FEAR AND LOATHING IN LAS VEGAS (1998) A Film Review by Ted Prigge Copyright 1998 Ted Prigge
Director: Terry Gilliam Writers: Terry Gilliam, Tony Grisoni, Tod Davies, and Alex Cox (based on the novel by Hunter S. Thompson) Starring: Johnny Depp, Benicio Del Toro, Christina Ricci, Gary Busey, Tobey Maguire, Ellen Barkin, Cameron Diaz, Flea, Mark Harmon, Katherine Helmond, Flea, Michael Jeter, Lyle Lovett, Harry Dean Stanton, James Woods
One could probably read Hunter S. Thompson's novel "Fear and Loathing Las Vegas" while watching Terry Gilliam's film "Fear and Loathing Las Vegas" and find that everything is nicely in synch with one another. Fans of filmed novels, especially cult classics like this one, almost get off on pointing out every single little difference, no matter what the size is, will actually find that the film version of this novel ranks as one of the most faithful film adaptations, up there with, say, Orson Welles version of Kafka's "The Trial."
Of course, film and books are different kinds of mediums: books let our imaginations bring the story alive, directed by almost painstaking detail, comparitively; films give our imaginations a break, and lure us into a sensual lull, although some often stimulate the brain with themes and concepts, like books do. Thus, a film that is totally faithful to a novel does not always mean a great thing. The film needs to be successful in terms of film, and being faithful to the novel doesn't need to come first. Last year's "The Shining" mini-series, starring Steven Weber and Rebecca DeMournay, taught us that.
However, Terry Gilliam, ex-Monty Python-er and cult director ("Brazil," "12 Monkeys," etc.), is one of the best contemporary directors in terms of making a film an experience to savor, and he and the other screenwriters (Tony Grisoni, Tod Davies, and Alex Cox, the latter who was supposed to direct this flick but was canned from the job), make "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" The Film not only satisfying in terms of an adaptation, but also does a great job in capturing the tone and detached wry wit of the film. He gives the film a distinct visual flair, putting us in what Gilliam envisions as the mind of Thompson, and even allows the narration to continually quote from the book's hilarious verses, making this one of the most faithful film adaptations not only in terms of substance, but also style.
However, this total faithfulness does raise a couple problems, like the way that the film relies so much on Thompson's narration that it runs into some problems with telling the story. Or the way that it tells of a time that is probably unfamiliar to many of the people this flick targets (other than fans of the novel, this film is aimed towards Generation Xers, and anyone younger), which is the early 70s when drugs began to loose the steam they had, yet people like Thompson were still doing it, seperating themselves from the society. The film doesn't do the best job of establishing the way it felt in general, other than showing some news clips of Nixon and Vietnam. I mean, I had to do research just to know the importance of this novel. The novel is a piece of journalism, reporting not only the way it was, but the way he felt to be apart of it all. It was blunt, it was concise, and a film is not really the best way of making itself a piece of journalism, like the book was.
But before I go on, let me explain the plot a bit. "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" was the true account (or what he could remember) of his trip to Vegas (duh) with his one lawyer friend to cover a desert racing event and later a Drug Enforcement Seminar. Prior to going, his friend "advises" him to buy a red convertible, jazz up his wardrobe with lots of hawaiian tee-shirts, and buy as much drugs and alchohol as possible. With all the drugs in a briefcase, they take off for the strip, downing as many drugs as possible, ironically in the same place where marijuana possession means about 10 years, and selling means life.
Johnny Depp plays the Thompson character, who goes by his pseudonym Raoul Duke, and wears a white cap, sunglasses, with his head balding rapidly, and with a cigarrette perpetually dangling from the corner of his mouth, all while talking in a really fast, deep voice in what is his reality and also on the narration (he really does look and sound like a young Thompson); and Benicio Del Toro plays the lawyer friend, sadly named Dr. Gonzo (after the term "gonzo journalism," which Thompson created from this book), burying his usual cool looks under about 40 or so more pounds than usual, as well as long, puffy hair, nicely creating the "300-pound somoan" that Thompson describes his prose.
Together, they proceed to wreak havoc on the denizens and locales of Vegas, primarily the two hotel rooms they stay in during the course of the film. They run into various people, who show up briefly, then disappear, some who occasionally re-appear for a couple brief seconds, giving them a sense of alienation in the world. Alas, this means lots of cameos, with some great stand-outs from: Christina Ricci, as a Jesus freak who, um, paints Barbara Streisand portraits, or at least attempts to; Tobey Maguire, as an unfortunate hitch-hiker; Cameron Diaz, as a kinda flirtatious chick on an elevator; Ellen Barkin, as a saddened diner waitress; Michael Jeter, as an out-of-touch speaker at the DEA conference; and Gary Busey, as a police officer who specializes in desert control. Some credits have listed James Woods in the cast as well, but I couldn't find him. If you do, please tell me.
This is exactly how the book felt - a supporting character would enter the story for a couple pages, then leave a bit, and it successfully distanced the leads from everyone else in the world. The film does this nicely as well. The film is also very effective in giving everything the right atmosphere, staging some of the best sequences from the book wonderfully, and even following up on some of Thompson's weirder acid flashes (the casino becomes alive with lizards, literally, in one scene). Gilliam also sometimes pulls back from the leads' perspectives, showing how moronic they look to everyone else, and how distanced from society they really are.
The narration works nicely, often following from the novel literally, and this gives the viewer the reason to like our characters, as what they do in the visual context of the film would probably not gain the affection of any audience who hasn't read the book. The film seems like it's talking to us, commenting on what's going on from Thompson's perspective from later on, as he is often reflecting on the experiences he had, but seems like he still hasn't given up on them. One of the messages of the film is to be yourself, and not worry about what society thinks when they see you acting weird.
The reason the novel was so important was because it came at a time when the psychedelia of the 60s, so popular at its time, was quickly dying, and the year it was written (1971) was a major turning point in terms of mind expansion. By this time, Thompson was considered an "aging hippy," and his rapid drug use, considered so acceptible at its peak in the late 60s, as well as his views on politics and the condition of the world at the time as one of the main reasons he used drugs so profusely, were becoming passe. The novel was a portrait not only of himself, but of the people who looked on his behavior as deviant. The film doesn't really capture all of this, but the sense of alienation that the characters suffer through, and the way that their behavior was becoming more destructive than before makes this film successful.
Of course, the film is far from perfect. The plotlessness, which worked so nicely in the book, doesn't work as well for the film as it did for the movie, particularly because this film is 126 minutes long, making some of the longer moments which go nowhere plotwise seem too much (the diner scene, such a great part of the book, seems like a distraction in the film). And there are some more problems with the redundancy, which didn't seem as apparent in the book, but seems kind of annoying here (the film sometimes follows a trend of: do drugs, embarass one's self in public, retreat to room, do more drugs, trash it...maybe include someone else from time to time to shock).
Nevertheless, Gilliam does manage to keep a tight control over the film, making the film like a really freaky trip of sorts. We're along with the two protatonists whether we like it or not, and thanks to some great narration, we're almost glad to be there most of the time, when they're not getting close to ODing and not resembling human beings at all. Kinda like the book in a way...kinda not...
MY RATING (out of 4): ***1/2
Homepage at: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/8335/
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews