today. But in order to understand why this trial was so important, it’s necessary to have an understanding of the content of the poem. The film provides plenty of excerpts from the poem by showing James Franco, who plays Ginsberg (expertly, by the way), composing verses aloud, and by staging reenactments of some of his live readings. But, I get the feeling that these directors didn’t just want to make another stale, old courtroom drama. I think they wanted something a little more artsy and conceptual—making this a movie more about the poem, than about all the publicity that surrounded it’s controversial publication. But, I think the film’s abstraction really is its tragic flaw. Woven into all the composition and courtroom scenes is a very bizarre CGI-animation piece that tries to make a visual depiction of all the things happening in the poem. This is a big mistake. For a poem that deals with such philosophical and metaphysical ideas, a visual representation is not appropriate. It almost cheapens the poem. Also, the animation style is absurdly creepy. But, I think I know why the directors made this decision. The film is already very short, running at only eighty-four minutes. If all the animation were cut out, it would probably only be about forty. I think most of it serves as filler, padding the film out to feature length. It’s very disappointing. Although, if anything, the film has merit as a mini-history lesson for people who are unfamiliar with how uptight people used to be in the 50s, and about the generation of youngsters who dared to fight back.





















