Summary In the early 1940s, Allen Ginsberg is an English major at Columbia
University, only to learn more than he bargained for. Dissatisfied by
the orthodox attitudes of the school, Allen finds himself drawn to
iconoclastic colleagues like Lucien Carr, William S. Burroughs and Jack
Kerouac. Together, this gang would explore bold new literary ideas that
would challenge the sensibilities of their time as the future Beat
Generation. However, for all their creativity, their very appetites and
choices lead to more serious transgressions that would mark their lives
forever. Genre : Biography/Drama/Romance Country : USA Cast : Daniel Radcliffe : Allen Ginsberg Dane DeHaan : Lucien Carr Jack Huston : Jack Kerouac Director : John Krokidas
My opinion
“Some things, once you've loved them, become yours forever.
And if you try to let them go...
They only circle back and return to you.
They become part of who you are...
...or they destroy you.”
After watching a few blockbusters I always get the urge to put on a not so commercial film. The title of this one combined with the fact that I'm not a real expert in literature, made sure that my expectations about "Kill your darlings" were totally misjudged. The phrase "Kill your darlings" is used in literary circles and is a maxim for writers and poets to delete favorite wordings, adjectives or phrases so that their writings become tighter and not defiled with unnecessary ballast. So you can expect to hear a lot of intellectual posturing in this film. It's actually a biographical drama about the origins of the "beat generation" in America and the young adults who support this : Allen Ginsburg, Jack Kerouac and William Burroughs. All of them became renowned writers and poets afterwards.
I also was an avid bookworm in the past and I devoured innumerable books. I wasn't a fan of the literature with a capital L, but rather took pleasure in reading books written by Jack Vance, Raymond Elias Feist, Terry Pratchett, Terry Goodkind and Koontz among others. Not exactly literary heavyweights but masters of the fantasy and SF genre. My intellectual level probably wasn't of such a nature that I could appreciate magical realism, expressionism or neo-romanticism. Just as modern art, I think it means, describing the most trivial objects in such way, that they become fascinating objects. At one stage Allen, William and Lucien shred some books from great writers in pieces, and text fragments are nailed to the wall so they can form a coherent whole. A creation of literature out of chaos as it were. However I can empathize with the mood of the characters involved. I myself was also such a rebel once and didn't have the attitude of walking within the lines. Ultimately, you can see these beatniks as early forerunners of an anarchist movement in literature. Kicking the standardized writers who abide all elitist rules and styles in the shins.
The filmis set in theaftermath of the2ndWorld War, which is reflectedin the wholeatmosphere : the decor, the props, the music and the zeitgeist.This isalso the mostsuccessfulitemin this filmdirected by JohnKrokidas. His firstfeature filmhe surely can be proudof andin which he succeeds in portraying the feeling of that time.You are witnessingthe tipping pointinthe prudishAmerican societywhere theyouth of that timewas looking fornewtrends andcreative outlets. Thismanifested itselfindanklittle pubswhere they played jazz, pseudointellectualgatherings wheregallons ofalcohol was beingconsumed, experimentingwith all kinds ofmind-altering drugsand scanning thesexual boundariesand tolerances in this area.
Theperformanceswere allsublime.DaneDeHaanasthe extrovertand intellectualLucienCarr,thepivotal figurein this wholedrama, who does look like a gay, blue-eyed blondecharmer,butreflects agenuineuncertainty about hissexual orientation.Michael "Dexter" Hall, whorecentlystarredin"Coldin July", plays ahomosexualstalkerwho sinks to the bottomof somepond in the beginning of the film.JackHustonas JackKerouac. Ben FosterasWilliamBurroughs. An intellectual who comes from awealthy family, who's constantlyexperimenting withall sorts ofdrugs and therefore speaks in slow motionwith a deep, rough voicethe entire movie.And Daniel"Harry"Radcliffeas AllenGinsberg. Radcliffe really does some effortto finallywipe that "Potter" stamp away. I have to admitthat he plays inthis film withvery different magic wands. And yetI admirehim for notgiving in and choosing the obviousroles.After hisnot so badperformancein"The woman in black" he's now tryinga moreseriousrolewithsome fairlyboldhomosexualscenes. I'mstill wondering abouthis sexual orientation now.Thepassion he shows while kissinghis maleopponentsspeaks volumes.And despite his efforts, once and a while that "Harry Potter"-smilethat made him famous, appears again.Afterhe sees the act ofCarrin the school library you can admire thatboyish roguish smile.The only thingmissing is thattwinkle in hiseyes.Not a badperformance, butat timesit was reallysuperficial andit seemedmore like aShakespeareantragedy.
A difficult film. And despite its boring subject, it continued to fascinate me. A crime drama without that much drama. A passion that leads to a crime, but it's certainly not the emphasis. It's rather a film full of philosophical musings and constant literary debating by those who'll be the greatest in literature. All this with a solid bottle of wine and glass of whiskey after a hearty sniff of nitrous oxide. At times I also wished I had that in reach so this film would be more light-hearted. But still, respect for Radcliffe.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten