and you could already hear the banshee wail of disaster cutting through
the snowy night air after “Howl’s” screening Thursday on the festival’s
opening night.
Then the Greek chorus effect kicked in, all those
voices scrambling over one another to be the first to call for a
suppression of the rebellion new festival director Cooper had promised.
If it was rebellion you were looking for, “Howl” delivered it with a
“What a waste,” spit out one guy on my raging bus after the screening.
Last year the clamor and complaints were that Sundance had become too commercial, had gotten away from its indie roots.
So you might think when the festival sets the table
with a tough, challenging, artistically experimental film, the
collective conscience would have been more forgiving.
Not so.
The question becomes, are the Greeks and the banshees and the rest of the disenchanted right?
In a word, no.
In “Howl,” writer-directors
liberated youth of the 1950s. The poem, which gives the film its name,
became a force field of controversy in the country’s obscenity debates.
“Howl” would first take life in smoky
The poem would end up in a courtroom where its
visceral and explicit and exceedingly discomforting language would put
Ginsberg’s publisher on trial.
Now the film finds itself in somewhat the same
predicament with a difficult subject and far from perfect execution
being blasted from all sides. The filmmakers use an unusual narrative
technique, circling back through complex passages of the poem again and
again, in different forms (more about that in a moment), as they
attempt to unravel its meaning, create context and explain the
controversy.
You’ll hear the same line played out at a club as
You’ll see the line envisioned as an animated
segment, using Franco’s voice-over almost like a musical score, a
melody rising as the animation brings the words to life.
And again the passage will emerge in the courtroom as attorneys —
There is no small irony in the fact that the
discussion on the screen is the same developing off-screen — does
“Howl” in whatever form, poem or film, have artistic merit? It seems
many in the crowd would have found the assessment by Strathairn’s
character, who terms Ginsberg’s approach bothersome and tedious, an apt
description of the film. Was this word really necessary, Strathairn’s
prosecutor kept asking.
There are moments of brilliance in the movie, the
animation is beautifully rendered, and Franco’s performance is an
elegant one that should redefine his career.
Although there are flaws with the end result, “Howl”
is risk taking writ large by filmmakers Epstein and Friedman, and it
seems as if they will pay dearly for their audacity.
“Howl” is not easy, and it is not commercial, but is it necessary?
Absolutely.
This tiny tributary of a film, far from the churning
mainstream waters, is exactly the creative stream that Sundance, in its
26th year, is supposed to be fording.
I’m glad someone wasn’t afraid to dip a toe into
those icy waters, and I hope the chill in the air here doesn’t send
those who would consider pushing the boundaries of convention running
for cover.
—
(c) 2010, Los Angeles Times.
Visit the Los Angeles Times on the Internet at http://www.latimes.com/
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
