I was drawn to this film by the topic and also by the polarized reviews. People seem to feel fairly strongly about this work. But they have antithetical views: some say that the film is great but Ginsberg mediocre. Some say that Ginsberg is great and the film a joke.
I find the topic interesting and much of the film worthwhile, probably because I am a poet and also a staunch believer in freedom of speech. That said, I found the animation of parts of Howl to be obtuse. The words used by any poet are open to multiple interpretations. This childish animation of the visual elements of some of the stanzas is ridiculous. The animation technique used is the one found in Avatar, which I actually hated, so that may explain part of my aversion to what is being done here. This film would be so much stronger if all of that nonsense were cut out. True, it would have been shorter, but maybe then other elements of Ginsberg´s experience, beyond his homosexuality, could have been explored.
It seems pretty clear that the makers of this film have no understanding of poetry. I also wonder whether they understand Ginsberg´s work, in particular. He is portrayed here as a ¨gay poet¨, whose work is primarily important for the cause of the gay community. I respectfully disagree.
Please do not animate poetry, unless you really want everyone to know that you have no idea what poetry is.
I find the topic interesting and much of the film worthwhile, probably because I am a poet and also a staunch believer in freedom of speech. That said, I found the animation of parts of Howl to be obtuse. The words used by any poet are open to multiple interpretations. This childish animation of the visual elements of some of the stanzas is ridiculous. The animation technique used is the one found in Avatar, which I actually hated, so that may explain part of my aversion to what is being done here. This film would be so much stronger if all of that nonsense were cut out. True, it would have been shorter, but maybe then other elements of Ginsberg´s experience, beyond his homosexuality, could have been explored.
It seems pretty clear that the makers of this film have no understanding of poetry. I also wonder whether they understand Ginsberg´s work, in particular. He is portrayed here as a ¨gay poet¨, whose work is primarily important for the cause of the gay community. I respectfully disagree.
Please do not animate poetry, unless you really want everyone to know that you have no idea what poetry is.