I, like many bookish English major types I suppose, have some
lingering Beat desires to road trip across America and see what inspiration and
experience I can stumble upon. To drive across the vast expanse of roadways
crisscrossing the United States, open to possibility, ready to gather raw
material for projects made up of the written word, has a powerful romantic
pull. For me, this doesn’t even have anything to do with Jack Kerouac or his
novel On the Road, which has its
minor pleasures, but is no sacred text to me. No, this desire within me is inherited from nothing more than the
reverberations of the Beat generation’s go-west-young-writer influence, a sense
of literary manifest destiny and direction.
So I have both a rooting interest and a disinterest in the film
adaptation of On the Road. I’m sympathetic
to the impulse behind the plot, while conflicted over the source material’s
place in the literary canon. Over half a century after the novel’s release, it
is director Walter Salles and screenwriter Jose Rivera who have brought the book to the screen, finding some compelling episodic
energy here and there in this period piece as young writer Sal (Sam Riley)
makes his way through American landscapes. The majority of this particular
picture, however, is a slog of a road trip. This is a drudgery in which the
sights out the windows and the character actors at each stop are meant to carry
the day. This is an adaptation that misses the point. For me, what pleasures that
can be found in Kerouac’s novel are all in the prose. It’s not what happens,
but how it’s recounted through the flavor and cadence of the writing. Of course
that’s tricky to capture cinematically, but once removed, all that’s left of On the Road is an opportunity to really
highlight how empty a narrative it is.
How strange, then, or perhaps how lucky, to find nice
performances scattered throughout the morass of it all. They are occasional
crackles of charm in an otherwise overwhelmingly bland trudge. The road takes Sal
to Viggo Mortensen, Amy Adams, Kirsten Dunst, Elisabeth Moss and Steve Buscemi,
among others doing fine work in underserved roles. Sal is sometimes joined by Dean
(Garrett Hedlund) and Marylou (Kristen Stewart). Those two actors in particular
are delivering something approaching career highlight work in a movie that
plays as if destined to be largely forgotten. Hedlund and Stewart are two
performers who, when thrust into big budget material (like Tron and Twilight,
respectively) are consistently (unfairly, I would say) derided as one note,
stiff and unconvincing. Here, they’re loose – naked and emotional, open and
vulnerable, confident and hesitant – in ways that prove their detractors wrong.
They’re actors and good ones at that, able to convincingly play blank
blockbuster types just as thoroughly as more nuanced character work. They’re
rather enjoyable at times, just as the rest of the exceedingly talented cast is
putting in agreeable hard work.
But this shouldn’t feel like work. Salles’s picture is trying
so hard for freewheeling filmmaking that it’s a strain. The stream-of-obviousness
plot stumbles when it should glide, muddles when it should clarify. It wears
out its welcome then drifts, feeling repetitive and tiresome until it finally
ends. Worst of all, there are dumbly obvious scenes of Sal bent over a
typewriter, hammering away at the prose some of us will recognize from the
novel. It’s a typically movie portrayal of a writer, scrunched and
self-important, as if our Kerouac proxy already knows that he’s writing a book
of some historical note. He types as if he’s placing himself on syllabi before
our very eyes. But here is a film that is so relaxed and aimless that it fails
to work up the energy to make an argument for its own existence, let alone its
source materials. It’s just too low-key to do itself justice.
No comments:
Post a Comment