"Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" -- Feb 2003 DVD of the Month

[Morticia]

SilentBob had an idea...to take the winners of the DVD of the Month (from Software) and discuss them here. Why not give that a try? Here goes....

This is a thread to discuss the technical and/or thematic merits of "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (CC)", the winner of February DVD of the Month.

The purpose being to foster intelligent discussion of films without resorting to "It's a piece of crap." or "It's the greatest film ever." (And so that we all can gain a bit of a film education from everyone.)

We'll discuss a new film each week. Either slade or I will post the film in this forum in advance, and lock the topic until the first day of discussion.

Thanks everyone. We are open to any ideas about running this forum.

****SPOILER WARNING**** of course this entire thread is going to be full of spoilers.

Ed Wood would be proud (or jealous). Fear and Loathing is completely hollow. It has absolutely no coherent statement on the drug culture other than said culture died in the 70s. Wow, great depth, dude. But ignoring this shortcoming I love this film. I like it for the very reasons I admire Citizen Kane. Both films are loaded with special effects, amazing sets, gorgeous costumes, beautiful cinematography and camera work. And Fear one-ups Kane with god-awful sound (for this film that is a good thing) and acid-rock music. About the only film that compares to Fear and Loathing stylistically is Natural Born Killers.
The thing that makes Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas endlessly watchable is its outrageous and subversive comedy, and I think many reviews of this film totally ignore the hilarious dialog. Physical comedy, such as the way Depp and Del Torro walk and gesticulate is also quite amusing. The deleted scenes on the Criterion DVD are VERY interesting, as is the hour long documentary.

While I love Fear and Loathing for what it is and wouldn’t change a thing, I sometimes wish that Tim Burton had done the screenplay and directed the movie with less show and more character depth.

[Version]

You do realize FaLiLV was directed by Terry Gilliam right?

Anyway, basically I agree with you. Very funny, incredibly creative, fascinating direction and filming but basically nothing to it. No real plot to speak of, no statement on drugs or drug culture, no defined statement on society or relationships or anything.

[DrDetroit]

Now I'm under the impression that people are just watching these with the mute button on.

from the movie:(http://us.imdb.com/Quotes?0120669)
And that, I think, was the handle---that sense of inevitable victory over the forces of Old and Evil. Not in any mean or military sense; we didn't need that. Our energy would simply prevail. There was no point in fighting---on our side or theirs. We had all the momentum; we were riding the crest of a high and beautiful wave. So now, less than five years later, you can go up on a steep hill in Las Vegas and look West, and with the right kind of eyes you can almost see the high-water mark---the place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.

Doesn't this strike you as a very pointed statement about what the film (or the book, whichever) has something very important to say? I think it's saying a lot more than pointing out that the drug culture was wiped out by the 1970s. It's pointing out that whatever is left of the 1960's optimism has become a diluted after-image of greed and excess.

I really don't think Terry Gilliam is capable of making a hollow film. Try as he might.

[bennygk]

Originally posted by DrDetroit
Doesn't this strike you as a very pointed statement about what the film (or the book, whichever) has something very important to say? I think it's saying a lot more than pointing out that the drug culture was wiped out by the 1970s. It's pointing out that whatever is left of the 1960's optimism has become a diluted after-image of greed and excess.

I couldn't agree more. The only problem is, in the movie, that line is just done during a voice-over segment that kind of bridges the Mint Hotel half with the Flamingo half. I felt that message was much more prominent throughout many scenes in the book, in which all of their antics seem to have more purpose and mission instead of just being drug-induced irreverance. Also, I'm not sure I would say that the optimism of the 1960s was killed by greed and excess, which seems like more of a 1980s sentiment. I think it had more to do with Nixon and the War.

[DrDetroit]

It has been a good long while since I have read the book, so you might be right about it being clearer. I suppose it's easier to be poignant if you've just taken some bit of genius prose and stuck it in a voiceover. But I think the film stands on its own just by crystallizing the book's ideas. Not to compare Thompson with Shakespeare, but even though I can't sit through the whole of Baz Luhrmann's Romeo & Juliet, the words do get through somehow.

Originally posted by bennygk
Also, I'm not sure I would say that the optimism of the 1960s was killed by greed and excess, which seems like more of a 1980s sentiment. I think it had more to do with Nixon and the War.

I guess I meant excess in the way that Duke, the embodiment of the post-60s/altamont/watergate figurehead, gets his jollies by riddling his already-drug-riddled carcass with substance after substance. And sure greed is the ultimate 80s concept, but by setting the story in Las Vegas, greed is bound to turn up somewhere.