Review: Gonzo: The Life and Work of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson (2008) ****
The Edge… There is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over. The others - the living - are those who pushed their luck as far as they felt they could handle it, and then pulled back, or slowed down, or did whatever they had to when it came time to choose between Now and Later. But the edge is still Out there. Or maybe it’s In. - Hunter S. Thompson in Hell’s Angels
In November 2004, George W. Bush was re-elected President of the United States. The squares hadn’t just won, they’d won, driven the country into the ground and then they’d won again with smirks on their faces like children who’d just crashed daddy’s car and gotten away with it. Three months later, Hunter S. Thompson, the man who had spent a career railing against greed, power and the death of the American Dream killed himself.
Had the American Dream really died once and for all? Had the tab for a lifetime lived on the edge, fueled by booze and drugs finally come due? Had fame and celebrity ruined him or was it simply a case of a once talented old man finally running out of gas and finding he had nothing left to offer the world? These are the questions asked by Alex Gibney’s documentary Gonzo: The Life and Work of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson.
In retracing the life and career of the creator of gonzo journalism, Gibney hits the expected career highlights - riding with the Hell’s Angels, the 1968 Democratic convention, his run for sheriff of Pitkin County, Colorado, the drug-hazed trip to Las Vegas that become his most famous novel and his coverage of the 1972 McGovern presidential campaign. Along the way he uses re-enactments, archival footage, and interviews with acquaintances, colleagues and enemies including Tom Wolfe, Jann Wenner, George McGovern, Sonny Barger, Pat Buchanan, Ralph Steadman and Thompson’s first wife, Sondi Wright.
The results provide few easy answers and don’t do much to illuminate what we already know of Thompson, but Gibney has a secret weapon: Thompson’s own words. The interviews provide a context, but it’s Thompson’s writing as read by Johnny Depp that are the heart of the documentary and provide its energy. Depp tones down his Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas characterization a bit, but he still conveys Thompson’s unique style and cadence.
This may be the year when we finally come face to face with ourselves; finally just lay back and say it - that we are really just a nation of 220 million used car salesmen with all the money we need to buy guns, and no qualms at all about killing anybody else in the world who tries to make us uncomfortable. The tragedy of all this is that George McGovern, for all his mistakes… understands what a fantastic monument to all the best instincts of the human race this country might have been, if we could have kept it out of the hands of greedy little hustlers like Richard Nixon. McGovern made some stupid mistakes, but in context they seem almost frivolous compared to the things Richard Nixon does every day of his life, on purpose… Jesus! Where will it end? How low do you have to stoop in this country to be President?”
That’s Thompson writing about Richard M. Nixon’s victory over George S. McGovern in Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail ‘72. Change the names and they’re words that could easily have been spoken 28 or 32 years later. Now as then, Thompson’s anger is toxic, but it’s also intoxicating - not a narcotic that makes you relaxed and sleepy, but a shot of Wild Turkey that juices you up and gets you ready to fight. It’s a finely honed rage that is cutting, direct and bitterly funny.
Time and again from the front lines of an era experiencing tumultuous change, Thompson caught a whiff of the boundless promise this country seemed to offer only to report back with bewildered amazement at its failure and its willingness to slouch toward mediocrity rather than seize brilliance.
It’s probably telling that this review talks more about Thompson than it talks about the documentary. It’s true that Gonzo does not transcend its subject. Certain grouches for example have complained about the overly obvious selection of ’60s music. It’s true, we don’t ever need to hear the Youngblood’s Get Together ever again, but if you’re focused on the soundtrack instead of listening to the words of Thompson (as channeled by Depp) as he talks about the breaking of the 1960’s wave of optimism, you’re probably dead inside and there is no hope for you.
Gonzo is about the man more than it is about the era and the music is simply a shorthand way of setting the scene. A bigger problem is that the documentary doesn’t really tell us anything we don’t already know. On the other hand, it brings Hunter S. Thompson and his work back to life for a couple of hours leaving us with an appreciation of what was and a sadness for what could’ve been. One wonders what Thompson would’ve had to say about the 2008 election. Would he have seen a McGovern-like optimism in Barack Obama or would he have sensed another phony setting us up for disappointment?
We’ll never know, but we have here an entertaining reminder that maybe we should be asking the questions ourselves.
Gonzo: The Life and Work of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson. USA 2007 (released in 2008). Directed by Alex Gibney. Edited by Alison Eastwood. Cinematography by Maryse Alberti. Musical direction by John McCulloch. Narrated by Johnny Depp. Featuring Oscar Acosta, Sonny Barger, Pat Buchanan, Jimmy Buffett, Patrick Caddell, Jimmy Carter, Tim Crouse, Gary Hart, George McGovern, Ralph Steadman, Tom Wolfe and Sondi Wright. 1 hour 59 minutes. MPAA rated R for drug and sexual content, language and some nudity. 4 stars (out of 5)
Filed under: Reviews
Related Posts: - Weekend Forecast: July 4th
- The Watercooler: 7/7/08
- Cannes 2008 - Che Sera Sera
- Movies You May Have Missed: 11/15/08
- Oscar Short List = ‘Zachary’ Lover Shit List
At the risk of sounding crass, I never cared for Thompson. For many, that might be the understatement of the century, but his nasty, bitter tone always put me off, regardless of whether or not there was a political shred in it that I might have agreed with. Presentation is 90% of the battle (I just made that up, but you know what I mean).
With that said, this is a great piece, Craig, and Thompson is nothing if not fascinating. Agree or no, I’d gladly sit down to learn more about the drug-fueled beatnik legend. And the readings by Depp do sound like, as you said, a ’secret weapon.’
I see what you’re saying Evan. Thompson is a bitter pill, yet the overwhelming sense I get from him after the doc is one of disappointment over what could’ve been. I felt like he was someone who genuinely loved this country and lamented it wasn’t living up to its potential.
Perhaps too I’m just feeling gloomy about the state of the world lately.
Evan, I agree that Thompson is a personality who is very difficult to warm up to, not least for his ownership of an arsenal of guns, brought on by seeming paranoia. But he was a deliciously iconic figure and a great writer, whom journalists salivated over.
Of course a liking of Thompson has little to do with an assessment of a documentary based on his life and cultural significance.
I may not completely forgive director Gibney for his failure to give us more than we already know of Thompson, as Craig himself concedes in his traditionally exceptional review, but I understand that there is so much ground to cover here.
The best I can say is that while I did not come away from GONZO with a better understanding of this literary and cultural icon, I was still engaged for its running time, its delightful archival footage and engaging interviews. A documentary of this sort could certainly do a lot worse.
I certainly did feel that sense of waste at the end as Craig suggests, but I also lamented that this documentary missed its chance at probing deeper into what really made Thompson tick. There were surely words fromThompson, but not enough.
I think Gibney excels at presenting what you may already know (typically with some added, unexpected insider depth) and then presents it in such a way to make it more engaging that it might appear. All three of his docs accomplish this at varying levels, but they all also suffer somewhat from giving you a more or less surface view of the subject matter. But regardless of that, they are all very engaging and enlightening if you haven’t been paying close attention to Gibney’s subjects.
I’d agree that Gibney fails to dig too deeply into Thompson, but he does concoct an enticing and intoxicating portrait of the man and alternately, the myth.
I didn’t mind the selection of music, it all seemed perfectly reasonable, I just got tired of the constant jump from one slice of Americana music to another. It seemed there wasn’t 10 seconds of the doc that didn’t have some memorable tune from the era running behind it.
Otherwise, good doc.
As for Thompson’s departure, I’d like to think he gave America a pass on electing W the first time (since you could easily argue that he wasn’t elected at all). But after the re-election, Thompson just decided to check out on a country that had once again completely ignored the truth of the matter to act like used car salesmen.
I’m sure living the nightmare twice was likely incredibly frustrating for him. His 9/11 essay that opens the movie is incredibly prophetic.
True enough Joel; the music grew annoying after a while. This is one film where the lauded “advance” of expectations never quite panned out. Good, but hardly great.
Awesome review Craig, love how you included Hunter’s own words, one of the reasons I enjoyed the doc as well.
I would like to watch “Gonzo” again after I have read some of his work, get more familiar with him, and see what I think of the film after that. I only expect my feelings towards it to get stronger, I already loved it and I doubt knowing more about the genius could do me any harm.
Sam, as I said in the Watercooler thread, I thought Gibney dispensing with the usual bio material was a refreshing change.
Too often these things parse a person’s early life to come up with a bogus hook they can hang their later lives on. I think this is too simplistic.
In this case, he seized upon the incident where he went to jail and did time where his rich friends got away with it, but he didn’t dwell on the moment.
I think it was more about, not what made him a genius, but how that genius led to his ultimate demise and I’m not sure anything in his early life would necessarily illuminate that.
What I came away with was a sense of the continual peaks and valleys he went through. For such a venomous writer, I think he was an optimist at heart. Time and again he was a part of a moment in history that seemed to offer all the promise of the future, only to have it fall back into failure. Whether it was the 68 Democratic convention, one year after the Summer of Love, or his failed bid for Sherriff when he actually thought he had a chance, or the McGovern fiasco.
These are the things that ate at him I think. As Joel said,when Bush won a second time, I think it was the final bitter failure and the death of hope for him. If you read his writings up to the election, particularly in 03 and the early part of 04, he’s looking at Bush’s dismal ratings and he really believes, like many of us, that the bums were really going to be thrown out office, but then it turned out to be ‘72 all over again and the crooks won.
This is a magnificent eloboration, and from your point of you it is irrefutable, Craig.
Yet, in Thompson’s case, I still feel it might have enlightened us to covered at least a portion of the early years, as this is one juncture we have precious little info on, even at the danger of a bogus subtext. I liked the McGovern interviews, but felt that too large a portion of the film was expended on the 1972 election, even if, as you rightly contend, they defined the man.
This was surely a well-crafted film in many ways, but I felt it was incomplete from a motivational standpoint. I respect your beautifully stated views and the majority favorable concensus, but I lament at not liking it more myself.
Fair enough and I admit that much of my enthusiasm for the film is because of the subject.. It was almost a can’t-lose proposition. Unfortunate that it wasn’t stronger, but for me it was enough.
I can only based my comments on the film, but as Craig pointed out Thompson’s biographer and editor contributed the story about how Thompson was arrested as a young man and how this affected his views. I also got the impression (from the doc) that Thompson’s style and his Gonzo journalism were affected most directly by his experiences with the Hell’s Angels and with his early collaboration with Ralph Steadman on the Kentucky Derby.
Of course, the drugs and drinking didn’t hurt either, but I got the impression that the response to his Hell’s Angel book opened him to a more deliberate, less parochial style of journalism. Steadman opened him artistically to using journalism more directly as social commentary, since I have a feeling both were feeding each other’s work in very collaborative ways.
And this was a relevant and insightful contribution to the film Joel, no doubt about it. My issues with the film have more to do with what was not covered, rather than was was.
I thought the passages from FAER AND LOATHING IN LAS VEGAS were well incorporated, with all those acid-trip lizard aparitions well-envisioned.
Haha, wow it’s funny that I didn’t read this before I wrote my review. I WAS annoyed by the soundtrack - oh no!
A great review of a documentary, Craig. Though we differ on our appreciation of Thompson, I want to believe it’s not the reason I was more critical of the film.
I fall in line right behind Sam and Joel on this one. They’ve said as much as I did.
Oh well Danny, being our resident doc expert, I’m sorry “Gonzo” didn’t impress you more.
I’ve saved my reply for Getafilm.
Ha, “expert” - riight. I’m sorry as well, Nick. I wasn’t necessarily disappointed because I kind of knew there wouldn’t be a lot of exposition - doesn’t mean it shouldn’t have still been in there, though.
Well we’re not too far apart, Craig. Documentaries can rarely be considered “bad” or outright wastes of time, and wouldn’t describe Gonzo as either. As a matter of fact, in a lesser documentary year this might have looked better (even though that really shouldn’t matter). The bar has been set high this year, though. Any way you slice it, I’m glad the documentary field isn’t getting watered down yet with really meaningless stuff.
In other news, Man on Wire is apparently on the way here in the next few weeks…
Even the stuff that has appeared to be meaningless has turned out to be pretty good so far this year, Daniel. I’m really excited to see what’s coming in the Fall for docs.
I can sleep at night with you not embracing Gonzo, Daniel, but I will be disappointed if you don’t dig Man on Wire. No pressure. I’m just saying.
Hehe, well here we are - you building up my expectations on a documentary! I can’t wait.
Good point, Joel. That debated can start and end with the surprise that was Young@Heart, but I’d say both BiggerStronger and American Teen rose way above what I expected as well. On paper, those three seem, in a word, boring.