Skip to main content

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
(1998)

(SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it”). Plus, his output was incredibly patchy, by any yardstick.

Most probably too, the likes of Oliver Stone and Martin Scorsese would have been too much for Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (the former most definitely – see U-Turn (1997) and Natural Born Killers (1995) – and the latter only a good fit if operating in After Hours (1985) mode). Mainly because Thompson’s peculiarly palatable prose does not equal an appealing motion pictures (and sometimes – Where the Buffalo Roam (1982) – simply may result in simply anodyne ones). Gilliam eschews a Ralph Steadman pose – that too would have been ultimately too queasy – but his preference for wide-angle cartoonishness accentuates his characters’ absurd alt-states in mostly complementary ways. Yes, there are times when Duke and Gonzo’s antics become exhausting and the descent into depravity an endurance test. But that’s as it should be, and it’s never to the degree of Darren Aronofsky and his “Why would you ever watch this again, assuming you even got through it the once?” Requiem for a Dream (2000).

Duke: Terrible things were happening, all around us.

Gilliam, as a relative abstinent, is not enamoured by wanton abandon (in stark contrast his lead actor), which probably gives him a perspective none of those other touted names would have been able to claim (as for the idea that he needed to have experienced what he was showing, well the movie is evidence enough of that falsity: “This is a guy who understands acid trips without ever having taken acid”). He said of Cox’s screenplay that it started very well, but then Duke and Gonzo became “two rather boorish people senselessly crashing around the place, with no depth”.

Crucially too, Gilliam may have been in awe of Depp – trying to get him for any picture must have put the star off eventually. Too eager and insufficiently lucrative; much better sticking to increasingly fatuous collaborations with Tim Burton, culminating in that point-of-no-return Willy Wonka performance – but he is not in awe of Thompson. Hence the undercutting of Duke with Gary Busey’s – hilarious – lonely highway patrolman asking for a little kiss (“I felt raped”). You can hear how displeased Thompson was – he generally applauded the picture and later said he found it quite funny – on the Criterion commentary. Cox didn’t even get that far with the prickly writer (‘He went up to Hunter’s house and completely alienated Hunter in one fell swoop” claims Gilliam).

Duke: This is not a good town for psychedelic drugs.

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is set post the collapse in 60s ideals more emotively embodied in Bruce Robinson’s Withnail & I (1986) (Robinson would, of course, adapt Thompson for Depp in The Rum Diary (2011), leading to a fateful meeting that would prove the death knell for the star’s mega-streak). Robinson had turned down Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas as he couldn’t see “how you could get that one on screen”. Duke’s journalistic assignments (the Mint 400, a narcotics convention) are at best a demented backdrop to the duo’s demented shenanigans, Vegas capturing the antithesis of what is, curiously, an unapologetically nostalgic punctuation of reminiscences of counterculture only half a decade thence (when the American Dream, in a form, was still alive; Duke is unable to find it again). Duke might have written off the whole thing, pointed to Timothy Leary as no more than a CIA stooge, but instead, he embraces the perceived naïve genuineness of that era. We all have our blind spots (and I’m not talking adrenochrome. Yet).

Simply on the antics side, though, there’s much absurdity to enjoy here, and much of it is very funny or disorientating or a combination of the two. The opening encounter with Tobey Maguire’s balding hitchhiker (“How about some ether?”) gives way to the arrival at the Vegas strip hotel, replete with moving carpet. Gilliam’s expansive visual flourish in the desert and contrasting claustrophobic grip in the hotel is palpable; this and 12 Monkeys (1995) may be the films where his environments are most tangible, for all the distortions and distractions. When Duke eventually escapes the city, back out on to the desert road, it’s an enormous relief… until it isn’t. The opening credits montage to Rodgers and Hammerstein’s My Favourite Things was surely an inspiration to Zack Snyder with Watchmen (2009), although Snyder inevitably lost all the irony. The Mint 400 is shot like a madcap battlefield report (“One of the ideas we were playing with was the idea that he didn’t go to Vietnam, that he’s a journalist but he didn’t cover the war…”). The narcotics convention, as Duke and Gonzo struggle to maintain straight faces, is a hoot.

Gonzo: Do you see what God just did to us, man?

But it’s the stepping back and reframing of their indulgence that carries the weight. Del Toro’s Gonzo is never endearing enough that it’s a surprise when the terrifying animal side is unleashed – and Gilliam noted this at the time – but these moments are nevertheless a punctuation of how Duke is playing with fire; the lift scene with Cameron Diaz, in which Gonzo threatens Lacerda (Craig Bierko, on the cusp on not real stardom in the following year’s The Thirteenth Floor); the extended encounter with Christina Ricci’s Lucy (“Lucy paints portraits of Barbra Streisand”), in which it is revealed that Gonzo has fed her acid and Duke persuades him he is likely to get “nailed for child molesting” (the scene in the corridor, as Duke winds him up, is hilarious in its gleeful, almost Derek & Clive crudity); the closing, crucial encounter where Gonzo threatens Ellen Barkin’s waitress, the capper that makes crystal clear this, whatever it is, has all gone horribly wrong.

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas wouldn’t work without prized performances, of course. Everyone on the side lines is terrific, including Michael Jeter’s Doctor Blumquist at the narcotic conference and Christopher Meloni as Sven, the bristling, put-upon clerk at the Flamingo. Depp is phenomenal, an instance where his talent for mugging/schtick/impersonation is perfectly channelled. All skinny legs, bald pate and forensic detachment from reality – until he isn’t, detached – his Duke is definitive. By all evidence, Depp’s friendship with and admiration for Thompson was too much, man, too much, too much, as his subsequent two decades have seen him peak and then trough in a seemingly irreversible manner.

Of course, Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas’s currency of late has been focussed almost entirely on its flippant approach to one particular Duke and Gonzo drug of choice. The elite/adrenochrome conspiracy theory has exploded over the last couple of years, flourishing where once it was no more than a vague reference in SF novels or a drug of unknown and potential mythic effects (like “a pint of raw ether”). It has been suggested, on the not entirely irrefutable but also heavily inferred grounds of Thompson allusive remarks from the 80s and allegations of proclivities – that he might have had particular unwholesome involvement in such alleged acts, but Gilliam for one believed it was a made-up drug (per being approached by someone after a test screening who claimed to have sampled it).

For all Gilliam’s protestations, the narrative of what adrenochrome is (“the adrenaline gland from a living human body”) from someone trying to sell him human blood (who “said it would make me higher than I’ve ever been in my life”), and references to “a fresh adrenal gland to chew on” tend to fit the overall bill. On the other hand, no one is going about suggesting an actual trade in pineal glands, and the picture mentions their consumption in this fashion a couple of times (a murder victim “They were after the pineal gland, I think” and Gonzo saying “Man, I’ll try about anything, but I’ll never touch a pineal gland”). Whatever the truth of its use by the elite and their celeb stooges – seemingly all talk of which has been snuffed out with the apparent victory of Creepy Joe, suggestive of a psyop – I find it difficult to believe Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas was consciously laying it out there. But who knows.

Duke: You want me to throw this in the tub when White Rabbit peaks?

What we can say is that Gilliam made Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas work as a movie where few others could have. Certainly not nearly as well. “The minute Terry Gilliam came into the picture, it turned from being a Cessna plane to a 747” said Del Toro of the production. Gilliam took a very responsible view of imposing himself on others’ material: “I think what they wrote is like music. They wrote the symphony, and I’m the conductor now with a new group and I actually change the arrangement”. He also said “I didn’t want to like the film; I didn’t want to love it” in order to maintain distance on what he was creating; that said, there are still the requisite dwarves and merry go rounds.

The picture was booed at Cannes, but the cantankerous Thompson came around to it, dubbing it an “Eerie trumpet call over a lost battlefield”. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is set fifty years ago, but the essentially inescapable dilemma on the modern age it presents – one can only escape its horror show through artificial means and never in a truly, transcendently satisfying way – has never held truer. Gilliam’s American trilogy brings the inveterate fantasist back down to Earth with a bump. No escape from reality (even through lobotomy) is countenanced. His protagonists must now forsake their illusions; to the extent that this may even enable a genuinely happy ending. Duke doesn’t get that; instead, he keeps on baring the teeth of unconquerable attitude, because it’s the only armour left in the face of a savage world.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Damn prairie dog burrow!

Tremors (1990) (SPOILERS) I suspect the reason the horror comedy – or the sci-fi comedy, come to that – doesn’t tend to be the slam-dunk goldmine many assume it must be, is because it takes a certain sensibility to do it right. Everyone isn’t a Joe Dante or Sam Raimi, or a John Landis, John Carpenter, Edgar Wright, Christopher Landon or even a Peter Jackson or Tim Burton, and the genre is littered with financial failures, some of them very good failures (and a good number of them from the names mentioned). Tremors was one, only proving a hit on video (hence six sequels at last count). It also failed to make Ron Underwood a directing legend.

Here’s Bloody Justice for you.

Laughter in Paradise (1951) (SPOILERS) The beginning of a comedic run for director-producer Mario Zampa that spanned much of the 1950s, invariably aided by writers Michael Pertwee and Jack Davies (the latter went on to pen a spate of Norman Wisdom pictures including The Early Bird , and also comedy rally classic Monte Carlo or Bust! ) As usual with these Pertwee jaunts, Laughter in Paradise boasts a sparky premise – renowned practical joker bequeaths a fortune to four relatives, on condition they complete selected tasks that tickle him – and more than enough resultant situational humour.

I'm offering you a half-share in the universe.

Doctor Who Season 8 – Worst to Best I’m not sure I’d watched Season Eight chronologically before. While I have no hesitation in placing it as the second-best Pertwee season, based on its stories, I’m not sure it pays the same dividends watched as a unit. Simply, there’s too much Master, even as Roger Delgado never gets boring to watch and the stories themselves offer sufficient variety. His presence, turning up like clockwork, is inevitably repetitive. There were no particular revelatory reassessments resulting from this visit, then, except that, taken together – and as The Directing Route extra on the Blu-ray set highlights – it’s often much more visually inventive than what would follow. And that Michael Ferguson should probably have been on permanent attachment throughout this era.

I hate natural causes!

Body Bags (1993) (SPOILERS) I’m not surprised Showtime didn’t pick this up for an anthology series. Perhaps, if John Carpenter had made Coming Home in a Body Bag (the popular Nam movie series referenced in the same year’s True Romance ), we’d have something to talk about. Tho’ probably not, if Carpenter had retained his by this point firmly glued to his side DP Gary Kibbe, ensuring the proceedings are as flat, lifeless and unatmospheric as possible. Carpenter directed two of the segments here, Tobe Hooper the other one. It may sound absurd, given the quality of Hooper’s career, but by this point, even he was calling the shots better than Carpenter.

As in the hokey kids’ show guy?

A Beautiful Day in the Neighbourhood (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t think Mr Rogers could have been any creepier had Kevin Spacey played him. It isn’t just the baggage Tom Hanks brings, and whether or not he’s the adrenochrome lord to the stars and/or in Guantanamo and/or dead and/or going to make a perfectly dreadful Colonel Tom Parker and an equally awful Geppetto; it’s that his performance is so constipated and mannered an imitation of Mr Rogers’ genuineness that this “biopic” takes on a fundamentally sinister turn. His every scene with a youngster isn’t so much exuding benevolent empathy as suggestive of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang ’s Child Catcher let loose in a TV studio (and again, this bodes well for Geppetto). Extend that to A Beautiful Day in the Neighbourhood ’s conceit, that Mr Rogers’ life is one of a sociopathic shrink milking angst from his victims/patients in order to get some kind of satiating high – a bit like a rejuvenating drug, on that score – and you have a deeply unsettli

What's a movie star need a rocket for anyway?

The Rocketeer (1991) (SPOILERS) The Rocketeer has a fantastic poster. One of the best of the last thirty years (and while that may seem like faint praise, what with poster design being a dying art – I’m looking at you Marvel, or Amazon and the recent The Tomorrow War – it isn’t meant to be). The movie itself, however, tends towards stodge. Unremarkable pictures with a wide/cult fanbase, conditioned by childhood nostalgia, are ten-a-penny – Willow for example – and in this case, there was also a reasonably warm critical reception. But such an embrace can’t alter that Joe Johnston makes an inveterately bland, tepid movie director. His “feel” for period here got him The First Avenger: Captain America gig, a bland, tepid movie tending towards stodge. So at least he’s consistent.

Hey, my friend smells amazing!

Luca (2021) (SPOILERS) Pixar’s first gay movie ? Not according to director Enrico Cassarosa (“ This was really never in our plans. This was really about their friendship in that kind of pre-puberty world ”). Perhaps it should have been, as that might have been an excuse – any excuse is worth a shot at this point – for Luca being so insipid and bereft of spark. You know, the way Soul could at least claim it was about something deep and meaningful as a defence for being entirely lacking as a distinctive and creatively engaging story in its own right.

I’m just glad Will Smith isn’t alive to see this.

The Tomorrow War (2021) (SPOILERS). Not so much tomorrow as yesterday. There’s a strong sense of déjà vu watching The Tomorrow War , so doggedly derivative is it of every time-travel/alien war/apocalyptic sci-fi movie of the past forty years. Not helping it stand out from the pack are doughy lead Chris Pratt, damned to look forever on the beefy side no matter how ripped he is and lacking the chops or gravitas for straight roles, and debut live-action director Chris McKay, who manages to deliver the goods in a serviceably anonymous fashion.

You nicknamed my daughter after the Loch Ness Monster?

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2 (2012) The final finale of the Twilight saga, in which pig-boy Jacob tells Bella that, “No, it's not like that at all!” after she accuses him of being a paedo. But then she comes around to his viewpoint, doubtless displaying the kind of denial many parents did who let their kids spend time with Jimmy Savile or Gary Glitter during the ‘70s. It's lucky little Renesmee will be an adult by the age of seven, right? Right... Jacob even jokes that he should start calling Edward, “Dad”. And all the while they smile and smile.

I want the secret of the cards. That’s all.

The Queen of Spades (1949) (SPOILERS) Marty Scorsese’s a big fan (“ a masterpiece ”), as is John Boorman, but it was Edgar Wright on the Empire podcast with Quentin “One more movie and I’m out, honest” Tarantino who drew my attention to this Thorold Dickinson picture. The Queen of Spades has, however, undergone a renaissance over the last decade or so, hailed as a hitherto unjustly neglected classic of British cinema, one that ploughed a stylistic furrow at odds with the era’s predominant neo-realism. Ian Christie notes its relationship to the ilk of German expressionist work The Cabinet of Dr of Caligari , and it’s very true that the picture exerts a degree of mesmeric immersion rarely found in homegrown fare.