|
Movies
The Real Hunter S. ThompsonThe story of the reporter who became the story
GONZO: THE LIFE AND WORK OF DR. HUNTER S. THOMPSON Written and directed by Alex Gibney
Opens Friday, July 4 at Landmark's Century Centre
By J.R. Jones July 3, 2008
When Hunter S. Thompson killed himself in February 2005, my immediate, heartless, and thoroughly Hunter S. Thompson-esque reaction was: What took him so long? More than 30 years had passed since his last great book, Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail ’72, and he’d since descended into listless self-parody, writing solipsistic columns and burnishing his wild-man legend from the safety of his home in Woody Creek. As the father of “gonzo journalism” Thompson had pioneered a form in which the reporter becomes the story, but his long decline exposed the inherent flaw of such an approach: unless you have a ferocious inner life—which Thompson didn’t—eventually you find yourself with no story at all.
Alex Gibney’s last two feature documentaries, Taxi to the Dark Side (about the U.S. military’s torture of detainees) and Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room, are more important works of journalism than anything Thompson could bring himself to write in his later years. Compared to those movies, Gonzo: The Life and Work of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson feels a little soft and boomer-indulgent with its 10,000th rehash of the Nixon years and its soundtrack of trite 60s anthems. Gibney succeeds in dispelling Thompson’s cartoonish persona, returning the focus to his writing and celebrating its force and moral clarity. And some of the people interviewed are admirably honest in observing how Thompson betrayed his talent and let down his readers. Yet Gonzo shies away from assessing Thompson’s legacy in our modern media landscape, where a degraded gonzoism has only added to the cacophony.
One of the more fascinating clips Gibney unearthed is Thompson’s 1967 appearance on the TV game show To Tell the Truth, where celebrity panelists put questions to him and two impostors before a booming announcer asks, “Will the real Hunter Thompson please—stand—up!” The request hangs in the air throughout the movie, and Gibney assembles a complex and fascinating portrait of Thompson from the remarks of family members, editors (Jann Wenner, Douglas Brinkley), colleagues (Tom Wolfe, reporter Timothy Crouse, illustrator Ralph Steadman), and some of the politicians and operatives unlucky enough to have fallen under his merciless gaze (Gary Hart, Pat Buchanan, George McGovern, Jimmy Carter). The witnesses retail all the old stories of blown deadlines and drug-fueled writing binges, but they also reveal a man who cared deeply about his country and his art.
In a sense, though, the real Hunter Thompson stands up only in his own words, generously supplied in voice-over by his solemn acolyte Johnny Depp (who played him in Terry Gilliam’s 1998 adaptation of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas). The excerpt from Hell’s Angels, in which Thompson describes a white-knuckled spin on his Harley BSA Lightning Rocket, is enough to remind you how high he could soar when the spirit overtook him: “It was always at night, like a werewolf, that I would take the thing out for an honest run down the coast. I would start in Golden Gate Park, thinking only to run a few long curves to clear my head . . . but in a matter of minutes I’d be out at the beach with the sound of the engine in my ears, the surf booming up on the sea wall and a fine empty road stretching all the way down to Santa Cruz . . . that’s when the strange music starts. . . . 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.”
Published in 1967, Thompson’s chronicle of his time living and riding with the notorious motorcycle gang made him a paragon of the so-called New Journalism. In 1970 he moved from the margins to the center of the story when he ran for sheriff of Aspen, a quixotic campaign he later chronicled in the Rolling Stone piece “Freak Power in the Rockies.” When Thompson covered the Kentucky Derby that same year, the horse race was dispensed with in five sentences, the better to accommodate his take on the carnival surrounding it. By the time he wrote Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas in 1971, the news had become an annoyance: an assignment to cover a motorcycle race for Sports Illustrated gets pushed aside as Thompson and Chicano activist attorney Oscar Zeta Acosta (rechristened “Raoul Duke” and “Dr. Gonzo”), out of their minds on drugs, run amok in a Vegas hotel and elsewhere on a “savage journey to the heart of the American Dream.”
As Gonzo makes clear, the pitfalls of augmenting journalism with the techniques of fiction emerged when Rolling Stone assigned Thompson to cover George McGovern’s presidential campaign in 1972. In a panel discussion taped years later, Thompson chuckles as McGovern campaign manager Frank Mankiewicz calls Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail ’72 “the most accurate and least factual account of that campaign.” But Thompson’s mischief had real consequences when he speculated that Democratic candidate Edmund Muskie, whom he despised, was being treated with the obscure hallucinogenic drug Ibogaine by a shadowy Brazilian doctor. After Rolling Stone published his statement, thinking it too ridiculous for anyone to take seriously, it was picked up by the news wires as a legitimate story. “People really believed that Muskie was eating Ibogaine,” Thompson tells a TV interviewer. “I never said he was—said there was a rumor in Milwaukee that he was. Which was true, and I started the rumor in Milwaukee. . . . I’m a very accurate journalist.”
Gibney spends only about 20 minutes of his two-hour movie chronicling Thompson’s downward slide, which some interview subjects charitably ascribe to the writer’s unmanageable fame. Jann Wenner, Thompson’s long-suffering boss at Rolling Stone, claims he had trouble finding Thompson a story “big enough for his talent,” and Thompson himself recalls covering Jimmy Carter’s 1976 presidential run and being more heavily mobbed by fans than the candidate. After cartoonist Garry Trudeau turned him into a character in Doonesbury in 1974 and Bill Murray played him in the awful comedy Where the Buffalo Roam (1980), he began to feel like a captive to his own persona. “The myth has taken over,” he tells an interviewer. “And I find that I’m an appendage. I’m not only no longer necessary—I’m in the way. It would be much better if I died.”
Of course the partying also took its toll: one clip of home-video footage, shot in December 2002, shows a puffy Thompson boozing it up in front of his typewriter at 8 AM. Gonzo marks October 1974 as the beginning of the end, when Rolling Stone sent Thompson to Zaire to cover the “Rumble in the Jungle” between Muhammad Ali and George Foreman. Audiotape recorded in the journalist’s hotel room captures him raving like a lunatic during a cocaine binge, and instead of covering the event, which he was convinced would be a nonstory, he spent the day at the hotel pool. When the Ali-Foreman bout turned out to be one of the great fights of the century, Thompson came home with egg on his face, Rolling Stone spiked his piece, and as his first wife, Sondi Wright, recalls in the movie, he suffered a crisis of confidence from which he never really recovered.
Gonzo ends on a hollow note, with the lavish memorial Depp staged in Aspen for a crowd of some 280 glitterati and friends. (Per Thompson’s request, his ashes were shot out of a cannon.) Though Gibney tries to connect Thompson to the present by drawing parallels between Vietnam and the Iraq war, the fact that Thompson ended his career writing a self-indulgent blog for ESPN raises a more complicated issue: now that the news business is being colonized by celebrity commentators with their own self-serving agendas and ideologues barricaded in their bedrooms, how can we trust the accuracy or impartiality of anything we read or hear? In a way, Thompson’s rabid followers in the 70s were just early practicers of “cocooning,” or seeking out news that flatters your political biases to the exclusion of news that doesn’t. His boiling vitriol and satirical fictions seemed liberating then, but he might have been less free with his words if he’d realized his literary heir would be Ann Coulter. How’s that for a savage journey? 
Opens Fri 7/4 at Landmark’s Century Centre.
For more on movies, visit our blog On Film. Send a letter to the editor.
From the Reader blogs Chicagoland Whet Moser: The FDIC closed down five Illinois banks today. Thursday at 5:31 pm
|
Flag as inappropriate
BH. at 9:14 AM on 7/3/2008
Ann Coulter is HST's literary heir?! I probably wouldn't be writing this if you didn't present your statement as a commonly accepted fact. I've read a lot of criticism on HST and never heard him compared to Coulter once. Thompson was a maverick whose politics could be best described as libertarian (aka: hard to pin down), and though they're present in his writing, they're not the focus. Thompson used his twisted perspective as a method for delving into the heart of topics that every American could relate to; just see the McGovern campaign's quote on "Campaign Trail" you mention in your article. That book contains some of the most intelligent analysis of American politics I've ever read, something you're not going to get from Coulter. She's a reactionary talking head and attack dog, but most importantly: a propagandist. You won't find her on a "journey to the heart of the American Dream", she's too busy forging a brutal highway to some fucked-up nightmare.
Flag as inappropriate
JoeBu at 12:31 PM on 7/3/2008
"now that the news business is being colonized by celebrity commentators with their own self-serving agendas and ideologues barricaded in their bedrooms, how can we trust the accuracy or impartiality of anything we read or hear?"
This seems to suggest that, previously, one could trust certain formats/sources. "Yellow journalism" is nothing new. One might look at this issue from the opposite direction: by so blatantly exaggerating the subjectivity of the source, it might help reiterate the importance of questioning the reliability of any source, as most participants of the Spanish-American War might attest (or, more accurately, might have attested). I suppose, if one tried, one might find a similar, more current example where the "impartial" media, if not misled their readership, certainly "dropped the ball" that a whole lot of "ideologues barricaded in their bedrooms" held on to.
Flag as inappropriate
MDP at 1:32 PM on 7/3/2008
WHAT AN AMAZING PIECE OF SH#@...ANN COULTER IS NOT HST'S LITERARY HEIR...SHE WILL NEVER COMPARE AND FURTHER HER AND SEAN HANNITY AND LIMBAUGH AND ALL OF THOSE BLIND ZOMBIE MUTANT ASSHOLES OF AMERICA CAN NOT EVEN EAT SOME OF THE GOOD DOCTORS SHIT.THEY SHOULD ALL SHUT UP...THEY SQUABBLE AND THEY ARE ALL LIARS...THE FURTHEST THING FROM PATRIOTS.WHICH HUNTER WAS.AN AMERICAN REVOLUTIONARY..WHO PROVIDED ENTERTAINMENT AS WELL AS HONEST SATIRE.AS CLEARLY AS I CAN SEE HE HAS NO HEIR.HE SAID THE THINGS THAT SHOULD BE SAID ABOUT OUR BULLSHIT POLITICIANS...INSTEAD OF SUPPORTING MINDLESS FINANCIAL GAINS...THESE WAR FARMERS...WHO DO NOT AND WILL NOT FIGHT FOR ANYTHING WORTHWHILE EVER IN THEIR PITTIFUL AND PATHETIC LIVES!!WE CAN ALL CONTINUE TO LEARN FROM HST.ADD POETRY TO YOUR OWN LIVES...LIVE A LITTLE ON THE EDGE YOURSELF.EXPAND YOUR MINDS...BE BETTER AMERICANS..WORK HARDER FOR THE FUTURE..IT IS ON TOP OF US NOW...IF YOU ARE NOT CAREFUL IT WILL WRAP IT'S CLAWS AROUND YOUR NECK AND CHOKE THE LIFE OUT OF YOU!!VIVA LA REVOLUTION!!!!LONG LIVE THE GONZO POWER
Flag as inappropriate
Irv at 4:51 PM on 7/3/2008
I knew Hunter Thompson was crud on the wall on the evening I saw him interviewed by an admiring Charlie Rose, who had asked him why he never completed some cool story assignment that I no longer recall, and the fabled Gonzo simply and crudely said, "Because there wasn't enough money in it."
No real writer who prized his game would ever back away from a real story on account of money, and I could see him for the fraud he actually was.
Flag as inappropriate
Chris Stewart at 5:02 PM on 7/3/2008
I was with you (mostly) until you made "THE COMPARISON"
If you don't understand a subject, please don't write about it. Your comparison was insulting. It is obvious that you just didn't quite get it.
Stuben
Flag as inappropriate
Jeremy at 6:15 PM on 7/3/2008
If you read the entirety of the last paragraph, I think it's pretty clear that Jones isn't so much comparing Coulter to Thompson than simply suggesting that Thompson's biased form of journalism indirectly paved the way for the likes of Coulter. Jones even states that Thompson would be "less free with his words" if he knew he was opening doors for commentators like Coulter, which implies that there is a telling difference between the two figures. I believe Jones is being more generous in his "comparison" (which to me functions more as a healthy provocation, a la Rosenbaum) than many of backlashes let on.
I really enjoyed your piece, Jones. And I consider myself a Thompson fan.
Flag as inappropriate
Phil Lesh at 10:48 AM on 7/6/2008
You sir, are an absolute moron. "Ann Coulter" - stopped reading right there.
Flag as inappropriate
J.R. Jones at 4:06 PM on 7/6/2008
Good thing I put it right at the end.
Flag as inappropriate
Karl at 9:51 PM on 7/6/2008
As someone who wasn't born until long after Thompson's greatest works, I wasn't around when he was changing the face of journalism and can only see the result. As such, I think I can see what Jones is getting at with the Coulter comparison. The technique is similar, perhaps without the art or the openness about the fictional parts. Still, people like Coulter took what Thompson did and used it for their own ends. Perhaps they'd have done it anyway without him, but he works as a model.
Flag as inappropriate
Beezup at 9:07 AM on 7/7/2008
You're not only a moron, you can't read nor get an intern to check facts... Dr. Thompson rode a BSA Lightning, which he detailed a few lines prior to your quote. Harleys of that era were not sporting gear.
Flag as inappropriate
J.R. Jones at 11:29 AM on 7/7/2008
Thanks for the correction, but there's no mention of the bike's model just prior to the quote. There is, however, a passage about Thompson choosing the bike in Chapter 8, about 225 pages earlier.
As for those who disagree with my assertion that Thompson's invective lowered the level of discourse, and who reacted by calling me a moron--well, I think you see the problem.
Flag as inappropriate
Michael Reed at 2:08 PM on 7/8/2008
Please! All you morons out there who are busy calling J.R. Jones a moron for comparing Ann Coulter to HST, please read the paragraph again for god’s sakes!
Jones is NOT making a literal or direct comparison anyone. He is comparing Thompson’s TECHNIQUE, which in the 70’s was unique, insightful and helped us make sense of those times, to how it has been overused and watered down and may be used far less brilliantly by others, including for example, Ann Coulter.
Flag as inappropriate
john thompson at 11:23 AM on 7/9/2008
Hey Jones I enjoyed the article and you've got some angles there I might not have considered. Personally I cherished Thompson's lust for true freedom and his nearly pure hatred of those that abuse power. I think some of his later writing(Kingdom of Fear) is insightful even if it reveals a writer whose intelligence has been diminished by chemicals.
He's no hero to me but in a chickenshit country of conformists I give him more respect than you seem to.
Flag as inappropriate
Sophia Mihic at 7:58 PM on 7/14/2008
Hunter, like Abbie Hoffman who comes to mind here as well, could think hard and well enough to be able to follow the point Jones was making about the STYLISTIC similarities between HST and the Pig Circus including Coulter that now rules us. Judging from these comments misunderstanding the comparison, our loss is greater than I had thought.
Flag as inappropriate
john thompson at 12:36 PM on 7/15/2008
Yes Sophia the nature of the comparison is clear if superfluous. It should require no capital letters. Notice that Jones refers to some of Mr. Thompson's writing as "solopsistic" and speculates on the deficiencies in Mr. Thompson's "inner life".
It's easy to be flippant and dismissive-isn't it?
Flag as inappropriate
SLW at 5:22 PM on 7/18/2008
I've read other no-so-nice reviews of his life and work and while they make some valid points, to a person the authors always fail to mention that they themselves will never have as much of an impact on their profession or their culture as HST did. I guess that fact goes without saying since he managed to create a legend and then make a living off of it, after all, and how many writers can say that.
Flag as inappropriate
J.R. Jones at 7:31 AM on 7/26/2008
Fair enough: I will never have as much of an impact on my profession or my culture as HST did. But Thompson was most valuable as a reporter, and once a reporter becomes focused on creating a legend and making a living off of it, he's not a reporter at all. He's--gulp--Ann Coulter.
Flag as inappropriate
Pat H. at 7:55 PM on 7/30/2008
Come on now J.R.--you really want to judge Thompson as a "reporter"? I agree he wasn't much of one, but he was a writer, the one that proved writers can be rock stars, too. Get with it--do you care so much about your "craft" as a reporter that refuse to be kick-ass enough to party and get laid while doing it? The approach you're talking about is the watered-down schoolboy prose of journalism majors, and it's boring. I like reading your stuff, but hopefully they didn't neuter your style too much back in school and you can actually develop a personality.
Flag as inappropriate
b.s. garp at 12:04 PM on 7/31/2008
Jonathan Rosenbaum made the Critical Pantheon! And so did Dave Kehr! See the results at http://www.theworldwiderag.com/preemptive_strike_sight_unseen_movie_reviews
Flag as inappropriate
LT at 9:35 PM on 8/20/2008
I'm a great admirer of HST, very much so. As such, I appreciate a critical review that helps to punch through the hagiography that began after FL in LV and has accelerated since his death. For all his incisive and striking commentary, HST could be a deeply narcissistic writer. Moreover - and I'm thinking of his work for Rolling Stone in 2004 - his commitments became too mainstreamed; his writing about Kerry stinks of cheer-leading and seems to suggest a more instrumentalist commitment than anything I've seen elsewhere. The comparison to Coulter may not be the deftest element of this article, but I take to heart the suggestion that once certain boundaries are crossed, the worst of the written word can adopt the mantle of "journalism". In this sense, you're right to suggest that Coulter is the heir to Thompson's legacy, however appalling her myopic offal may be. She may not be his literary creation, and they're a few generations removed to say the least, but she flourishes in a world of unapologetically biased, personality-driven "news". The downward slide is as essential as the free-wheeling, misanthropic benders with Acosta. Well done. (I'm now prepared to be skewered along with the authors by sundry hackneyed hagiographers).
Flag as inappropriate
Wombat King at 8:29 PM on 11/13/2008
Thompson, Coulter,what's the difference? Selfish, self-centered, self-promoting, self-absorbed, etc, etc punks.
On the other hand, what else do we have left? Anna Quindlan? yuck.
Flag as inappropriate
Carl Howard at 5:34 PM on 6/21/2009
I thought it was a decent piece.
Add a comment