MPAA (R) RE.com (2 Stars) SlantMagazine (1 1/2 Stars) AVClub (C) Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)
IMDb
listing
RE.com (S. O'Malley)
review
Slant.com (D.L. Dallas)
review
AVClub (M. D'Angelo)
review
Big Sur [2013] (screenplay and directed by
Michael Polish, based on the
novel by
Jack Kerouac [IMDb-nm]) is the second Kerouac novel to made into a movie in a year, the other being the (young) star studded but not particularly acclaimed
On The Road [2012]. (That so many films about the post-WW II / "beatnik" era have come out in the past year or two has fascinated me. Besides these two films there have been a documentary
Salinger [2013] about that famed post-WW II
writer's life, the recently released
Kill Your Darlings [2013] about future
Beat Generation poet
Allen Ginsberg's formative time at Colombia University in New York during WW II, and even
The Master [2012] loosely based on
Scientology founder
L.R. Hubbard's rise to prominence (also) in the years immediately following WW II).
The current film,
Big Sur [2013], seems destined to receive the same tepid critical response (see above) as
On The Road [2012] did, even if I honestly liked both films (and I can attest that both films stuck very close to the books).
It would seem that those film-makers wishing to put
Kerouac's novels on screen face a similar challenge as Peter Jackson, et al had when they embarked on putting
J.R.R. Tolkien's beloved
Lord of the Rings trilogy onscreen -- a cadre of devoted fans of the books. HOWEVER (and not particularly surprisingly when one thinks about it) the two sets of fans appear to be quite different. It would seem that Tolkien fans are often fantasy-gamers, hence often quite at home with the CGI of fantasy video-games. The challenge that Jackson, et al faced when making the LotR films was making the CGI, costuming, etc, meet (and exceed) the bar set by said video-game adventures. In contrast, one would expect that
Kerouac fans would be largely "hippies," predisposed to be weary of technology. So while there would be no need at all for any "special effects" in filming the very, very human/earthy stories of
Kerouac's books, I'm
not surprised that so many
Kerouac fans would cling to the view that his works are simply "unfilmable."
Yet there have been all kinds of other works by all kinds of other authors -- think of
Charles Dickens [IMDb],
Victor Hugo [IMDb],
Jane Austen [IMDb],
Leo Tolstoy [IMDb],
Fyodor Dostoyevsky [IMDb],
John Steinbeck [IMDb],
Ernest Hemingway [IMDb],
Margaret Mitchell (
Gone With the Wind [1939]) heck even
Mickey Spillane [IMDb],
Stephen King [IMDb] and
J.K. Rowling (
the Harry Potter series), etc, etc -- that have been successfully put on the screen. So I do believe that there's a certain quaint arrogance in maintaining that one's favorite author's works are "untranslatable" to the screen.
So take a step-back folks, both
On The Road [2012] and the current
Big Sur [2013] do the works remarkable justice. And would you prefer that
Kerouac's books NOT BE KNOWN by young people today? A fair number of Hollywood's young actors/actresses have "stepped-up" to play in the recent screen adaptations of his books (
Sam Riley,
Garrett Hedlund,
Kristen Stewart,
Kirsten Dunst and
Amy Adams in
On The Road [2012], and
Kate Bosworth here. Additionally,
Daniel Radcliffe of Harry Potter fame played in the recent
Kill Your Darlings [2013] about Allen Ginsberg). It'd be a shame if their efforts were ignored or put-down by aging, silver-haired and perhaps even somewhat misguided/confused "purists."
The curent film,
Big Sur [2013], like
Kerouac's (ever semi-autographical)
book, takes place around 1960, three years after the publication of
On The Road, which propelled him to sudden fame. Fundamentally an introvert, the experience of fame proved to him to be a crushing burden. Finding himself out West after doing an interview on the
Steve Allen Show in Los Angeles, a friend (
Lawrence Felinghetti [IMDb] played in the film by
Anthony Edwards) owner of a San Francisco bay-area book store offers
Kerouac [IMDb] played in the film by
Jean Marc Barr) the chance to go spend some time at a cabin in nearby
Big Sur. (Note here: In the book, Kerouac gives himself and most of the other persons in the story pseudonyms. For instance, Kerouac's pseudonym in the book is Jack Dulouz. The film, however, dispenses with the pseudonyms and calls the characters by their actual names). Though wanting to escape the burdens of public notoriety, he soon finds the solitude at the cabin crushing as well. Thus most of the story takes place both at the cabin as well as among friends in the early-1960s Bay Area, in particular with
Neal [IMDb] and
Carolyn Cassady [IMDb] (played by
Josh Lucas and
Radha Mitchell respectively) of
On The Road [wiki] [IMDb] fame as well as with Neal's on-the-side girlfriend Billie (played magnificently in the film by
Kate Bosworth) who becomes Kerouac's girlfriend for much of the film.
By its nature, semi-autobiographical, the story is definitely on the
narcissistic side. This may actually be an interesting characteristic (and criticism...) of both the
Beat Generation writers' focus (on themselves) AND
of our own time in general (again focused on individual personal fulfillment). Yet
Kerouac's saving grace in his writing could be that he doesn't portray himself (nor most of his friends) particularly positively. He portrays himself as a very fearful person (at one point Billie calls him an "f-ing
neurotic") famously
preferring "the road" to commitment and living as an alcoholic or drunk (again another form of escape...). Neal, of course, is portrayed as a philanderer and a bum (he can't seem to hold onto a job). Interestingly the women, Carolyn and Billie, are portrayed as being far more sensible, even if from the time
Kerouac meets Billie, he seems convinced that Billie must have "issues" as well (she does, or certainly comes to have them, but then so do we all...). It all makes for a very interesting "snap-shot" of life that a lot of young people (
On The Road [wiki] [IMDb]) and middle-aged people (
Big Sur [wiki] [IMDb]) could understand. Indeed, part of what makes
Kerouac so interesting today is that though he wrote about his circle of "beatnik" friends in the late-1940s/early-1950s (
On The Road [wiki] [IMDb]) and then in the late-50s/early-60s (
Big Sur [wiki] [IMDb]) both of his books written
at that time feel so
surprisingly current today.
A word about the cinematography.
Big Sur is one of the most beautiful parts of the United States and hence also the world. Director
Michael Polish certainly takes advantage of that by contrasting the serene and at times awesome beauty of the cliffs, the surf, the clouds, the fog with the obvious inner restlessness of
Kerouac. It's obvious in the story that he has "trouble" with serenity. In the first part of the story, he can't stand the insistent rhythms of nature (the surf, the fog) around him. In the latter part of the story, when it shifts attention from the natural beauty of
Big Sur to the tranquil physical beauty of
Kerouac's new-found if, alas, doomed-to-be-temporary girlfriend Billie (who both when clothed ... and Parents take note ... when
not clothed ... actress
Kate Bosworth plays superbly),
Kerouac again can't bring himself to say "yes" to the gentle tranquility, beauty and stability that she could have offered him. Instead,
Kerouac seemed most happy drinking and carousing with the friends of his past.
Kerouac's attitude here actually reminds me of another famous slacker, singer
Jimmy Buffet, who like
Kerouac grew up to "not be a particularly great or traditional Catholic" and Buffet's song "
Changes in Latitude, Changes in Attitude," where he sings of himself as another guy who can't really keep still. Still there is clearly something Eucharistic in the "Party with Friends." (Jesus compares the Kingdom of God
dozens of times in the Gospels to a "wedding banquet" ... Now of course, too much of any good thing, like alcohol, etc ... becomes a problem and hence sin. Perhaps though, Kerouac's story of his time at
Big Sur shows that even Nature without the Communion of Friends becomes empty).
Finally, a number of the reviewers (see above) found irritating director Polish's heavy leaning on voice-over by
Jean Marc Barr (who plays Kerouac in the film). The voice-overs are passages taken directly from the book and they do help explain what's going-on in the scenes playing out on-screen. Given that I loved the book, I do believe that the voice-overs did serve the film quite well. The wood chopping scene, for instance, in which a fair number of Kerouac's friends visiting him at the cabin take turns chopping wood, where Kerouac muses in voice over with the text taken directly from the book:
"I have long thought that one could learn a great deal about the character of a person from the way he chops wood..." would have been infinitely harder to express without the explanatory voice over than with it. And there are many similar instances where the voice-over made the scene work (or work much better) than without it.
All in all, loved both the book and the film and was happy that the film was made. Both book and film offer much to think about. So good job folks, good job!
NOTE - Do you like what you've been reading here? If
you do then consider giving a small donation to this Blog (sugg. $6
_non-recurring_) _every so often_ to continue/further its operation. To
donate just
CLICK HERE. Thank you! :-) >>
