HOWL

US, 2010, 84 minutes. Colour, Black and white.
James Franco, Mary- Louise Parker, Jon Hamm, Jeff Daniels, David Strathairn, Treat Williams, Alessandro Nivola, Bob Balaban, Aaron Tveit.
Directed by Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman.

Howl is a very brief film that contains a great deal, of poetry, of changing standards, of the nature of literature, of personalities and the context of the US in the middle of the 20th century. It is directed by Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman, who won an Oscar in 1985 for their documentary, the Life and Times of Harvey Milk.

Howl was a poem by Allen Ginsberg, read at a gathering in 1955 and then published in San Francisco by Lawrence Ferlinghetti. It was under attack in an obscenity case in 1957. The screenplay of Howl is a mosaic of section of the reading of the poem, testimony in the court case as well as a long interview with Ginsberg about his life, his poetry and his philosophy of life. The readings and the case are in black and white, the interview in colour.

James Franco offers a tour-de-force performance as Ginsberg. His appearance is similar to that of the poet. He is young, fresh-faced during the readings. He is older, bearded, during the interviews. He explains that he chose not to attend the court case as it was Lawrence Ferlinghetti rather than himself who was being prosecuted.

The poem itself repays listening to and several of the passages are repeated. It is written in rhythmic free verse and Franco is able to bring out both the rhythms and the meanings. Its language is replete with literary references and quite a number of biblical references (and to Jesus on the cross). It is a mixture of the literate and the colloquial. It is both existential in its questions and emotional and psychological in its imagery and the focus on Carl Solomon who was kept in a mental institution.

A special feature of Howl is the extensive inclusion of animated sequences to illustrate Howl. They are based on the work of Eric Drooker who contributed illustrations to Ginsberg’s publications.

As might be expected of the poets and writers of the time (who became known as the Beat poets), the experience of drugs and open sexuality (and homosexual orientation, emotions and behaviour) permeate the poem. This comes to the fore in the court case where the necessity versus the relevance of themes and word choice is argued. Mary Louise Parker and Jeff Daniels appear as critics of Howl arguing that it has no literary merit. Allesandro Nivola appears as a San Franciso critic who argues in favour of the poem. Bob Balaban is the judge, David Strathairn the prosecutor who does not understand the poem and finds his task distasteful, Jon Hamm the defence lawyer.

During the interview segments, there are flashbacks, also in black and white, to Ginsberg’s earlier life, his declaration of love in his poems and in real life to Jack Kerouac who does not respond and to Neal Cassady, with whom he travelled across America, who does. Ginsberg is very frank about his sensitivity towards his father’s opinions of him, of his coming to terms with his sexuality, and about his long-term relationship with Peter Orlovsky.

While community standards have long since changed, the issues of what is acceptable in art, of what true art is and how it is to be assessed, are still very relevant.

1. The title, Allen Ginsberg’s poem, 1955? Expressing his generation’s experience? The soldiers returning from the war? The post-war era? The figure of Carl Solomon? In an institution? Ginsberg identifying with him? The primal scream, the inner and outer howl? The inner life of the United States?

2. The background of the obscenity case, 1957, American attitudes at the time, subsequent changes, issues of language, sexuality, homosexuality, frankness and explicitness, community standards? Sensibilities about these issues? Sensitivities? The value of frankness? The value of prohibition, censorship and banning?

3. The portrait of Allen Ginsberg, James Franco and his appearance, performance, his voice, the excerpts of reading Howl, his expressiveness? His verve? The meetings, the interviews, his intonations? The visualising of Ginsberg’s life? His explanation of his love for Jack Kerouac? The relationship with Neal Cassady? The partnership with Peter Orlovsky? His work in advertising – and the psychiatrist’s advice that he leave it?

4. The interview interspersed throughout the film? In colour? Ginsberg’s age, the recording, the talk, his energy, confiding in the interviewer, the background of his life, his father, not wanting to publish his poem because of his father’s possible reaction, his comments on post-war America, study? His work at Columbia, his openness, the experience of drugs, poetry, Howl and his recital? Lawrence Ferlinghetti and his publishing Howl? Kerouac and his poems, his expression of his feelings for him? Travelling with Neal Cassady, the photos, the sexual encounter, Cassady’s girlfriends, the experience of psychotherapy, Doctor Hicks, his working, his freedom to be himself and a poet?

5. The nature of Ginsberg’s poetry, the language, the rhythms, the free verse, his explanation of feeling, coming from the abdomen, rising out in expression, literary references, Walt Whitman, Molok, (**??) the religious and Gospel references, to Jesus on the cross, Golgotha, the resurrection? The combination of these references? The form and style and content of 20th century poetry? Enhancing and encouraging exploration into literature?

6. The role of the judge at the obscenity trial, his listening, his questions, the veto of the prosecution, his verdict and the reasons?

7. Ralph Mc Intosh as the prosecutor, his prim behaviour, his not understanding the poetry, the discussion about the necessity of the language and references versus relevance? His reading excerpts? His discussions about the ordinary reader? Interactions with the defence lawyer?

8. Jake Erlich and his being the defence lawyer, his reactions, understanding of literature, his interrogation of the witnesses, illustrating parallels?

9. Gail Potter and her appearance, sure of herself, very proper, her literary qualifications, her disgust, her declaration that the poem had no merit?

10. Luther Nichols, the San Francisco critic, his being interrogated about the nature of literature, the relevance of Ginsberg’s language and references? Making a sufficient case?

11. Professor David Kirk, his emphasis on form, theme, his being sure of himself, his testimony, the touches of arrogance?

12. The 21st century audience, a journey of language, a changing of standards, experience of frankness, fifty-five years and its effect – for better or for worse?

13. Issues of art, the response of contemporaries to breakthroughs in art? The role of time, classics? Assessing works, reassessing them? The contribution of Ginsberg to the history of literature and the development of its form and style? The appearances of Ginsberg himself, his reading his poetry, the interviews?

14. The information at the end, the lives of Kerouac, Cassady, Ginsberg himself, Peter Orlovsky? And the work of Lawrence Ferlinghetti and his publication company and his shop?

15. The animated sequences? From Ginsberg’s illustrating partner? Developed into animation? The style, the characters, the humour, the themes? The contribution to the audience’s appreciation of Howl and of Ginsberg?