Sunday, 25 July 2010 17:29
‘HOWL’ is bodies twisting and thrashing and fighting, it's junkies wandering littered streets at night looking for their next fix, it’s corporate America not caring who they stand on to get to the top. ‘Howl’ is a blunt and bloody ode to humanity written by Allen Ginsberg, who sang his poem from grotty grey cities right onto the Technicolor streets of middle-class America, and who was accused of threatening and corrupting normal society. This film follows the rise and trial of the poem, as the law courts questioned its relevance to literature, and whether or not it was justifiably obscene.
The film is set out with three main interwoven parts. These include a performance by Ginsberg, or as it could be called ‘the Enlightenment’ of a young audience, an interview two years later as he catalogues the events which led to him writing said poem, and finally the trial of the poem - featuring many a stirring speech from the defence, and various literary experts opinions. The whole film is held together by Ginsberg’s rolling and rumbling reading of the poem, pulling together the threads of the different stories, and is illustrated with some pretty amazing animation. The shadowy characters which creep across the screen acting out the words which Ginsberg spits out - the dark, spotlight-lit streets and the amazing, all consuming monster-god ‘Moloch’ - are probably the most remarkable things you will take away from this movie.
Ginsberg is played by James Franco, who once again proves he is one of the more gifted actors of our generation, especially when playing down-beat, creative types. He seems like a fairly smart fellow in real life and I think this helps create a believable character. He is among a rather revered crowd, with Jeff Daniels, Jon Hamm, David Strathairn and Mary Louise-Parker all playing a part in the trial of 'Howl'.
However, despite all the aspirations to greatness, I found ‘Howl’ a little too one-sided and idealistic. Although the stories about the life of Ginsberg and his reading of the play were moving, I found that the courtroom scenes seemed a little stale. The prosecution seemed easily put off and weak compared to the righteous and heroic defence, who made stirring speeches about the all mighty freedom of speech and triumph over ‘the man'. Today, we take our right to write whatever we want and however we want for granted, and so we naturally root for the honest and groundbreaking poem over censorship. Yet it would have been interesting to see the prosecution, who had more than reason enough to debate whether this poem should be published, fighting more convincingly for their cause.
But, as a work which celebrates the creation of a modern masterpiece - which definitely contributed to the society we are now - it succeeds. Its themes and style still ring in even the most contemporary storytellers of today like Bret Easton Ellis (‘American Psycho’ and ‘Rules of Attraction’) and Chuck Palahniuk (‘Choke’ and ‘Fight Club’) who create both beautiful and horrifying visions of society. Thus as a simple story which commemorates the life of a man turned revolutionary, it is well worth the watch.
THINGS YOU MOST NEED TO KNOW: Fifties censorship and the revolutionary Beat Generation.
HEARTOMETER: 1 2 3 4 5 6 + 1/2 [ out of 10 ]
YOU WILL LIKE, IF YOU LIKE: ‘Madmen’, ‘Milk’, ‘On The Road’, ‘Capote’.
READ: The original poem before you watch the film, to gain some understanding of how groundbreaking it really was.
