"...the main purpose of criticism...is not to make its readers agree, nice as that is, but to make them, by whatever orthodox or unorthodox method, think." - John Simon

"The great enemy of clear language is insincerity." - George Orwell
Showing posts with label Giovanni Ribisi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Giovanni Ribisi. Show all posts

Friday, May 24, 2013

Lost in Translation

In 1999, Sofia Coppola made her feature film directorial debut with the spellbinding adaptation of Jeffrey Eugenides’ novel, The Virgin Suicides. The film was a modest hit and heralded the young director as an emerging talent. Her follow-up was a much more personal project, written while she was going through a rough spot in her marriage and inspired by time she had spent in Japan trying to figure out what she wanted to do with her life. She poured out her feelings of loneliness and confusion and the result was Lost in Translation (2003), an independent film starring Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson as two lonely people who meet in a posh Tokyo hotel and bond over insomnia and absent spouses. Coppola’s film is a fascinating fusion of the chatty meet-cute between two people in a foreign country from Before Sunrise (1995) with the stylish existential ennui of Wong Kar-Wai’s In the Mood for Love (2000). It was a surprise hit, striking a chord with many who identified with the romantic longing that developed between the two main characters. Lost in Translation received numerous awards and critical praise while also establishing Coppola as a major talent.

With the first appearance of Bob Harris (Bill Murray), Coppola conveys that disorienting feeling of arriving in a strange place while being jetlagged. In this case, it is the neon-drenched urban sprawl that is Tokyo. He’s making a whiskey commercial instead of being at home where his wife is redecorating his study. Bob is also missing his son’s birthday and doesn’t seem all that upset about it; or rather he’s resigned himself to it. One gets the feeling that he’d rather be thousands of miles away than with his family. He’s an aging action movie star who has probably spent most of his time on movie sets.

Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson) is staying at the same hotel with her photographer husband John (Giovanni Ribisi). Much like Bob, she can’t sleep and stays behind in the hotel while he runs off on photo shoots with a band. We get some insight into how she’s feeling when the young woman calls a friend back in the United States. They start with the usual idle chit-chat, but pretty soon she’s choking back tears and blurts out, “I don’t know who I married,” before quickly ending the conversation so she can cry. It is an incredibly vulnerable moment that Scarlett Johansson conveys so well. All the feelings that have been bubbling under the surface finally come out. We’re never quite sure the source of marital strife between her and John, but it is probably getting married too young and that he is always busy while she follows him from job to job.

Bob bravely soldiers on through the commercial, but it isn’t made easy by his translator who is not telling him exactly what the director wants. Coppola doesn’t use any subtitles during this scene so that we are as bewildered and frustrated as Bob. Like Charlotte, he is unhappy; tired of pimping whisky and is eager to leave the country as soon as possible. That night, he takes refuge in the hotel bar where the house band (an ex-pat. group rather amusingly named Sausalito) performs a bad cover of “Scarborough Fair,” much to his and Charlotte’s bemusement, who is there with John. She buys Bob a drink and they exchange a nod of acknowledgement from across the room, but don’t actually meet. This is the beginning of relationship that develops between these two lonely people who feel lost in Japan and find solace in each other’s company.


As the film progresses, we get additional insight into the Charlotte and John’s relationship. Her feelings of estrangement are only reinforced when she and John run into Kelly (Anna Faris), a popular American actress in town to promote her latest movie (her press conference is a hoot as she spouts all kinds of cliché celebrities dish out during these kinds of junkets). John and Kelly engage in mindless banter (“Oh my god, I have worst B.O. right now,” she says at one point), much to Charlotte’s bemusement and thinly-veiled contempt. She has just graduated from college last spring and isn’t sure what she wants to do.

In his own dry way, Bob has no illusions about his lot in life as he tells Charlotte that is trip to Japan is basically, “taking a break from my wife, forgetting my son’s birthday, and getting paid $2 million for endorsing a whiskey when I could be doing a play somewhere.” Bill Murray delivers a wonderfully nuanced performance that expands on the sad sack businessman he played in Wes Anderson’s Rushmore (1998). Much of the role in Lost in Translation calls for his trademark charm and dry sarcasm, but it also requires him to dig deeper the more time Bob spends with Charlotte, allowing her past his façade. In doing so, Bob lets us in as well and we sympathize with the actor because we get to know him as he reveals personal details to her.

Towards the end of the film, Bob’s relationship with his wife gets more fractured as she tells him how their kids miss him, “but they’re getting used to you not being here. Do I need to worry about you, Bob?” to which he replies, “Only if you want to.” This is quite possibly the most heartbreaking line in the film as one assumes that Bob is probably headed for a divorce once he returns home. His self-destructive habits surface and we get some insight into why he and his wife are so estranged. This also affects his friendship with Charlotte and the temporary spell that was cast over them has been lifted and reality rears its ugly head.

Interspersed throughout Lost in Translation are little visual interludes, like a nice shot of Charlotte sitting on the windowsill of her hotel room with the city surrounding her in the background, that suggest solitude. There is also a montage of sights and sounds when she leaves the hotel to experience Japanese culture, but finds navigating public transportation a bit disorienting and overwhelming, which Coppola conveys through hand-held camerawork that puts us right in the thick of the city’s hustle and bustle. We see Japanese culture through Charlotte’s eyes and Coppola does a nice job with these snapshots, gradually immersing us in this world so that we identify even more with Bob and Charlotte.


The centerpiece of Lost in Translation is when Bob and Charlotte go out for a night on the town and meet a few of her friends. This sequence not only allows us to see more of Japanese culture, but it also gives Murray a chance to riff on the situations and people Bob and Charlotte encounter. Coppola immerses us fully in the sights and sounds of the city, like the nightclub that is decorated with huge white weather balloons that allow images to be projected on them.

If, early on, Coppola seemed to be falling back on Japanese stereotypes of their people and culture (most notably the prostitute who wants Bob to “rip her stockings,” which is particularly cartoonish and awkward, temporarily breaking the hypnotic, dreamy spell that Coppola casts), it is here she goes deeper and we see that Charlotte’s Japanese friends are just like any other twentysomethings. There are all kinds of nice touches, like the conversation Bob carries on with a young Japanese man in French, or the playful image of Bob, Charlotte and their friends running through the streets while someone shoots at them with a BB gun. The night culminates in the best moment where they all hangout at someone’s apartment and end up singing karaoke. Charlotte (wearing an adorable pink wig) serenades Bob when she sings a cover of “Brass in Pocket” by The Pretenders while Bob sings “(What’s so Funny ‘Bout) Peace, Love and Understanding,” before working his way through a surprisingly moving rendition of “More Than This” by Roxy Music.

It is this scene where Bob and Charlotte forget their troubles and lose themselves in the moment. We see them smile, laugh and have a good time. The looks they exchange during this scene suggest a growing attraction between them. It is rather telling that she is able to sleep for the first time since she arrived in Japan after the special night they had together. He is even able to doze off in the taxi ride back to the hotel. What I find interesting is how their second night out is in sharp contrast to the first one. Charlotte meets Bob in a cavernous nightclub populated by unattractive-looking topless dancers gyrating to “Fuck the Pain Away” by Peaches. They don’t stay long, head back to the hotel where they stop briefly at the bar, but after spotting Kelly singing “Nobody Does It Better” horribly off-key they call it a night. Only insomnia keeps them both awake and eventually she hangs out in his room. They talk deep into the night and Charlotte eventually confesses to Bob that she’s “stuck” in her life and asks him, “Does it get any easier?” to which he replies, “The more you know who you are and what you want, the less you let things upset you.”

Charlotte doesn’t know what she wants to do. She tells him that she tried writing and photography, but was unhappy with both. Charlotte asks Bob about marriage and if it gets any easier to which he replies, “That’s hard,” and speaks wistfully about how he and his wife used to have fun, but everything got complicated once they had kids. It’s a wonderful scene where we see these characters at their most vulnerable. Murray drops all his shtick and conveys an honesty that is surprising. What is so magical about it is how these two characters are able to coax all of this personal stuff out of each other. Once they are removed from all the noise and chaos of the world around them are they able to speak honestly to each other and let down their guard. By this point, we’ve grown to care about them and have become invested in their relationship.

Lost in Translation came from a very personal place, so much so that Sofia Coppola was worried that very few people would be able to relate to it. The film was inspired by the time she spent wandering around Tokyo after graduating from college. A friend of hers was doing a fashion show in Japan and asked for help producing it. Once there, she met Fumihiro Hayashi a.k.a. Charlie Brown (who plays himself in the film), who ran a magazine and hired her to take photographs. She spent a lot of time driving around in her friend’s car, listening to music and taking in the sights. “Tokyo is just such an exciting city – totally visually interesting, crazy and overwhelming.” She also wanted to capture the feeling of being jetlagged in a strange city: “I’ve had my share of jet-lagged moments. Being in a hotel, and jet-lagged, kind of distorts everything. Even little things that are no big deal feel epic when you’re in that mood. Your emotions are exaggerated, it’s hard to find your way around, it’s lonely.”


Coppola started off writing different little impressions she had of her time in Tokyo. From that, she wrote a bunch of short stories and collected pictures for the visuals. She then used that as the basis for her screenplay. When writing it, Coppola based the character of Charlotte on herself when she was younger and faced the dilemma of “What am I gonna do?” She was also trying to figure out her marriage to then-husband Spike Jonze, who, at the time, was a very in-demand music video director and filmmaker. She said in an interview, “My friends said, ‘Finish the script and you’ll know what to do.’ I think I had doubts, but I didn’t listen to them because I was young.”

The character of Bob Harris was written with Bill Murray in mind and came out of her imaging what he would be like in Tokyo. She said, “He has something that’s really sincere and heartfelt, but really funny and at the same time … tragic.” She was a fan of his movies and always wanted to work with him. Several moments in the film came from things she had observed in real life, like the hotel bar band covering “Scarborough Fair,” and seeing her friend Fumihiro Hayashi performing a karaoke rendition of “God Save the Queen.” After seeing her friend in action, she realized, “I have to put this in a movie.” She also wanted to specifically set it at the Park Hyatt hotel because she had stayed there during her press tour for The Virgin Suicides and was familiar with it. Coppola spent six months writing the script and during that time she got stuck after the first 20 pages and went back to Tokyo to remember the parts of the city she liked.

To help out with the music for the film, Coppola enlisted the services of Brian Reitzell, veteran member of the Los Angeles band Redd Kross and who had worked with her on The Virgin Suicides. Coppola told him the kind of mood she wanted to convey and, having spent time in Japan as well, he understood what she wanted. Per her request, Reitzell compiled three mixes, homemade CDs that contained ambient tracks with artists as varied as Brian Eno and The Jesus and Mary Chain. She listened to these mixes while writing the script and then played them while scouting locations. When it came to score the film, Reitzell licensed several tracks from his mixes and also enlisted the help of My Bloody Valentine frontman Kevin Shields to help compose some original music. Reitzell said, “I knew he could capture that droning, swaying, beautiful kind of feeling that we wanted.”

Coppola saw Scarlett Johansson in Manny & Lo (1996) and thought she was “a cute girl with that husky voice.” After a brief lunch meeting in a Manhattan diner Coppola cast the young actress in her film. The director said, “She can convey an emotion without saying very much at all.” With Murray, Coppola spent eight months tracking down and trying to convince the notoriously elusive comedian to star in her film by sending him letters, leaving voicemail messages and asking mutual friends, like filmmaker Wes Anderson, to put in a good word. All of this hustling paid off as Murray finally agreed to do the film. However, the actor had his doubts: “The whole thing felt slight, which was a little troubling,” but she was persistent and convinced him that this was a passion project for her.


Coppola did very little rehearsing before filming; just once with Johansson and Giovanni Ribisi so that they could convincingly play a married couple. Leading up to principal photography, Coppola was still unsure if Murray was actually going to show up, but a week before it was to start he arrived in Japan, much to her relief. The shoot lasted 27 days in Tokyo on a $4 million budget with the cast and crew staying in the Tokyo Hyatt where much of the film was set. Johansson met Murray in Tokyo and the next day they started filming so the chemistry that develops between their characters mirrored the actors in real life. With very little money and shooting permits, Coppola and her small crew shot a lot of the film guerrilla style, utilizing hand-held camerawork on the streets and sneaking shots on public transportation.

Lost in Translation received overwhelmingly positive reviews from critics. Roger Ebert gave the film four out of four stars and wrote, “Bill Murray has never been better. He doesn’t play ‘Bill Murray’ or any other conventional idea of a movie star, but invents Bob Harris from the inside out, as a man both happy and sad with his life – stuck, but resigned to being stuck.” In his review for The New York Times, Elvis Mitchell wrote, “Ms. Coppola has shown an interest in emotional way stations. Her characters are caught between past and future – lost in translation. Perhaps her films are a kind of ongoing metaphorical autobiography … There’s a lot up there on the screen, plenty to get lost in.” Entertainment Weekly gave it an “A” rating and Lisa Schwarzbaum wrote, “Melancholy and longing have rarely looked so attractive – even desirable – nor has a movie with opportunities for ‘Lolita’-hood been turned so subtle, wise and often funny a study of chance encounter.” The New York Observer’s Andrew Sarris wrote, “Of course, Mr. Murray gets all the laughs with his exquisite timing and wry delivery, but Ms. Johansson makes an eloquent and charismatic listener; it’s in her alert and intelligent responses to Bob’s malaise that his passions toward her are ignited.”

USA Today gave the film three-and-a-half out of four stars and Mike Clark wrote, “Coppola’s second feature offers quiet humor in lieu of the bludgeoning direct assaults most comedies these days inflict.” Time magazine’s Richard Corliss wrote, “Sofia Coppola has a witty touch with dialogue that sounds improvised yet reveals, glancingly her characters’ dislocation. She’s a real mood weaver, with a gift for goosing placid actors … and mining a comic’s deadpan depths.” In his review for the Village Voice, J. Hoberman wrote, “Coppola evokes the emotional intensity of a one-night stand far from home—but what she really gets is the magic of movies … By the cold light of day it’s difficult to believe that, as individuated as the performances are, this sad middle-aged man and that restless young wife could ever feel so deeply for each other but it’s shivery to think so.” Finally, the Los Angeles Times’ Kenneth Turan wrote, “The film itself – tart and sweet, unmistakably funny and exceptionally well observed – marks the arrival of 32-year-old writer-director Sofia Coppola as a mature talent with a distinctive sensibility and the means to express it.”


Much like many of the protagonists in Wong Kar-Wai’s films, Bob and Charlotte connect for a brief moment in time. It may be fleeting, but that does not diminish its significance. They were there for each other when they needed human contact the most, someone to connect with at a low point in their respective lives when they felt alone and adrift in life. We’ve all felt this way at some point in our lives, which makes Lost in Translation very relatable. There is a yearning, not just by the characters, but we are meant to feel it too because we want to see Bob and Charlotte together despite their marriages to other people. Coppola sums up this wistful feeling of unrequited love best in the final scene that is scored to “Just Like Honey” by The Jesus and Mary Chain. Bob hugs Charlotte and whispers something unintelligible in her ear when the opening drumbeat of the song kicks in. It is a sublime moment that is rich with emotion because we’ve been on a journey with these characters and are invested in them. Bob and Charlotte head back to their respective lives, much like the main characters at the end of Before Sunrise, with the knowledge that their lives have been enriched by the brief time they spent together. Coppola ends on a series of shots of the city, but they look different because of the journey we’ve been on with these characters. We now see things in a different way.


SOURCES

Betts, Kate. “Sofia’s Choice.” Time. September 15, 2003.

Diaconescu, Sorina. “An Upstart, Casual But Confident.” The Times. September 7, 2003.

Galloway, Steve. “Sofia Coppola: The Trials, Tears and Talent.” The Hollywood Reporter. May 8, 2013.

Hirschberg, Lynn. “The Coppola Smart Mob.” The New York Times. August 31, 2003.

Hundley, Jessica. “An Invisible Role.” The Times. September 11, 2003.

Mitchell, Wendy. “Sofia Coppola Talks about Lost in Translation.” indieWIRE. December 14, 2009.

Thompson, Anne. “Tokyo Story.” Filmmaker. Fall 2003.

Topel, Fred. “Sofia Coppola on Lost in Translation.” Screenwriter’s Monthly. September 23, 2003.


Vernon, Polly. “Scarlett Fever.” The Observer. December 27, 2003.

Friday, December 14, 2012

The Rum Diary



I approached my viewing of The Rum Diary (2011) with equal parts anticipation and trepidation. With the exception of Where the Buffalo Roam (1980) and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998), writer Hunter S. Thompson has not seen many of his books adapted into films and with good reason. His often crazed and surreal first person narratives are largely internalized with his trademark colorful descriptions of people and places not easy to replicate visually. Just watch Where the Buffalo Roam to see what I mean. Terry Gilliam, however, was able to pull it off with the cult classic Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, which featured Johnny Depp uncannily channeling Thompson. The actor also became quite close to the legendary writer, even becoming an unofficial guardian of his legacy after Thompson died in 2005. This included seeing his novel The Rum Diary made into a film. However, the journey to get it made took 11 years with several actors signed on only to eventually drop out; mirroring the rocky journey Thompson himself took to get his book published.

Based on his experiences writing for a doomed sports newspaper in San Juan, Puerto Rico in 1960, Thompson wrote the book in the early 1960s and tried to get several publishers interested until numerous rejection letters later left him so discouraged that he gave up and wrote about politics during the ‘60s and 1970s. Then, in the 1990s, he was motivated by nostalgia… and money to dust it off, finish and get it published in 1998. A film version was put into development as early as 2000 with Depp and Nick Nolte set to star. However, this didn’t pan out and another attempt was made in 2002 with Benicio del Toro and Josh Hartnett replacing Nolte. This incarnation also fizzled out during the development phase. Finally, in 2007, a new attempt gained some serious traction with Depp handpicking Bruce Robinson, the writer/director of the cult classic Withnail and I (1987), and coaxing him out of semi-self-imposed retirement to adapt the book. The final result was a commercial failure and a film that disappointed the Thompson faithful for being a sanitized take on the novel or for not being more like Gilliam’s film.

The latter complaint is a rather unfair one because The Rum Diary is a completely different book than Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas in every way – setting, tone and, most importantly, style. Thompson wrote it before he had developed his trademark Gonzo journalism and was still finding his voice if you will. The tone of Fear and Loathing is more jaded, cynical and paranoid – hence the title, while The Rum Diary is more idealistic and romantic, written by a man who still had his whole life ahead of him.

Admittedly, the film starts off shakily as the opening credits play over postcard perfect shots of Puerto Rico while Dean Martin croons “Volare” on the soundtrack. What the hell? Is this going to be some half-assed tribute to the Rat Pack? Fortunately, we meet a bloodshot and disheveled Paul Kemp (Johnny Depp) waking up in his hotel room after a night of heavy drinking. It is 1960 and he has just arrived from New York City to start work at the San Juan Star, a local newspaper on the verge of going under, if the angry mob gathered outside its front door is any indication. Kemp wisely goes in through the back way and soon meets Bob Sala (Michael Rispoli), staff photographer, and who proceeds to give him the lay of the land. Kemp has a meeting with Lotterman (Richard Jenkins), the editor-in-chief who admits to him that he doesn’t like reading his own paper! Lotterman is looking for some fresh blood, hence hiring Kemp, but warns him that he doesn’t want any heavy drinkers and puts him immediately to work writing horoscopes.

Sala takes Kemp on a brief tour of the building and, more importantly, the local bar where many of staff reporters hang out. When asked how long he’s been in Puerto Rico, Sala replies, “Too long,” and compares the place to “someone you fucked and they’re still under you.” Over drinks he points out one of the paper’s more notorious contributors – Moberg (Giovanni Ribisi), the crime and religious affairs correspondent and whose “entire sub-structure of his brain has been eaten away from rum,” according to Sala.

While on an assignment for the paper, Kemp meets Hal Sanderson (Aaron Eckhart), a former employee of the paper, now a slick public relations consultant who wears impeccably tailored, expensive suits and drives around in a flashy sports car. It’s all in an attempt to seduce Kemp and convince him to write copy promoting San Juan to Americans in the hopes they’ll buy land there. Kemp is only half-paying attention to his pitch as he is unable to take his eyes off of Sanderson’s gorgeous girlfriend Chenault (Amber Heard), whom he met briefly earlier one night while paddle boating in the ocean and she appeared to him like a mermaid in the water. Kemp is captivated by her beauty but must keep his distance because of his business relationship with Sanderson. At first, Kemp’s freelance gig with Sanderson is good but the writer can’t reconcile the exploitation of the land at the hands of greedy developers with the poverty conditions he sees much of its population living in.

Giovanni Ribisi pops up occasionally as scene-stealer Moberg, a dirty and debauched excuse for a human being reminiscent of the wild, rampaging Dr. Gonzo in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. The actor immerses himself completely in the role, adopting a reedy, weasely voice and unhinged demeanor that is introduced in a memorable scene where Moberg confronts Lotterman over money owed, threatening to “come through the roof and turn this place into an insurance claim,” only to then rip off the editor’s badly applied hair piece. Moberg is so vividly portrayed by Ribisi that he belongs in the less is more category because threatens to throw off the balance of the film. Fortunately, Robinson gets just the right mix with this character.

While Ribisi gleefully chews up the scenery, Michael Rispoli delivers a wonderfully understated performance as Sala. The actor first came onto my radar with his way too brief role on The Sopranos but when he’s given a chance to take center stage, like the little seen independent film Two Family House (2000), he demonstrates some solid skills. So, it’s great to see The Rum Diary give Rispoli substantial screen-time and he makes the most of it as the grizzled, seen-it-all photographer biding his time until he can get enough money to take off to Mexico. The actor delivers the most naturalistic performance of anybody in the film as he seamlessly inhabits his character. Perhaps a more interesting film would’ve been one that focused on Sala and this is due in large part to Rispoli’s excellent work.

Johnny Depp does a fine job reprising a younger, more romantic incarnation of Hunter S. Thompson. He wisely dials down the author’s trademark mannerisms, only hinting at the persona that would make him famous later in life. The Thompson of The Rum Diary era has yet to be disillusioned by life – that happens over the course of the film. Depp understands that this film is an origins story of sorts and that by its conclusion, Kemp has started the process of transforming into the man who will one day write Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. It is nice to see Depp not playing a pirate or starring in some forgettable Tim Burton film and portraying a recognizable human being.

Much like with Fear and Loathing, The Rum Diary openly criticizes the exploitation and corruption of the American Dream. Lotterman lays it all out for Kemp over drinks late one night. The paper’s readers don’t want to read about what’s really going on in Puerto Rico. They want the romantic dream of blue skies and sandy beaches. It’s Kemp’s job to sell that idealized image to the masses. “You’re paying to be in the dream,” he tells Kemp at one point. It is with this scene that the film gets down to brass tacks and really pulls back the romantic façade to explain how things really work. Once Kemp is privy to that, he can’t go back to being a hired gun, some hack writing puff pieces. He sets out on a path to be someone who is unafraid to report the truth no matter how ugly.

It’s been awhile since I’ve read the book but the film manages to capture its spirit rather well. With the minor quibble of Depp being too old for the role, the cast looks very close to the way I imagined the characters in my head when I read the novel. Thankfully, the filmmakers didn’t go the safe route and cast popular actors but rather got the right people for the roles, which probably hurt its chances with mainstream audiences – that, and the whole exploitation of Puerto Rico thing, which I imagine turned off people expecting some low brow comedy a la The Hangover (2009). No, The Rum Diary has much more on its mind and for that it should be applauded.

Can I say how great it is to see Bruce Robinson directing a film again? It has been too long since the underrated atmospheric crime thriller Jennifer 8 (1992), a debacle production-wise that prompted him to swear off directing and burned what few bridges he had in Hollywood. While it is not as brilliant as Withnail and I, The Rum Diary is a solid piece of work. Robinson manages to translate the core elements of the novel and is unafraid to risk alienating viewers with the subplot of Kemp’s dealings with Sanderson. He could have made a safe, entertaining romp but opted instead to depict the story of a man who develops scruples and becomes someone who is proactive instead of a follower who touts the party line. Robinson wraps this all up in an attractive package with some absolutely stunning cinematography courtesy of Dariusz Wolski (Prometheus) and that showcases the beauty of Puerto Rico’s considerable natural resources. In retrospect, Robinson was an inspired choice to write and direct this film. As he proved with Withnail and I, he knows how to effortlessly mix comedy and drama. He also has a fantastic ear for memorable dialogue – for witty banter and truth-telling monologues. It is these elements that also exist in The Rum Diary. However, the film marred somewhat by a clumsily inserted drug hallucination scene with some badly rendered CGI that awkwardly attempts to bridge The Rum Diary with Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. The film would’ve been better if this scene had been omitted entirely as it is completely unnecessary.

In 1960, a 22-year-old Hunter S. Thompson moved from New York City to Puerto Rico with the intention of working as a journalist and writing a Hemingway-esque novel about the experience in his spare time. However, Thompson didn’t adapt well to the lifestyle there and left after a few months for further misadventures in South America. By 1962, he had finished a 1,000 page manuscript entitled The Rum Diary and returned to the United States in 1963 to shop it around to various publishers with no success. He made several revisions including making it more controversial in the hopes it would be sellable. For example, inspired by the emerging civil rights debates that were raging at the time, he added an “interracial sex scene.” Deep down, Thompson may have realized that it wasn’t a very good book and put it aside for several decades. In 1998, Depp found the manuscript while staying with Thompson and doing research for the film version of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. He thought The Rum Diary had cinematic possibilities and would provide the writer with some much-needed income. Some 600 pages were cut out and the book was published to mixed reviews.

Bruce Robinson first met Johnny Depp when the actor approached him about directing Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. The actor was a huge fan of both Withnail and I and How to Get Ahead in Advertising: “These two films destroyed me. I knew I had to work with him one way or another, by hook or by crook. So I hooked him.” However, the director was so fed up with the business that he declined the offer. Then, a few years later, the actor contacted him again about writing a screenplay adaptation of The Rum Diary only Robinson wasn’t a fan of the book. “The story is great … It has a lot of faults in the narrative and drive and some of it is very vulgar, which I didn’t like.” However, he agreed to do it. After Depp read it, he asked Robinson to direct and he declined again. The actor was persistent and Robinson was flattered that a movie star of Depp’s caliber wanted him and he finally accepted the job.

In preparation for adapting the book, Robinson read it twice and made extensive notes. He felt that the adaptation had to be written in his voice, but “I’m writing in what I hope would be the same vernacular as him.” Robinson, a prolific alcoholic for years, had stopped drinking heavily in 2003. At the height of his problem, he drank four or five bottle of wine a day. He began writing The Rum Diary script and for a few weeks, “I let the sober side win.” He struggled and realized that to get into the mindset of a character like Moberg he needed to start drinking again. “I wrote the script pretty quickly after that, but I stuck to wine as a medicine. I drank a bottle a day.” Once he finished writing the script, he stopped drinking. To prepare for the film, Robinson found a 1960s tourist guidebook of Puerto Rico and also poured over years of feature articles in back issues of National Geographic in order to give him a sense of place.

The Rum Diary received mostly negative reviews from mainstream critics. Roger Ebert gave the film two-and-a-half out of four stars and wrote, “We have the feeling that Kemp/Thompson saw much of life through the bottom of a dirty glass and did not experience it with any precision. The film duplicates this sensation, not with much success.” In his review for The New York Times, A.O. Scott wrote, “Mr. Depp, drawing in his mouth and lowering the register of his voice, is reliably unpredictable and predictably cool, but as is so often the case lately, he seems to be acting from behind the mask of his own charisma.” Entertainment Weekly gave it a “C” rating and Owen Gleiberman wrote, “We're supposed to be witnessing the birth of a great journalist, but Hunter S. Thompson, as his career went on, got swallowed up by his mystique as an outlaw of excess. In The Rum Diary, that myth becomes an excuse for a movie to go slumming.” The Village Voice’s J. Hoberman wrote, “Robinson is good on sweaty, sodden mise-en-scène and elaborately grubby tropical torpor, but he never quite gets the giddy velocity of a what-the-fuck bender. Truth to tell, The Rum Diary is actually more of a light morning-after hangover—it won’t leave you with a headache.” Time magazine’s Richard Corliss felt that the film was “defiantly tiny, an agreeable time-waster for the onlookers and its star. The Rum Diary isn’t a corrective to Johnny Depp’s kid-centric career, more like a vacation from it, in a resort where the visitors are strange, the natives are restless and the flow of alcohol endless.”

I can only imagine how disappointed Depp must’ve been about the film’s commercial failure. Clearly, he saw this film as a cinematic love letter to his departed friend. It was a passion project that he stuck with for 11 years, never giving up on it despite numerous setbacks. He should be proud of the fact that he got another Hunter S. Thompson book made into a film and right or wrong he did it his way, independently and not through some Hollywood studio that would’ve watered it down to nothing, much like how Kemp in the film bucks the system. However, the fate of the film once it was released also mirrors what happens to Kemp and Sala when they try to resurrect the newspaper for one last issue in an unfortunate example of life imitating art. Hopefully, The Rum Diary will be rediscovered over the years and appreciated more than it was upon its initial release.


NOTE: My friend over at The Film Connoisseur blog wrote an excellent review of this film. Check it out.


SOURCES

Chalmers, Robert. “Bruce Robinson: ‘I started drinking again because of The Rum Diary.’” The Independent. February 20, 2011.

Harris, Dana. “The Rum Diary Director Bruce Robinson is Grateful for Johnny Depp, Hunter and Withnail.” indieWIRE. October 26, 2011.

Melnick, Meredith. “After 17 Years Away, Director Bruce Robinson Returns with The Rum Diary.” Time. October 27, 2011.

Olsen, Mark. “The Rum Diary Pours Fourth Anew.” Los Angeles Times. October 23, 2011.


Turner, Gustavo. “The Rum Diary: Johnny Depp’s Hunter S. Thompson.” L.A. Weekly. October 27, 2011.