Review of Easy Rider (1969) by Edith N — 25 Sep 2008

You know, it could be just me. But when there is no final script for a movie because they were making the whole thing up as they went along, that is not, to me, the sign of a quality film unless it's a documentary. Then again, in a way, it is. It's a documentary of a couple of guys who are stoned out of their gourds and making up their own lives as they go along. It probably doesn't help that I don't like drug humour. Or any of the music contained in the film, just about. Or Dennis Hopper. (I have no real opinion about Peter Fonda, and I generally like Jack Nicholson.) Or, come to that, motorcycles, much. I mean, I can see their appeal, but I'm not a fan, myself. Which is much the same as I feel about this movie.

Billy (Hopper) and "Captain America" (Fonda) are, I think, smuggling drugs. Or something. Anyway, this involves a trip across the South to Louisiana, which they choose to take by being as conspicuous as possible. (Yet another aspect of the film that doesn't seem to have been thought through properly.) They drive enormous bikes and dress, well, like Dennis Hopper and Peter Fonda, and act like Dennis Hopper and Peter Fonda. And, therefore, end up spending a night in jail with George Hanson (Nicholson), who joins them because he's never made it to Mardi Gras and is determined to this time. So he straps on a gold football helmet (not, I think, adequate protection from a motorcycle crash), and off they go.

Yeah, I know. We're back to the word "seminal," and I don't dispute that it is. I can see how this would influence people; I can see how it [i]did[/i] influence people. The only thing is, largely, it bored me. I don't care about these people. I think the filming is quite bad. Some of the revolutionary lighting effects come from the film being accidentally exposed when it wasn't supposed to be. In short, it's [i]amateurish[/i]. It gave way to an awful lot of better films, and we are still feeling its influence today, but I think that's only part of the point. A larger part of the point is that I don't think it, by itself, is a good film. Seen in isolation, it's very bad indeed.

I think it's funny, in the context of the film, that Dennis Hopper's off doing commercials for investment banking these days. I think, in fact, that it makes him the very definition of a sell-out. This is his film, and he's talking about the great wilds and the hazards of bowing down to The Man. And now, Dennis Hopper has [i]become[/i] The Man. The man is a [i]Republican[/i], for Gods' sake, and if that's not a textbook definition of becoming The Man, it'll take me some time to find one. I wonder if he ever thinks about the paths his life has taken. I know he considers himself an artist first and a filmmaker second, but I have to say, he's not known, particularly, for being an artist. He's known for being a guy on a bike rebelling against The Man and doing all the drugs he can get his hands on. (At least four that I can count over the course of the film.) What do you do?

So let's talk "overrated" as a word for a minute. I think it's a hard word to use properly. A film must be, I think, demonstrably badly made and considered well-made. However, a lot of film is subjective. What I consider a bad script (this one, for example) may by other people be considered worthy of an Oscar nomination. (It lost to [i]Butch Cassidy[/i], which I have seen and I like.) To some people, the chintzy filming is indicative of a great understanding of the necessary mentality. Now, of course, these would be people who didn't know that the guys holding the camera were often actively drunk or stoned themselves, so there was no intention behind the bad camerawork. It's just bad. So, yeah, I think this film is overrated, because I think it's demonstrably bad and people think it's an example of great filmmaking. But am I right or are they?