Hollywood On Drugs: Narcotic RealismJun 07 '02 Write an essay on this topic.
Popular Products in Movies
The Bottom Line Narcotic realism can be defined as a film that deals with drugs that also has a “disjunction, fragmented, cryptic, and haunting” visual approach to its delivery.
Traditionally Hollywood has always had a harder time approaching subjects that are considered unprofitable. Since most Americans are conservative in nature, films about drugs and the effects of them are hardly ever produced. Although there are a handful of movies that deal with the effects of drugs; Drugstore Cowboy, New Jack City, Man With The Golden Arm, these films present drug usage in traditional Hollywood mise-en-cine. For purposes of this paper I am going to narrow the definition even more. In the past “drug films” have been classified as films that deal with drugs in subject, but in the past few years both Hollywood and the Independent scene have produced films that deal with drugs more on a cinematic approach. Therefore, when one watches a “drug movie”, they are not just seeing the positive or negative effects that can occur, they are looking into the visual confusion and abstract representations that make up drugs. This newfound exploration into “drug films” can be re-categorized as narcotic realism. In essence, watching a “drug movie” is almost the same as being on drugs. This paper will explore how narcotic realism is represented in Hollywood and the independent scene by drawing upon the films Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas directed by Terry Gilliam, and Illtown directed by Nick Gomez. Narcotic realism can be defined as a film that deals with drugs that also has a “disjunction, fragmented, cryptic, and haunting” visual approach to its delivery. Both Fear and Illtown approach the topic of drugs in this manner, however they do it in different degrees of both usage, and success. Fear is unable to break completely into the realm of narcotic realism because it is a Hollywood studio production. Since Hollywood has a standard for not producing any movies, which have the potential to not make a profit, they are bound to avoid in full any production that dwells in narcotic realism. Fear does however make an interesting and semi-successful approach, by using awkward camera movements, and optical effects that lend a hand to the strangeness of the subject matter. Fear begins with the two main characters driving down a desert road on their way to Las Vegas. This may sound like any other driving buddy movie, but Fear throws at you a camera which constantly moves up and down, side to side, and forward and backward, placing the viewer into what has to be a drug state without the use of any drugs. As the film progress and the characters ingest more and more drugs, the visuals keep pace, by throwing in optical illusions which not only the characters experience, but the viewers as well. There is however one restriction that Fear is unable to overcome. Since it is a Hollywood production, which carries with it the potential for a big backlash by its consumers, it hides itself under the defense of it being just, one big joke. This is accomplished by a constant narration by the main character Duke, played by Johnny Depp. Throughout the course of the film, Duke narrates what his character is doing, but in a more simplified, direct, and straightforward way. In a sense, the character of Duke is under the influence of drugs, but Duke, the narrator is not. Therefore, we hear how Duke wants to interact throughout this film, but see how his character is unable to accomplish these desires. The visuals then act as an example of his inability to balance both his life and drugs from a second person standpoint, which is not how the character truly feels and desires. Hollywood could then say that since this film may be displaying a sense of narcotic realism, it is not narcotic realism because the visual abstractness is only being used to represent the visual flashbacks that the narrator remembers. Since we can hear what the character truly desires, (and in these moments the camera remains virtually still) the picture is not about realism, but a trip down the road of how the character’s mind remembers what it was like to be on drugs. More towards the true side of narcotic realism, Illtown places the characters and viewers into a constant, never-ending state of being under the influence of drugs. What separates Illtown from Fear is Illtown constantly barrages the viewer with images of drug usage from start to finish. Illtown also does not apologize for any of its images, nor does it soften it by poking fun at its representations. The main reason why Illtown is successful in its representation of narcotic realism is it doesn’t need to highly concern itself with the need for a huge profit nor, does it concern itself with the moral backlash from audience members. A prime example of how a film can receive a backlash once introduced and passed around within the Hollywood scene, can be exemplified by the foreign film, Trainspotting. On one level, Trainspotting is a foreign film, which became very popular in oversee markets. Once Hollywood picked it up, and began distributing it through the United States, Miramax, which is owned by Disney, came under fire from audience members and organizations for its seemingly positive display of drug usage. Although the characters in the film experience death and tragedy as a result of their addiction, by showing the usage of drugs and the visual representations that are a result of being on drugs, the film was labeled as glorifying and promoting drug usage. It is this criticism that Fear fought to avoid, by not completely taking itself seriously. On the opposite side of the moral spectrum is the Independent creation of Illtown which written and directed by Nick Gomez, and produced by the Independent company The Shooting Gallery. Like Fear, Illtown surrounds itself with acute camera angles, and a constant use of dreamy landscapes, optical effects, and an editing style straight out of a drug trip. Characters fade into scenes “simulating the effect of a stoned person’s gradually taking in the presence of someone new”, religious figures speak wisdom, and there even lies a constant musical drone throughout the movie, which acts as a constant heartbeat in-between beats. In an interview with Nick Gomez he states, it is a film about “literal addiction, but also addiction to a certain kind of moviemaking.” He is addicted to placing the audience members into the shoes of his drug selling and drug using characters. Since the state of drugs is unsettling and abstract, the movie must represent and transform this state into images. What makes Illtown more successful on one plane, is the absence of any moral conclusion to satisfy any audience concerns. Nick Gomez writes, “I’m always interested in trying to manipulate a certain kind of audience morality. It seems playful to take people who are usually demonized—the little kids who’ll steal your car, the people who are selling heroin to your kids—and make them the heroes.” Whereas Fear played off its narcotic realism by including the possible defense that it was one big joke, Illtown throws at the audience a group of young adults who kill other kids in the name of honor in the world of drugs. In another twist, Illtown has two gay characters be the untouchable, drug lords who control the world of drugs and all those that are under their rule. In essence, Illtown is about realism, and not submitting itself to the confines of how the drug business is stereotypically presented. The world of drugs can be ruled by anyone, and not just whites or blacks who in past films have represented the two main figures of drug movies. Through the use of an abundance of white empty space, and doves, which represent a sort of godliness, these figures are as real as any others when it comes to the world of distributing drugs. Illtown returns to the true definition of realism, and thrives on breaking any boundaries of what Hollywood has taught us realism to symbolize. Another key factor in the differences between Fear and Illtown can be traced back to the reviews each received prior to their opening nights. On one level, Fear was promoted as an experimental Hollywood picture, while Illtown was labeled an art house independent film, reminiscent of Jim Jarmusch. What is interesting is when Hollywood attempts to take a stab at being artier, they are labeled instead as experimental or “it’s like nothing ever made before by a Hollywood studio.” Only one reviewer looked closely at Fear and came up with quite possibly the hidden story that was buried under Hollywood’s defense mechanisms. Fear is about “an apocalyptic lost weekend that is an escape from, response to, and conceptual-art commentary on middle-class nightmare that is mid-century American life.” What this reviewer picked up upon, and that the others missed is that Fear indeed was trying to say something about, and make us remember how greatly drugs influenced a certain era of American life. In the 60’s everything was unstable. Our government was in chaos, there were tons of movements, and people were become more open and expressive than any previous period. Fear may have been made just last year, but it was commenting on what life was like back in the 60’s, and as many know who lived back then, drugs were a part of life. “But that Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas got made at all, and with such disregard for political correctness and social norms, is a miracle. If it’s a difficult film to relax with and chuckle at, maybe that’s doing the 60’s a service.” What Fear was trying to do, was make us remember how life used to be, and how drugs influenced a whole generation. It is sad however, that a director like Gillian would present a story that retells the life of the 60’s, but at the same time in order to defend itself against the American audiences it never takes itself completely serious. Kathleen Murphy writes, “Gomez threats his movies like expanding, growing art—not a line of static money-machines assembled by formula.” What makes Illtown an amazing art film, is its constant travel towards examining the inner space that exists between its characters, and audience. “A film of looks and silences, offbeat exchanges, and unexplained gestures, slow disclosure and abrupt explosions of violence, it invents an unlikely idiom of metaphysical, contemplative lowlife where what’s ultimately at stake are souls and psyches, not money and status.” When Illtown was released, it was reviewed as a film that got inside the inner workings of the drug culture by making a certain kind of moviemaking. What is ironic, is while reviewers will look at how a film like Fear speaks to the public about culture and social standards of a particular era of American history, when Illtown is reviewed it is classified as more about an experiment into the construction of the film. As a result, what occurs is who wants to go see the movie Illtown when it is reviewed as a film about how a director looked at the world of drug usage and portrayed it upon the screen. This is enough to scare anyone away, which does not dwell on the life of drugs, and enough to make Illtown one of the best-unseen films of the year. In conclusion, the main problem with considering a film to be narcotic realism, is that depending on who produces it, audience members may backlash against the genre creating more problems for the studio. As is the case with many experimental genres within Hollywood, they never take themselves seriously, as to always have a defense to promote in case they do ever come under fire from audiences and/or organizations. The Independent scene could care less weather or not a backlash occurs, because they are not trying to promote their projects to the majority of Americans, but to just those that are more concerned with the art of a film, instead of how much money it can make. Unfortunately, the Independent scene hurts underneath the constant misinformation that is printed in newspapers and magazines about how to view a particular picture, because it fails to fit in with what Hollywood is doing. So in a sense, it’s a double-edged sword. The independent market can continue to put out films full of art, but will forever be sacrificed by reviewers who have become over time poisoned by what Hollywood has thrown at their visual cortexes. In terms of narcotic realism, it seems that this newly created genre is better suited to remain within just the independent scene. For as long as Hollywood completely considers its projects on how much money they can make, they are never going to be true to the definition of narcotic realism. Instead they will create projects that have an influence of narcotic realism, but never take it seriously, which in a way destroys the essence of the genre. ----------------------- Note: This paper was written in 1998 before more recent movies such as Blow. Note: This paper was initially submitted for a “review” (we did not have grades) at the University of California, Santa Cruz (UCSC) for the class Experimental Filmmaking 1960-Present of which I was a student of. My professor noted that although I made a firm presentation on my hypothesis – that I failed to back up my position completely with hard evidence already written in literature. I passed the class nonetheless. Note: This paper borrows quotes and statements from the following pieces. Smith, Gavin. Film Comment, v32, n5. 64. Copyright 1996. Savolv, Mark. “Illtown”. Review, San Francisco Chronicle. Page E16. Copyright 1998 Smith, Gavin. Film Comment, v32, n5. 64. Copyright 1996. Smith, Gavin. Film Comment, v32, n5. 64. Copyright 1996. Savolv, Mark. “Illtown”. Review, San Francisco Chronicle. Page E16. Copyright 1998 Atkinson, Michael. Review from LA times web site. www.latimes.com. Copyright 1998 Atkinson, Michael. Review from LA times web site. www.latimes.com. Copyright 1998 Atkinson, Michael. Review from LA times web site. www.latimes.com. Copyright 1998 Murphy, Kathlen. Film Comment, v32, n5. 53. Sept-Oct. 1996. Copyright 1996 Smith, Gavin. Film Comment, v32, n5. 64. Copyright 1996.  |
| Write the first comment on this review! |
