Film Review: On the Road
Another admission: I've never read On the Road by Jack Kerouac. At times I wish I had, being an English major and always enjoying the exploration in novels. Sadly, I have yet to read this one. I would like to.
So it was with a blank slate that I saw the film adaptation by Jose Rivera.
Sitting in a crowded theater prior to the film commencing, I was keenly interested in knowing who had read the book, as the question was being posed to the audience. A decent amount of hands went up. When people were asked whether they had liked the book or not, they were divided. I thought that was interesting.
Then the critic who introduced the film, Godfrey Cheshire, agreed that many people are divided by their feelings over the book. To this day you either love it or hate it.
To give us an idea of what was going on during the era depicted in the film (late 40's/early 50's), he mentioned that the interstate highway system was brand new then. This planted an image in my mind of a group of young Beatniks exploring the country, encountering different types of people, experiencing radical new things (for the time). I was even more intrigued.
What played out what not what I expected. There were no experiences on the road, no strange encounters. Instead the road itself seemed to be taken for granted. One scene they're in New York, then they're in San Francisco. Then the're in New Orleans. Dean asks Sal to come back to San Fran, so he "poof!" There he is. But he doesn't fly there. He drives. It takes at least 5 days to travel from to New York to California. I know. I drove that route back in 1993. Think about how long it must have taken Sal to drive it. I'm sure it wasn't only 5 days.
The movie dealt more with the downfall of Dean and his friendship with Sal. It was done very well, and the leads, including Kristin Stewart, did a great job with the material.
Sadly, it didn't feel like a 1940's film, except for maybe the cars. Instead, it felt like a hippy film, taking place in the late 1960's. I'm told the characters in the book had greased back pompadores. Not in this film. Their hairstyles were more long and loose. It was difficult to see what the conflict was between the Beatniks and the rest of society. It also was difficult to place some of the scenes.
Now, I love 60's films. I wished I was a hippy myself. The closest I can get to that is claiming, honestly, that I was born in the "Spring before the 'Summer of Love'" (April 1967). However, this isn't a 60's hippy film. This is supposed to take place in the late 40's/early 50's.
I didn't hate the film. It was enjoyable for what it depicted, but I wondered if the book had more.
After the film the audience was asked if they liked it. I kept quiet, but was amazed and surprised at the resounding, "No!" that Godfrey Cheshire received as a response.
I definitely have got to read that book.
So it was with a blank slate that I saw the film adaptation by Jose Rivera.
Sitting in a crowded theater prior to the film commencing, I was keenly interested in knowing who had read the book, as the question was being posed to the audience. A decent amount of hands went up. When people were asked whether they had liked the book or not, they were divided. I thought that was interesting.
Then the critic who introduced the film, Godfrey Cheshire, agreed that many people are divided by their feelings over the book. To this day you either love it or hate it.
To give us an idea of what was going on during the era depicted in the film (late 40's/early 50's), he mentioned that the interstate highway system was brand new then. This planted an image in my mind of a group of young Beatniks exploring the country, encountering different types of people, experiencing radical new things (for the time). I was even more intrigued.
What played out what not what I expected. There were no experiences on the road, no strange encounters. Instead the road itself seemed to be taken for granted. One scene they're in New York, then they're in San Francisco. Then the're in New Orleans. Dean asks Sal to come back to San Fran, so he "poof!" There he is. But he doesn't fly there. He drives. It takes at least 5 days to travel from to New York to California. I know. I drove that route back in 1993. Think about how long it must have taken Sal to drive it. I'm sure it wasn't only 5 days.
The movie dealt more with the downfall of Dean and his friendship with Sal. It was done very well, and the leads, including Kristin Stewart, did a great job with the material.
Sadly, it didn't feel like a 1940's film, except for maybe the cars. Instead, it felt like a hippy film, taking place in the late 1960's. I'm told the characters in the book had greased back pompadores. Not in this film. Their hairstyles were more long and loose. It was difficult to see what the conflict was between the Beatniks and the rest of society. It also was difficult to place some of the scenes.
Now, I love 60's films. I wished I was a hippy myself. The closest I can get to that is claiming, honestly, that I was born in the "Spring before the 'Summer of Love'" (April 1967). However, this isn't a 60's hippy film. This is supposed to take place in the late 40's/early 50's.
I didn't hate the film. It was enjoyable for what it depicted, but I wondered if the book had more.
After the film the audience was asked if they liked it. I kept quiet, but was amazed and surprised at the resounding, "No!" that Godfrey Cheshire received as a response.
I definitely have got to read that book.
Comments
Post a Comment