Saw The Rum Diary over the weekend; the Hunter S. Thompson novel that was delayed in publishing for much of his life, and then made into a film that got delayed over a year after it was shot as well. I was pretty impressed with it, but not in the areas I thought it would. In a way, it's not quite a successful film. But if you want it to be, it can be a powerful statement filled with intriguing dialogue and engaging themes. I think its reception can be taken in drastically different ways from person to person (obvious sentence alert!).
The story, to the best of my description (though it seems to be more of a rambling account of a period of Thompson's life), is about a failed novelist named Kemp who accepts a job at a terrible, failing Puerto Rican newspaper, for the steady paycheck more than anything. While there he must decide whether of not he wants to sell out and go against his journalistic ideals, or keep his own voice and stick it to the "bastards" of the world.
It's a very different film from Johnny Depp's other Thompson performance, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. Where Fear and Loathing was an incoherent mumble through the mind of a crazy person (which makes it so brilliant that they kept the intensity going for over two hours), Rum Diary is actually more down to Earth of a story, with coherent themes. Fear and Loathing is sort of a jaded struggle to find the American Dream, from a well established writer who had a distinct voice (at least for the film) and strong maniacal ideals. Kemp from the Rum Diary actually doesn't quite have a voice, at least from the start of the film. One could say the entire theme of the story could actually just be about finding your voice (through the power of ink). But while Kemp seems to be slightly influenced by the people around him (if not only in a reactionary sense), he still maintains a series of ideals that can't be waivered and still walks to the beat of his own drum.
There are other plot elements, like Kemp's infatuation with the rich guy's fiancee, that actually seemed out of place or unnecessary. But at the same time, his lust for Amber Heard's wooden character drove a chunk of his character's motives. And in retrospect, I liked all of the plot elements as they appear on the whole canvas, even if I didn't quite enjoy watching all of the paint strokes in action.
The setting of 1960s Puerto Rico is definitely something to marvel at. A lot of care obviously went into recreating that time/place, and it is very appreciated. From the sandy beach houses to the dilapidated apartments, all of the set design was pretty great in my opinion. The cinematic style of it all wasn't as much like you'd expect if you wanted a Fear and Loathing Thompson vibe, it plays out much more like a normal movie than that. There is excessive drinking going on throughout, and some great scenes of drunken carnage (fireballs!). But more so, the excess of indulgence is represented by hangovers and a general tired glossiness to all of the characters. As if they noticeably regret doing what they're doing, but keep doing it anyway.
There are two reasons why this movie works so well (for me). First, the script is great. Many well written scenes of dialogue, and the typical witty philosophizing of Hunter S. Thompson through Kemp's internal narration. It's a very funny movie in addition to being inspiring tho those who like to create through destructive means. Second, this movie has a fantastic cast.
It's always so great to see Johnny Depp acting in a non-Tim Burton movie. Hell, It's nice not to see him as Jack Sparrow for a change as well. He can actually show off his acting ability, and even more than that, show off his judgement in picking projects that don't completely suck. The side characters are mostly all played with enthusiasm (Richard Jenkins, Aaron Eckhart, "that guy" actor Michael Rispoli). But the guy who stole the show was Giovanni Ribisi as Moburg. It was one of those performances where you kind of hope he would stumble into each scene and take it over. It's nearly impossible to take your eyes off him when he's doing his thing. He plays a nearly brain damaged writer (from excessive rum drinking), and, well, he quite literally stumbles into every scene he's in. It's a brilliant performance. I hope he gets some awards recognition. It looks physically and mentally painful just to be that character, and that's a testament to Ribisi being awesome.
Well, I'm sure I sound like a redundant bore, but again, I didn't think the movie was all that spectacular as a film, but the message was. It plants in very plain sight the options that Kemp must choose between. Either sell out and work for the corporate slimeballs that will provide him with riches; or become one of the drunken, dirt-covered writers like the ones working at the failing newspaper. Doomed to be a meandering nothing of a writer, but he wouldn't be a "bastard". Or, do it his own way. Obviously Hunter S. Thompson chose to do it his own way, and the film provides a little of that feeling of not wanting to do what your told. The attitude of not caring whether you're a success or not, so long as you do it with your own words, and being fine with that. It's an attitude that not many people have (including myself to many, many extents), but most of the important ones do.
I think if you're interested in Thompson, you'll probably go see it without a recommendation. Seeing as it only made $5 million in the box office, I guess not that many people were interested in the project. I liked it, and think the reviews are giving less credit than it deserves (according to rotten tomatoes scores, the Footloose remake is more worthy of existence than The Rum Diary). I don't think I could recommend it to a lot of people, because I could see people HATING it for only seeing it from a standard entertainment perspective, and not taking in the message. Also, it's probably 20 minutes too long. You've got to be in it for the right reasons, I guess I'm saying.
But, regardless, I give kudos to any film where the main character receives life lessons from a lobster.
Re: The Rum Diary by Mark Suszko on Oct 31, 2011 at 9:56:09 pm
Script magazne has an article on this movie, and between the lines it looks like the script got eviscerated by the studio. One of the stories in the article tells that scenes with Nixon were cut because test audiences didn;t recgonize or know who Nixon was. Now, tell me you can tell a decent HST story and leave our effign Richard Nixon. Studio says to themselves: kids come to see Depp do the drunk pirate thing again, and the kids are too young to know who Nixon is, or the significance. Delete Nixon."
More about the script: a theme in the book is that the main character is splitting personalities, but the screenwriter decides the movie onyl has room enough to cover one half of the schizoid character. So much of the darker half got jettisoned and a little bit got transplanted into Moburg's character. You can't convince me Depp couldn't handle the dichotomy, this was another commercial decision, to take the "pretty" heroic half of the dual personality and make the movie out of that, and leave behid the dark side, arguably the defining side of Hunter Thompson.
To be fair, Nixon does have a 45 second cameo in the film on a television screen, in which Kemp goes off on a short tirade about how could one live his entire life as a liar. But that was the extent of Nixon.
Yeah, it definitely seemed like the screenplay got a little glossed over by the studios in an attempt to make it more marketable. Seems like the number one rule to making a decent Hunter S. Thompson movie would not to have it conform to some standard. Maybe they were just nervous about it making them lose a lot of money or soemth- oh wait, it did anyway... $5 million box office against $45 million budget, yelp! Granted this is just the first week, but I don't see it skyrocketing to success in the near future. Maybe overseas. They love Johny Depp over there.
Now I feel bad because I actually liked the movie.
I've never read the book, but I've been meaning to. The split personality thing sounds like it's an awesome idea, and definitely would have given the film more angles to work with. I'm gonna add the book to the queue! Still going through World War Z and The Hunger Games trilogy, so I'll probably get to it next summer...
One final quick note. I read that the director, Bruce Robinson, was almost 7 years sober when he began writing the screenplay adaptation for The Rum Diary. Then he got writers block, and began drinking again to finish it. Sounds like a healthy work strategy... I wonder if that factored into anything?
Re: The Rum Diary by Mark Suszko on Nov 1, 2011 at 9:27:31 pm
Pick up the latest "Screen Writer" magazine, he talks about it. erading between the lines, they sliced up his version pretty hard. The whole thing is basically a Depp vanity project, so what the studio thinks shouldn't have mattered so much. Depp is one of those Hollywood guys. like Cloony or DeCaprio, that can sneeze onto a lens and people will line up for tickets to see it. If he still can't fend off the folks meddling in the story, then there is little hope for the rest of us to make a coherent script that's anything but utterly conventional.