Despite these three films being similar in that they all have a scene in which long-haired "hippies" get teased because of the length of their hair, or a scene that is supposed to show us the audience what a psychedelic trip is truly like through abstract visuals and montages, they all deal with - at their very core - different human emotions and issues affecting us all, or as Robin Wood (in her essay on "Alice's Restaurant" put it; "they [hippie films of the 60s] are responding to problems of living confronting us all".
So despite all of these films' "groovy" visuals, or "far-out" soundtracks, at the core of them you have men going through emotions ranging from ennui ("The Trip"), to love ("Psych-Out"), and even freedom ("Alice's Restaurant"), all of them simultaneously trying to deal with said emotions.
But as I said "men" in all three of these films, it goes along with what Sara Evans has to say about the new left being (even when it came to films like these three) "male-dominated". Jenny (played by Susan Strasberg) in "Pysch-Out" is portrayed as somewhat helpless and over-emotional, even childish, throwing her arms up and storming away at any situation that doesn't satisfy her completely, and finally only to be saved by a less "reckless" man in Stoney (Jack Nicholson). In "The Trip", there are very few women, and the ones who do appear are merely objects of desire (except the daughter of course). Finally, in "Alice's Restaurant", although the titular character is a strong independent woman, her non-monogamous link to Shelly doesn't show her in the most flattering light.
With these films, you have bands of outsiders going through experiences relatable to those who aren't outsiders by implanting at the film's core a common human feeling (and adding some lighthearted comedy in here and there). Yet despite these advances, the films are still (for the sake of the argument) mostly non-forward thinking in their portrayals of women (i.e. these aren't Almodovar films).
For those who are interested, the book Trevor referred to in class is Robert Kolker's THE CINEMA OF LONELINESS: http://www.amazon.com/Cinema-Loneliness-Robert-Kolker/dp/0199730024/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1415117244&sr=1-1&keywords=cinema+of+loneliness
Each of the films “Psych Out,” “The Trip” and “Alice’s Restaurant” romanticize the late 60s American hippie movement in many ways, yet they contemplate this with a critical resistance to fully support the movement. Robin Wood describes of “Alice’s Restaurant,” “People who don’t like hippies distrust it because it is so sympathetic to hippies; people who do like hippies distrust it because it exposes with the most rigorous clarity—the truest sort of clarity, born out of sympathetic insight, not distaste—the essential weaknesses and inadequacies of the hippie movement” (72). The same could also be said for Penn’s film’s contemporary hippie works, “Psych Out” and “The Trip.”
None of these films openly condemn the hippie lifestyle. They depict a fun counter culture of drug experimentation, sex, long hair, colorful fashion, and an overall laid back and relaxed way of life. These films are aesthetically entertaining and experimental for the audiences in an effort to depict the pleasure the characters are deriving from their behavior. For example, the sex scene between Smokey (Jack Nicholson) and Jenny (Susan Strasberg) is a montage of psychedelic images of the two making love that incorporates colorful, bright lighting and fades between “trippy” images with a rock song playing over the images. Similarly, “The Trip,” almost in its entirety, is shot in this psychedelic, dream-like way to visually recreate a LSD trip.
These aspects of the hippie film provide more than enough reasons for critics of the movement to dislike the films, yet the films are not completely uncritical of their subject matter. The death of Shelly and Woody in “Alice’s Restaurant” seems to be the point in the film where the utopian dream of a communal society comes crashing down to reality. These deaths symbolize both the death of a folk legend that the movement idealizes and a victim of the drug component of the movement itself. The wedding of Alice and Ray is the last desperate attempt to reclaim the idealistic hope that Alice and Ray set out with when they bought the church—to create a safe, happy place free from the problems of society. Wood argues Penn continually deals with human existence in his films and defines it as “a half-blind struggle toward self-expression and contact in which creative and destructive impulses intertwine and merge indistinguishably” (81-82). The failure of the wedding to reclaim the optimism and achieve this intertwinement imagined at the beginning of the film is clearly explicated by the long dolly shot of Alice at the end of the film.
The death of Dave (Dean Stockwell) in “Psych Out” communicates much the same message. While the hippie culture is extremely attractive on Jenny’s drive into San Francisco during the opening credits, it is much less romantic once she has lived within it. The bad trips visualized in “The Trip and “Psych Out” thematize the dangers of LSD. While Peter Fonda’s trip seems to be more of an experience (humorous, scary, psychedelic, etc.), it isn’t as disastrous as Jenny and Dave’s. Dave’s death on the Golden Gate Bridge, the most recognizable feature of San Francisco which remains a symbol of hippie culture, seems to conclude the hippie lifestyle, while fun at times, is ultimately impractical and destructive.
“Psych-Out,” “Alice’s Restaurant,” and “The Trip” all play an important role in displaying the different nature of movements in the 60’s in the United States in comparison to the other movements going on around the world. As we saw in the documentaries earlier in the semester, there was a very real and serious movement to try and bring about change, such as ending the Vietnam War, freedom of speech, etc. Along with that, however, the youth movements, the counter-culture, within the United States appeared as having much more to do with drugs and sexuality than any of the other areas we have been studying, and these are issues that all three of this weeks’ films deal with in one way or another.
These films deal almost exclusively with the drug and sex culture of the time period, showing both the positive and negative aspects that can come from it. In “Psych-Out,” Dave is the person furthest removed from society and real life (through drug use) as he lives in an isolated room on top of a building. Throughout the film, especially when Stoney asks Dave to play music with the band again, Dave always responds, telling Stoney that he is “playing games,” as if real life has no significance. Sara M. Evans touches on this matter as she quotes Charles Reich and his experiences with hippies, saying, “They saw how empty and unfulfilling middle-class life could become. They recognized that the goals of money, ambition and power were a trap” (336). This idea of denouncing traditional aspects of life is something that Dave seems to do more than anyone else (besides The Seeker), but he is portrayed as the moral and righteous one. Similarly, the entire church in “Alice’s Restaurant” seems to embody this type of belief, as they focus mainly on having a good time. But how far can that recognition go?
In “Psych-Out,” Dave is the only one concerned with Stoney ignoring Jenny after having sex with her and sucking her into the lifestyle. Sara M. Evans once again brings up Charles Reich, this time dealing with relationships, saying, “no oath, no law, no promise, no indebtedness [should] hold people together when the feeling is gone” (336). Stoney’s one night stand with Jenny may be a slightly different matter, but this type of sexual freedom is witnessed (and dreamed about) in “Alice’s Restaurant” and “The Trip” as well. Alice is married to Ray, but sleeps with Shelly and tries to/ seems interested in sleeping with Arlo. In “The Trip,” Paul fantasizes (with the help of acid) about his soon-to-be ex-wife and a woman he just met, ultimately reuniting with that woman and having sex with her. Returning to “Psych-Out”, Dave is also the one who ends up saving Jenny from oncoming traffic during her acid trip (something that is his fault), ultimately paying for it with his own life. Dave’s final words provide a solid example of what Charles Reich understood in regards to hippies and their lifestyle: “reality’s a deadly place, I hope this trip is a good one”.
For the majority of the films, everything seems all right. Life is good, the drugs are good (usually), and the sex is good, but, just like in real life, there are moments that act as a wake up call from these “dreams”. So, was the increased prevalence of sex and drugs within the American counter culture part of the reason why the revolutionary movements ultimately faltered? And, along with that, was it part of how, like in the final scene from “Alice’s Restaurant”, the dream ultimately died? Either way, these films demonstrate the feelings of the era, as people were free and loving and having fun, but, more importantly, each film also shows how that is not enough, how, sooner or later, reality comes crashing back in…and it must be dealt with.
I think my post goes well with Dom's. His take on reality surfacing sooner or later aligns with my take that ideologies can't always be brought to reality. On watching “Psych-out,” specially within the context of today’s class discussion, Stoney’s quote towards the end of the movie seems remarkably fitting. As he says, “individual against the collecting, conforming society, and all that.” Just like in Alice’s Restaurant, the focus of the struggle seems to be a direct reflection of the struggles of the community rather than external influences. For example, when Stoney finds Dave kissing Jenny, the ensuing discussion focuses on the friction of individualism being put over the harmony of the community:
“Just beautiful. Damn it, Jenny. What the hell is the matter with you?” “Hey. We all have to do out own thing remember?” “Shut up, Dave.” “Listen, Stoney. Nothing happened.” “Nothing happened? What do you call “nothing”? What happened? I get here a little too soon?” “Where did you get this middle class morality? Listen to the big free thinker! [...] Moment of truth and you go square, Stoney.”
The fact that Stoney is being called out for his egocentrism and inability to “share” is interesting since Dave begins his argument by rationalizing with Jenny that:
“Whether you make it with me, or not, that’s not the important thing. It’s facing your appetites and your curiosity.”
On Robin Wood’s piece she comments, “[i]t is ironic that what provided the initial inspiration ends up as an intrusion, interrupting the flow of the film and distracting us from the characters and issues we are most concern with,” (80). Despite this being specifically said about Alice’s Restaurant, it could easily be applied to the movement as a whole. The movement started on a weak basis and its doom was found in the most basic of its ideologies. The all-inclusive, non-judgmental, freeing, and peaceful movement found its end in that its members were part of a society whose whole purpose is the rise of the individual through individual work, individual means, and individual struggle. The inspiration to have a community where individuals could be free to be themselves presented a great inspiration that became the problematic intrusion as the community tries to remain a community without forcing its members to fall into a homogenous personality. The very fact that this week’s films, regardless of their purpose, can’t escape presenting aspects of the stereotype of hippies--whether through finding Jenny the “proper” outfits, or the representative characters in Alice’s Restaurant--shows that the movement couldn’t bring both ideas together.
I mentioned this in class, but I really do find Arlow's role in Alice's restaurant to be really interesting. Perhaps it's just the nature of having Arlow Guthrie play himself, but they've really crafted an interesting character that follows some of the trends of classic american character tropes, like Huckleberry Finn or Holden Caulfield. You can see this is his lackadaisical attitude that is familiar to Huck, or the nature of which he travels from place to place as a venue for which the audience to judge each character, and the cultures they represent. Although, I think there is a distinct lack of criticism on Arlow's character. While this could be that Arlow Guthrie, who was undoubtedly a large part of selling the film, simply didn't want that criticism shared with his real life persona. However, it could be that Arlow himself could represent the larger counterculture of the United States in itself, or at least what they aspire to be. Ticking off his traits, he's smart, considerate (as evidenced with the scene with the 14-year-old), a friend to anyone, as evidenced with his multicultural posse with Roger and Mari-chan, and non-agressive (with his opposition to the war draft). However, he really can't be pinned down to a single movement, and chooses to weave in and out of various sects of the american counterculture. So instead of being a person, Arlow represents the whole counterculture in itself, in my humble opinion.
The films this week provide different images of American hippies as well as their perceived ideals, though they all sort of come to the same conclusion, albeit in fundamentally different ways. We touched upon it a little bit in class, that the endings in many of the American films produced in the era of “The Summer of Love” typically conjure up the sense of confusion about and within the hippie movement. While “Psych-Out” and “The Trip” are less a dialogue with the counter-culture and more of a way to sell an image back to that culture with as much psychedelic rock, kaleidoscopic visuals, and recognizable slogans of the time as possible, “Alice’s Restaurant” provides a complex and serious question about how viable the hippie culture can be.
With “Psych-Out” and “The Trip,” a lot of what we get are moral tales showing the highs and lows of the drug culture that permeates throughout popular conceptions of what the hippie movement was. They depict the West coast hippies as tragic comedies that own the seeds of their demise; Stoney cares more about his own success with his band and ignores Jenny’s obvious love, which he cultivated, for other women and “The Seeker” kills himself in a burning house moments before reconnecting with his sister. “Psych-Out’s freaky climax has more in common with the conservative hysteria of Reefer Madness,” Scott Tobias observes, and provides only “an amusingly dated and noxious compendium of counterculture clichés.” It is so obvious, in fact, that even the hippies, in their hazy, tripping, loving world, could recognize the dubious motives of the film that “the locals greeted [the film crew] with such hostility and obstruction that the producers had to hire Hells Angels to keep the peace” (Tobias). Both of the films end with the same message that drugs are bad with Jenny losing her deaf mind on the Golden Gate Bridge and Paul getting a superimposed crack over his brain; the poster for “The Trip” (on IMDb) has the words, “A Lovely Sort of Death” with the L, S, and D highlighted.
On the other hand, “Alice’s Restaurant” gives us people that are trying to make the collective communal ideas work, though ultimately their personal flaws show through their disguises and leave them with a battered church and hopeful wishing, much like the ending to “Woodstock” (Michael Wadleigh, 1970). They all want something to happen, but what it is and how they can make it happen are left up in the air with the assumption that it will work its way out eventually, which the wedding scene brings the uncertainty to a boil. “[N]obody knows how serious its meant to be, including Ray and Alice,” its supposed to be a marker for a real event with real significance, but “as with all the other celebrations in the film, the realization falls short of the conception” (90). In the end, the long dolly shot focuses on Alice’s blank expression when she realizes the failure of it all as if asking, “What now?”
http://www.avclub.com/review/the-trip-psych-out-dvd-11976 (Scott Tobias’ review of “Psych-Out” and “The Trip”)
Both “The Trip” and “Psych-Out” really surprised me in their approach to portraying drug and hippie culture. Despite being hippie exploitation movies that were, in part, an effort to cash in on the mysterious appeal of the new counterculture, the filmmakers seem to have made an effort to include both the positive and negative aspects of the movement. In “The Trip,” for example, one might prepare for a wholesale condemnation of drugs after the stark opening that warns the audience of the sometimes-fatal results of using black-market hallucinogens, yet what follows is more of a simulated trip that lets the audience come to their own conclusions. The over-the-top light effects and forays into medieval fantasy, while sating the appetite of an audience in search of a spectacle, also try to make a point about hippie spirituality and the need to search inside of oneself for truth, with or without the use of hallucinogens. Paul gains insight into his desires and, through the use of “trippy” out of body sequences in which he watches himself make love to his soon-to-be ex-wife, works through his marriage. Towards the end when the negative elements of the drugs become more apparent, such as fractures appearing over Paul’s head or the appearance of a young woman at the house who can barely form a coherent thought due to drugs, one can weigh the potential benefits and disadvantages of adopting such a lifestyle. Similarly, the criticisms of the hippie culture in San Francisco are, in turn, criticized in “Psych-Out.” As much as the hippies in the film are criticized for their divergeant ideals or manner of dress, those doing the criticizing are also shown to no better. For example, when the band goes past a group of churchgoers who judge them based on their different clothes, the camera pans over to a group of men dressed up as biblical figures and then up to a stained glass portrayal of Jesus, suggesting that they judge not. Also placing the hippies in a good light is their juxtaposition with the irrational junkyard thugs who attack them and attempt to rape Jenny because of her brother’s preaching of free loving ideals. In face of these examples, negative moments in the group such as Warren having a bad trip and trying to cut off his hand with a circular saw or Stony defying the all-loving ideal by mistreating Jenny complicates the audience’s perception of hippie culture and, like in “The Trip,” forces them to assess the situation rather than having it shown to them as either wholly good or wholly bad.
Before watching both The Trip and Psych–Out simultaneously, I read a book earlier in the semester called Weird Scenes Inside The Canyon which argues that the hippie movement began in Laurel Canyon, a hilly suburb of Los Angeles, and not in the San Francisco’s Haight–Ashbury area and the Monterey Pop festival and it’s interesting how both these films, only a year part, reflect these different eras. The Trip, for example, stars three actors who lived in Laurel Canyon during this time (Peter Fonda, Dennis Hopper, and Bruce Dern) and Jack Nicholson, the screenwriter, also lived here as well, not to mention IMDB lists other Canyon dwellers such as singer Gram Parsons and actor Brandon De Wilde in uncredited roles, and finally according to the book, the main house used in the film was an actual Laurel Canyon house. The author suggests that when understanding the family connections many of the aspiring actors and musicians in Laurel Canyon have to the military intelligence community (which includes The Trip’s three main actors), it seems unlikely that the hippie movement was a grassroots creation but rather an deliberate operation to counter the original anti–war movement that started had in highly–respectable colleges like Berkeley. This seems true especially when considering everything about the hippies seemed alien and distasteful to mainstream American values, which we can see in these films and the way they are marketed to their youth audience. Also, when understanding that the hippies came out of Los Angeles, it seems obvious that their image was, in part, created and maintained by Hollywood. It is interesting though that it seems with The Trip and Psych–Out that low–budget exploitation films were the “testing ground” for these types of films, which until they proved to be profitable, we see an emergence of Hollywood hippie and protest films in the late sixties and early seventies. Tony William in “The Vietnam War on Campus” mentions a paradox that exists when a “capitalistic movie industry supports films whose themes appeared to oppose the very system producing them.” You can’t have it both ways and the overwhelming majority of American “student–protest” or hippy films are very exploitative and shallow for a reason. For example, Both The Trip and Psych–Out barely attempt to, if even at all, explicitly describe the assumed political motivations that the hippy movement was part of, and as several students suggest, they seem to further paint an unappealing image of the contrived hippie movement by relishing in its extremes (as exploitation movies do). When researching the film I learned The Trip’s prologue was added by the producers, at Roger Corman’s behest, and this addition makes the film very reflective to early 1930s American exploitation films where producers would make a film about a subversive topic, but use an introductory clause in an attempt to designate the film as “educational” for economic considerations rather than truthfully acknowledging what it really is.
When I sat down to watch The Trip I was immediately reminded of the film Reefer Madness because of the way it portrays drug culture, the only difference being the drug used. The Trip opens up with a warning statement that condemns the usage of LSD and other black-market drugs, making the films negative stance on drugs and hippie culture extremely evident.
The main character', Paul's reasoning for taking LSD is that he wants to find himself, a sentiment that was no doubt familiar to first time users in the 1960's, almost to the point of cliche; this was no doubt meant to get the attention of viewers thinking about trying the drug themselves for the same reason. After he takes LSD we enter a bizarre, non-nonsensical, almost scary world. Paul is plagued with visions of sex, colors, and death. Things start to spiral out of control when he leaves the sanctuary of John's pad, and it was about here that the message of the film is blasted the most "don't do drugs".
Paul wanders the streets paranoid, sweaty, and most of all lacking control of his own actions. Every part of this film is overtly used to scare people away from hippie culture be it the creepy environment of John's house, the hard to look at colors and lights, the visions of death, and the inevitable appearance of the police.
The film ends with Paul looking out at the beach, he is asked if he did wind up finding himself, to which he answers yes. The film however keeps going for a little bit as if to ask "was it worth it?". The answer the film would like us to come to is "no."
Psych Out and The Trip both especially, provide the viewer with complex aesthetics that add to the dynamic of the idea of perception of reality. In Psych Out this idea of reality is explored most obviously through the Seeker, and in The Trip this idea of perception of reality seems to be more of the plot of the film. In Psych Out the premises of the film is to find the Brother of a deaf woman, Jenny, who also has to deal a great bit with this idea of reality in that there are several instances where she has to decide what information to take in how to receive it because she is deaf and she is limited in that sense. When we meet her brother, The Seeker, he seems to inside of reality of his own this is seen when he is retelling a memory to Stoney , who first discovered him, in this memory he talks about the instance leading up to how his sister became deaf and we the viewers are served with strange images of black substance leaving the little girls mouth, I would assume this is signifying sort of lost innocence but the way in which the seeker tells the story paired with the strange imagery leads the viewer to assume the realities of the story, but it also leaves us feeling like the Seeker has some sorting out of realities to do himself. This idea of perception of reality and how it is presented is much different in The Trip because the entire film is made up of dream like sequences wedged in between scenes of what Paul is experiencing outside of his mind. This kind of travel between what is happening inside of his mind as well as outside of it is a trip in itself, and puts pressure on the differentiation of reality throughout the film rather than on just one character.
After taking a long time examining much of the politics surrounding the global movement of 1968, it is an uneasy transition into the psychedelic culture explosion of the 60s. Of course, in America the drug culture is a seemingly larger part of its equation, compared to other regions around the world. What effect this seems to have, as has been indicated in the american cinema this week, is that the 60s movement in America had both larger breadth and less fire than similar movements around the world. Perhaps it is because of how ingrained the consumer culture is to americans, but it seems that far leftist ideas are absent from the conversation. Is it that the American's sense of individualism cannot be overcome by romanticization of the collective. That seems to be what these films are arguing, particularly Psych-Out and Alice's Restaurant. Even The Trip, speaks on an individualistic level with the very singular lens with which it views its titular trip. (1/2)
Characters like Ray and Stoney are people who espouse free love, harmony, and unity, but over the course of their stories we see that they are inherently selfish individuals. Ray needs people around him to give himself a sense of importance and throws a fit when he falls out of the limelight. Stoney upholds the values of the hippy movement only when it is convenient for him. He is a violent person who has a hunger for money and he uses the shield of free love when it gives him opportunity to get in bed with more women. These are the men at the forefront of their respective rebellions, and while they ostensibly champion the values of hippy culture they cannot divorce themselves from the patriarchy they seem to rebel against. (2/2)
In class on Tuesday, Chandler made an interesting point on Alice’s Restaurant that I believed could be applied to all three films this week: that the stories could be thought of as disasters before they even play out. In Psych-Out, we have the character of Dean, a character who represents the spirituality of the counter-culture. He’s irritatingly all-knowing, gives warnings to Jack Nicholson as Stoney about the dangers of choosing money over passion; he is clearly the one on a righteous path, the real movement, as opposed to the popular culture where drugs overtook many of the budding passions that were possibly present within the movement’s participants. And so when he comes into the screen and brings ominous warning to the audience, he echoes Chandler’s ideas of these films and counter-culture white hippie movement being predestined for disaster. The Trip only stood out to me for the moment when Peter Fonda’s character breaks free from the house, and a series of advertisements are flashed on the screen, popular advertisements that bear over him as he’s on his trip. This quick interjection of well-known symbols reminded me of La Hora de Los Hornos, and how these images bear over us in a capitalist society. Alice’s Restaurant stood out as the most important of the three films we watched this week, as it really shows an immediate community trying to come together as such. Yet, it is a combination of the people like James Broderick’s character Ray and other impending elements that end the film’s movement in disaster. However, what interests me most from the film’s moral standpoint is the character of the only confirmed Vietnam Veteran, whose name was mentioned once. He shows up late into the film and is possibly one of the only parts of the film that aren’t lightened with gimmick. When Arlo sees his hook he reacts shocked, and if I remember this causes a quite blunt question as to what the hook was. To this, the character replied that it was exactly what it looked like, giving Arlo an idea of what is possibly waiting if he is to go through with the draft. He comes to the screen in one other movement in the film, and watches the ‘family’ walk back into the church, he is quiet, and stands away from the rest, but his silence hung over me as a viewer simply as a reminder of what was real in the film.
As we have already talked about in class, many of the films from the late 1960’s are pretty depressing. All of them either end in death, jail or even more severe death. Nothing good happen in the 60’s at all, all people did was die on their motorcycles or get kill by the police. It was all pain and misery, except that it was not. Because three of the films we watched focused on a aspect that has only been referenced in other films, The hippie-drug culture man, a time where there was no worries man and everyone was friends man. In the plotline, Psych-Out and Alice’s Restaurant comes from a place of companionship, Stoney wants to take care of Jenny and does the best that he can, Alice created her own restaurant so that she and Alro and Ray and the others could all be together. There is a feeling of warmth and togetherness that excuses from these films that has escaped all of the other films we have watched. It’s refreshing to see that someone smiled back in the late 1960’s, but do not worry, any signs of happiness evades quickly. Robin Wood talks about how in Alice’s Restaurant “The hippie funeral derives its poignance not only from the snowy setting but from the lack of any real unity” (88). This scene analysis articulate how in almost every film from this era, that as soon as something goes wrong, that when all of the fun stops. It is almost like how the peaceful 1960’s ended. As soon the Hell Angel’s killed Meredith Hunter at the Altamont concert, all the fun seemed to stop and sadness seem to kick in. In Psych-out everything is all fun until Dave dies and you are left stranded in the highway. Everything fine in Alice’s Restaurant, until your friends dies and your left to ponder what left with your life.
"Alice's Restaurant", "Psych-Out", and "The Trip" are all about life for hippies in the sixties. But I wanted to talk more about the stereotypes that the films show and disprove; at least from the films perspective. In "Alice's Restaurant", the stereotype that I saw the most, or was shown the most obviously, was the theoretical "freedom" that hippies had. Now Arlow's character was moving and driving all over the place, but the reasons for his coming and going were far from random whims. He had his family to think about, with his dad’s illness and his grieving mother. Now he was also linked to his friends and comrades that shared his beliefs and his ideals. He was very connected to all of them, especially Alice, Shelly, and Ray. And the drama and conflict between all of them grounded him into this way of living, willingly or not. Alice’s character is more grounded than any of the main characters. She had her own business, responsibilities that without her probably wouldn’t have been taken care of. She is also the nurturer in the group. She cares deeply about the people she is invested in, but she is strong enough to fight back if she is disrespected. In “Psych-Out”, the stereotype that is being shown is the common use of drugs and, in the stereotype, the lack of consequences of drug use. But the film shows the real world effects of using drugs. The main character brakes into a house, harasses a woman in a Laundromat, and gets chased by the police. The paranoia and the lack of logical thinking is obviously a big side effect. But even at the end of the film, the main character is still not fulfilled, or with a good understanding of whatever he was trying to figure out.
Alannah, you mention the point during The Trip when Peter Fonda leaves the house and is overwhelmed by the neon signage and advertisements lighting up the night. It ties in well with the points Lucas makes about the American movement’s considerable fondness for drugs, and the consumer culture we find engrained in American society. Americans love having the ability to pay to escape reality for a while. The movement as a whole seemed disenchanted with the capitalist society championed by those in charge. Thus, they rebelled, rejecting traditional means of earning a living, all the while setting up peaceful communes, experimenting with drugs and free love as they pleased. We see these large house based (and, sometimes, church based) communes in both Psych-Out and Alice’s Restaurant. But, as we discussed in class, not all is perfect in these communes, particularly in the community created in Alice’s Restaurant. Like Lucas mentioned, the strong American sense of individualism cannot always be overcome—in this case, by Ray. Despite trying to build a community, he can’t conquer his own masculine alpha male tendencies long enough to be a successful leader. He constantly has to remind those around him that he’s in charge and that he owns the church, separating and elevating himself above the others, undermining the idea of the “collective.”
If the hippie community in Alice’s Restuarant is to be viewed as a congregation of sorts, it allows viewers to be critical of the hippie community. The film promotes this idea by placing the community in a church. Instead of the church bells signalling for a time of worship, the bells signal the making of love. ‘Amazing Grace’ sung by the revivalist and the hippie community almost certainly has a different, but meaningful resonance for both. There is a slideshow of the different churches in the town of Stockridge, leading up to the point when the we see the hippie community singing ‘Amazing Grace’ on Thanksgiving. That particular montage is a direct tie to hippies being part of their movement similiar to the way lay people are members to their church. The symbol for the christian church is a cross, where this hippie community has an symbol that doubles for a racing decal. Groovy. The church is Ray’s, as he reminds the congregation of a few times. Ray sees himself as the father of the community, and Alice as the mother. One of these times is in the scene when he finds Shelly’s drugs, and the other when Arlo is about to leave. Ray saying “his church” sounds like a father saying “his house” to his children. Ray finds stability in it being, ‘his church’, but the members of his congregation don’t have a real home, which makes their ultimate departure even more desperate. They are moving on trying to escape the movement in order to, as Arlo says, “finding out what my thing’s going to be.” The members of this brief community end up seeing themselves as individuals, not a community under Ray’s patriarchy.
In class yesterday, we briefly discussed the decision to cast Arlo Guthrie as himself and why this is so. All of the other characters are fictional, why isn't he? I believe this decision was made so that the viewer can see the history and literal/figurative genealogy of the hippie movement and the American Left as a whole. Arlo Guthrie's father was of course, the most famous American folk singer, Woody Guthrie. He wrote what is probably the most famous folk anthem, namely, "This Land Is Your Land,"which has lyrics such as "By the Relief Office i saw my people/ as they stood hungry, i stood wondering if/ this land was made for you and me."And also, on Woody Guthrie's guitar, was written "THIS MACHINE KILLS FASCISTS."Here, we see obvious leftist leanings. I point this out to show that the hippies did not come from nowhere. They evolved from a long history of the American left. Before the 60's, there were fervent leftists, socialist, and communist movements in America. Before Bob Dylan got to Greenwhich Village, it had already been a hub for creative, leftist, folk artists for decades. In the film, we see Pete Seeger play himself, as well as an actor playing the role of Woody Guthrie. Both of these folk singers belong to the leftists generation preceding Arlo and the hippies. By having the real Arlo an the real Pete Seeger and a representation of Woody, the film forces the audience to see the historical genealogy in which the hippie generation stems from. This is not meant to be seen a s total moment of nostalgia, but as Wood's essay states Ït testifies to the vitality of the folk tradition to which Woody belonged, but it also leaves one questioning the degree of ultimate satisfaction and sense of meaning )in the face of death) that such a tradition can offer." By tying these two generations together, one can't help but see similarities in their ideologies, but also in their failures. Woody dreamt of a land which is your land and my land. In the film, Ray and Alice attempt to create this land with the church and restaurant. but their endeavors fail and Woody's dream stays a dream. And then Woody dies.
In all three of the films that we had to watch for this week, the two in class "Alice's Restaurant" and "The Trip" as well as the at home screening, "Psych-Out" all dealt with the same aspects of the '68 counter culture movements. This idea of a community of people that had the same ideals and lived pretty freely and open with each other. In each film we see a different perspective on what that culture actually was, or how people inturpreted that culture. It wasn't as cut and dry as we may think of it today. In the film "Psych-Out" we see what we often think of when thinking about this time period and movement. People doing drugs, living with each other, free sex, and this idea that you don't need to much everybody is with everybody and everything belongs to everybody. We see this in the scene when Jenny (Susan Strasberg) needs new clothes so she won't stick out as much, so they go to a store when anybody can take what they need and money is the farthest thing from anybody's mind. Which is the complete opposite of how Jenny felt when she was a child. She cared for her little box of mementos so much that she lost the ability to hear fighting for it back. She will eventually try to seek out her brother, while trying to get away from her home life just as her brother did. After not finding him she kind of just stumbles into this movement and becomes one of them. I feel like this was an easy thing to do at this time, and she does so almost seamlessly. Now, in the film "Alice's Restaurant" directed by Arthur Penn. They have a similar idea of this movement, but nearly as stereotypical as in "Psych-Out" in this film Ray (James Broderick) and Alice (Patricia Quinn) buy a church for everybody to live together in. They first start fixing it up and then when they get to a place that they like with that they start to build a restaurant for Alice, which is a bit free thinking and doesn't seem to have any real thought behind it. But Alice works hard in that restaurant and she seems to want to do that so she can feed and take care of the people she loves. In this film I feel like Alice is with Ray because he as extravagant ideas and she thinks they are great and going to be great for the people that she loves. She is in this movement to do good by her family that she has created. Ray on the other hand is all over the place and does things just to do them it seems like. With people like Ray and Alice as almost the leaders of this community it is different than other communities like we see in "Psych-Out" and other films like that. They are just as free as the others but it isn't without purpose. They have a driving force, although it may not seem that way all the time. This is how we get characters like Arlo, like Trent said in his post, Arlo is not moving around for no reason, he has a sick dad that he wants to see. As well as wanting to be with this community of people and play his music. He knows the places that he has to be and doesn't think twice before he goes there. In a weird way he is always trying to do the right thing. When he hears is dad is getting worse he goes. When Shelley runs off he tries to go after him. When he has to go to his physical he goes right away. I think that is the reason that he knows that it is time for him to leave at the end of the film. At that same moment when we see Alice standing outside the church as he drives away I think she is feeling like it is almost time for her to leave as well, she knows that the life she lives can not last, but she is now stuck with Ray. So she has no other option but to watch her family that she has created drive away.
This weeks theme seemed to be “American hippies” and the counterculture around the American “movement” in the 1960’s. “Alice’s Restaurant”, “Psych-out” and “The Trip” all, in a different way, touch on Hippies & the counterculture around them. In regards to Alice’s restaurant, I agree with Andrew. I think arlo’s role in this film is to personify and symbolize the “movement” in the 60’s, as well as counterculture as a whole. Arlo travels from place to place, meeting up with different groups that represent the counterculture of America at this time. Arlo never seems to be a real part of any of the groups of people he visits, because Arlo seems to see the short comings of each group and thus distances himself from ever becoming a real part of any one group. Arlo seems to personify what the movement and hippie culture aspired to be, but couldn’t obtain. Almost every character in “alice’s Restaurant” seems to have at least one glaring character flaw. Wether it be Ray, Shelley or Alice herself, everyone seems to have one short comig, except for Arlo. I am not sure wether the reason for this is since Arlo was playing himself, they didn’t want to tarnish his imagine by giving him a glaring character flaw as well, or perhaps this was done intentionally so that the juxtaposition of Arlo and how he seems to embody the ideals of the movement with the other characters, shows how each group/character falls short of living up to their potential, seen in Arlo. In “The Trip” we are shown a “reefer madness” like way of looking at the drug LSD. If you take this film’s depiction of LSD, it is not a thing you’d want to try, seeing as Paul has a fairly bad night from his trip.
In her article "Sons, Daughters and Patriarchy: Gender and the 1968 Generation," Sarah M. Evans identifies the existence of patriarchy that managed to slither even into the movement of 1968. She explains that "the revolt of sons of the elite against institutional, economic and governmental authority challenged patriarchal power but not patriarchy" (338). She explains that even within the groups who worked to change the system had misogynistic hierarchies where women only could gain status if they had relationships with the male leaders. Similarly, she explains that women were oppressed in the far-left groups in that the "men monopolized discussions, spoke in a masculine political language with which women did not identify, the way that the sexual division of the political activity was maintained and the way that women were in general kept in inferior positions" (348). This observation is extremely helpful in observing the role of women in all three of the films we watched this week.
The best example lies in the Psych-Out character Jenny and the men of the film's interactions with her. In nearly every way, they represent a form of sexism, from benevolent to violent. While they may be into opening their mind and becoming free, in regards to Jenny, they most certainly are not. They hold on tightly to the objectifying and misogynistic values of the patriarchy. Beginning with Jenny's arrival to San Francisco, she is instantly approached on the street by what appear to be the hippies who offer their home to her. While one might argue this is nothing more than a friendly gesture, it is probably more of a "come-on" since they instantly lose interest in her when she states she already as a place to stay. When the men insist she changes clothes, they go to a store where the men help her decide what they prefer to see her in. A montage of Jenny in different outfits flash on the screen until they finally decide what is correct for her to wear. After she learns that Stoney is cheating on her, she explores an open-minded view of sexuality as well and almost begins a sexual relationship with Dave. While it appears to be perfectly fine for Stoney to have an open relationship, he is so furious with Jenny for kissing Dave that it results in violence. This double-standard that Stoney reinforces is rooted in misogyny.
Not only does the plot of this film exemplify Evans' article, but the way in which it is filmed is also an example. For instance, throughout the film the camera contributes to the male gaze, panning up and down women's bodies as they walk down the street. In the scene where Jenny comes home, disgusted with the mess, the camera pans over many half-naked female bodies without revealing their faces. This type of filming in itself contributes to the patriarchal system that was under attack. This objectification is also used in The Trip. The women of the film are, at least for the most part, not necessarily used to advance the plot. Rather, they are used as sexual objects for the main character. This objectification in both films could probably be justified by many as a representation of the women's sexual freedom during the time period. However, there is a huge difference between embracing one's sexuality and being sexualized. Through the film techniques I mentioned above, I argue that both films embrace the latter.
Alice's Restaurant, on the other hand, does place more emphasis on a woman's right to sexuality that was emphasized during the time period. This point is most driven home in the final shot of the film where we see Alice in her wedding dress at a church, watch longingly as Arlo and Mari drive away in the van. The fact that she is in a wedding dress and on the stairs of a church is not unimportant. This probably represents the institution that ties her to her husband who ties her to her job that represents well the patriarchal institution that the hippies were trying to rebel against. She is a free spirited and free loving character, but who is tightly leashed by her "opened-minded" husband. This representation exemplifies Evan's point in her article that while the counterculture may have been fighting for freedom for all, the patriarchy and misrepresentation was still heavily at play.
It’s interesting that the common link between our three viewings for the week seem to be somewhat counterproductive. Living communal style is a point of interest that each film has an emphasis towards displaying as a part of the counter culture. However there are scenes in each film marred by selfish individualism. Many characters in each film are immensely attached to a personal euphoria because of the intense effects from drugs We see drugs idolized very different in each film. “Psych Out” portrays drugs as this awesome tool that can help you be a free thinker, having a huge influence on this culture. “The Trip” gives a different view on the drugs in counter culture. Flashing to scenes in creepy smoke filled houses, and dark horsemen chasing the character throughout the story is more negative towards the drugs than our other films. . “[T]he changed roles of women and men in the economy, the family, language, and public life, and the ideological, cultural, and institutional reverberations of these changes represent a profound transformation” (Evans 347). I agree with this excerpt for multiple reasons. Drugs were an excuse to break away from the conformity of society at that time. Up until the 1960’s, traditional family values were the norm. Dating and marriage remained sacred which made the scene from “Pshyc Out” where Stoney Yells at Jenny proclaiming “I Don’t have a leash on You!” a vital reference to teen romance. Music is also important in these films because being an artist is the ultimate representation of free thought. Each film involves some sort of musician yet they each represent music a bit differently. “The Trip”, is not as “groovy” and can be jazzier I would also consider dark, gloomy, and mysterious. “Alice’s Restaurant” has more folk music in it. This film directly deals with conflict between police and counter culture and has more folk tradition in it, so I believe it’s important for the films purpose.
Despite these three films being similar in that they all have a scene in which long-haired "hippies" get teased because of the length of their hair, or a scene that is supposed to show us the audience what a psychedelic trip is truly like through abstract visuals and montages, they all deal with - at their very core - different human emotions and issues affecting us all, or as Robin Wood (in her essay on "Alice's Restaurant" put it; "they [hippie films of the 60s] are responding to problems of living confronting us all".
ReplyDeleteSo despite all of these films' "groovy" visuals, or "far-out" soundtracks, at the core of them you have men going through emotions ranging from ennui ("The Trip"), to love ("Psych-Out"), and even freedom ("Alice's Restaurant"), all of them simultaneously trying to deal with said emotions.
But as I said "men" in all three of these films, it goes along with what Sara Evans has to say about the new left being (even when it came to films like these three) "male-dominated". Jenny (played by Susan Strasberg) in "Pysch-Out" is portrayed as somewhat helpless and over-emotional, even childish, throwing her arms up and storming away at any situation that doesn't satisfy her completely, and finally only to be saved by a less "reckless" man in Stoney (Jack Nicholson). In "The Trip", there are very few women, and the ones who do appear are merely objects of desire (except the daughter of course). Finally, in "Alice's Restaurant", although the titular character is a strong independent woman, her non-monogamous link to Shelly doesn't show her in the most flattering light.
With these films, you have bands of outsiders going through experiences relatable to those who aren't outsiders by implanting at the film's core a common human feeling (and adding some lighthearted comedy in here and there). Yet despite these advances, the films are still (for the sake of the argument) mostly non-forward thinking in their portrayals of women (i.e. these aren't Almodovar films).
Of interest: Tarantino to play Corman in a film whose story is how Corman made THE TRIP!
ReplyDeletehttp://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/quentin-tarantino-will-reportedly-play-roger-corman-in-biopic-the-man-with-the-kaleidoscope-eyes-20130920
For those who are interested, the book Trevor referred to in class is Robert Kolker's THE CINEMA OF LONELINESS: http://www.amazon.com/Cinema-Loneliness-Robert-Kolker/dp/0199730024/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1415117244&sr=1-1&keywords=cinema+of+loneliness
ReplyDeleteEnding of Truffaut's 400 BLOWS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4jGNoag_1g
ReplyDeleteOne of the most famous endings in the history of cinema...
Each of the films “Psych Out,” “The Trip” and “Alice’s Restaurant” romanticize the late 60s American hippie movement in many ways, yet they contemplate this with a critical resistance to fully support the movement. Robin Wood describes of “Alice’s Restaurant,” “People who don’t like hippies distrust it because it is so sympathetic to hippies; people who do like hippies distrust it because it exposes with the most rigorous clarity—the truest sort of clarity, born out of sympathetic insight, not distaste—the essential weaknesses and inadequacies of the hippie movement” (72). The same could also be said for Penn’s film’s contemporary hippie works, “Psych Out” and “The Trip.”
ReplyDeleteNone of these films openly condemn the hippie lifestyle. They depict a fun counter culture of drug experimentation, sex, long hair, colorful fashion, and an overall laid back and relaxed way of life. These films are aesthetically entertaining and experimental for the audiences in an effort to depict the pleasure the characters are deriving from their behavior. For example, the sex scene between Smokey (Jack Nicholson) and Jenny (Susan Strasberg) is a montage of psychedelic images of the two making love that incorporates colorful, bright lighting and fades between “trippy” images with a rock song playing over the images. Similarly, “The Trip,” almost in its entirety, is shot in this psychedelic, dream-like way to visually recreate a LSD trip.
These aspects of the hippie film provide more than enough reasons for critics of the movement to dislike the films, yet the films are not completely uncritical of their subject matter. The death of Shelly and Woody in “Alice’s Restaurant” seems to be the point in the film where the utopian dream of a communal society comes crashing down to reality. These deaths symbolize both the death of a folk legend that the movement idealizes and a victim of the drug component of the movement itself. The wedding of Alice and Ray is the last desperate attempt to reclaim the idealistic hope that Alice and Ray set out with when they bought the church—to create a safe, happy place free from the problems of society. Wood argues Penn continually deals with human existence in his films and defines it as “a half-blind struggle toward self-expression and contact in which creative and destructive impulses intertwine and merge indistinguishably” (81-82). The failure of the wedding to reclaim the optimism and achieve this intertwinement imagined at the beginning of the film is clearly explicated by the long dolly shot of Alice at the end of the film.
The death of Dave (Dean Stockwell) in “Psych Out” communicates much the same message. While the hippie culture is extremely attractive on Jenny’s drive into San Francisco during the opening credits, it is much less romantic once she has lived within it. The bad trips visualized in “The Trip and “Psych Out” thematize the dangers of LSD. While Peter Fonda’s trip seems to be more of an experience (humorous, scary, psychedelic, etc.), it isn’t as disastrous as Jenny and Dave’s. Dave’s death on the Golden Gate Bridge, the most recognizable feature of San Francisco which remains a symbol of hippie culture, seems to conclude the hippie lifestyle, while fun at times, is ultimately impractical and destructive.
“Psych-Out,” “Alice’s Restaurant,” and “The Trip” all play an important role in displaying the different nature of movements in the 60’s in the United States in comparison to the other movements going on around the world. As we saw in the documentaries earlier in the semester, there was a very real and serious movement to try and bring about change, such as ending the Vietnam War, freedom of speech, etc. Along with that, however, the youth movements, the counter-culture, within the United States appeared as having much more to do with drugs and sexuality than any of the other areas we have been studying, and these are issues that all three of this weeks’ films deal with in one way or another.
ReplyDeleteThese films deal almost exclusively with the drug and sex culture of the time period, showing both the positive and negative aspects that can come from it. In “Psych-Out,” Dave is the person furthest removed from society and real life (through drug use) as he lives in an isolated room on top of a building. Throughout the film, especially when Stoney asks Dave to play music with the band again, Dave always responds, telling Stoney that he is “playing games,” as if real life has no significance. Sara M. Evans touches on this matter as she quotes Charles Reich and his experiences with hippies, saying, “They saw how empty and unfulfilling middle-class life could become. They recognized that the goals of money, ambition and power were a trap” (336). This idea of denouncing traditional aspects of life is something that Dave seems to do more than anyone else (besides The Seeker), but he is portrayed as the moral and righteous one. Similarly, the entire church in “Alice’s Restaurant” seems to embody this type of belief, as they focus mainly on having a good time. But how far can that recognition go?
In “Psych-Out,” Dave is the only one concerned with Stoney ignoring Jenny after having sex with her and sucking her into the lifestyle. Sara M. Evans once again brings up Charles Reich, this time dealing with relationships, saying, “no oath, no law, no promise, no indebtedness [should] hold people together when the feeling is gone” (336). Stoney’s one night stand with Jenny may be a slightly different matter, but this type of sexual freedom is witnessed (and dreamed about) in “Alice’s Restaurant” and “The Trip” as well. Alice is married to Ray, but sleeps with Shelly and tries to/ seems interested in sleeping with Arlo. In “The Trip,” Paul fantasizes (with the help of acid) about his soon-to-be ex-wife and a woman he just met, ultimately reuniting with that woman and having sex with her. Returning to “Psych-Out”, Dave is also the one who ends up saving Jenny from oncoming traffic during her acid trip (something that is his fault), ultimately paying for it with his own life. Dave’s final words provide a solid example of what Charles Reich understood in regards to hippies and their lifestyle: “reality’s a deadly place, I hope this trip is a good one”.
For the majority of the films, everything seems all right. Life is good, the drugs are good (usually), and the sex is good, but, just like in real life, there are moments that act as a wake up call from these “dreams”. So, was the increased prevalence of sex and drugs within the American counter culture part of the reason why the revolutionary movements ultimately faltered? And, along with that, was it part of how, like in the final scene from “Alice’s Restaurant”, the dream ultimately died? Either way, these films demonstrate the feelings of the era, as people were free and loving and having fun, but, more importantly, each film also shows how that is not enough, how, sooner or later, reality comes crashing back in…and it must be dealt with.
I think my post goes well with Dom's. His take on reality surfacing sooner or later aligns with my take that ideologies can't always be brought to reality. On watching “Psych-out,” specially within the context of today’s class discussion, Stoney’s quote towards the end of the movie seems remarkably fitting. As he says, “individual against the collecting, conforming society, and all that.” Just like in Alice’s Restaurant, the focus of the struggle seems to be a direct reflection of the struggles of the community rather than external influences. For example, when Stoney finds Dave kissing Jenny, the ensuing discussion focuses on the friction of individualism being put over the harmony of the community:
Delete“Just beautiful. Damn it, Jenny. What the hell is the matter with you?”
“Hey. We all have to do out own thing remember?”
“Shut up, Dave.”
“Listen, Stoney. Nothing happened.”
“Nothing happened? What do you call “nothing”? What happened? I get here a little too soon?”
“Where did you get this middle class morality? Listen to the big free thinker! [...] Moment of truth and you go square, Stoney.”
The fact that Stoney is being called out for his egocentrism and inability to “share” is interesting since Dave begins his argument by rationalizing with Jenny that:
“Whether you make it with me, or not, that’s not the important thing. It’s facing your appetites and your curiosity.”
On Robin Wood’s piece she comments, “[i]t is ironic that what provided the initial inspiration ends up as an intrusion, interrupting the flow of the film and distracting us from the characters and issues we are most concern with,” (80). Despite this being specifically said about Alice’s Restaurant, it could easily be applied to the movement as a whole. The movement started on a weak basis and its doom was found in the most basic of its ideologies. The all-inclusive, non-judgmental, freeing, and peaceful movement found its end in that its members were part of a society whose whole purpose is the rise of the individual through individual work, individual means, and individual struggle.
The inspiration to have a community where individuals could be free to be themselves presented a great inspiration that became the problematic intrusion as the community tries to remain a community without forcing its members to fall into a homogenous personality. The very fact that this week’s films, regardless of their purpose, can’t escape presenting aspects of the stereotype of hippies--whether through finding Jenny the “proper” outfits, or the representative characters in Alice’s Restaurant--shows that the movement couldn’t bring both ideas together.
I mentioned this in class, but I really do find Arlow's role in Alice's restaurant to be really interesting. Perhaps it's just the nature of having Arlow Guthrie play himself, but they've really crafted an interesting character that follows some of the trends of classic american character tropes, like Huckleberry Finn or Holden Caulfield. You can see this is his lackadaisical attitude that is familiar to Huck, or the nature of which he travels from place to place as a venue for which the audience to judge each character, and the cultures they represent.
ReplyDeleteAlthough, I think there is a distinct lack of criticism on Arlow's character. While this could be that Arlow Guthrie, who was undoubtedly a large part of selling the film, simply didn't want that criticism shared with his real life persona. However, it could be that Arlow himself could represent the larger counterculture of the United States in itself, or at least what they aspire to be. Ticking off his traits, he's smart, considerate (as evidenced with the scene with the 14-year-old), a friend to anyone, as evidenced with his multicultural posse with Roger and Mari-chan, and non-agressive (with his opposition to the war draft). However, he really can't be pinned down to a single movement, and chooses to weave in and out of various sects of the american counterculture. So instead of being a person, Arlow represents the whole counterculture in itself, in my humble opinion.
The films this week provide different images of American hippies as well as their perceived ideals, though they all sort of come to the same conclusion, albeit in fundamentally different ways. We touched upon it a little bit in class, that the endings in many of the American films produced in the era of “The Summer of Love” typically conjure up the sense of confusion about and within the hippie movement. While “Psych-Out” and “The Trip” are less a dialogue with the counter-culture and more of a way to sell an image back to that culture with as much psychedelic rock, kaleidoscopic visuals, and recognizable slogans of the time as possible, “Alice’s Restaurant” provides a complex and serious question about how viable the hippie culture can be.
ReplyDeleteWith “Psych-Out” and “The Trip,” a lot of what we get are moral tales showing the highs and lows of the drug culture that permeates throughout popular conceptions of what the hippie movement was. They depict the West coast hippies as tragic comedies that own the seeds of their demise; Stoney cares more about his own success with his band and ignores Jenny’s obvious love, which he cultivated, for other women and “The Seeker” kills himself in a burning house moments before reconnecting with his sister. “Psych-Out’s freaky climax has more in common with the conservative hysteria of Reefer Madness,” Scott Tobias observes, and provides only “an amusingly dated and noxious compendium of counterculture clichés.” It is so obvious, in fact, that even the hippies, in their hazy, tripping, loving world, could recognize the dubious motives of the film that “the locals greeted [the film crew] with such hostility and obstruction that the producers had to hire Hells Angels to keep the peace” (Tobias). Both of the films end with the same message that drugs are bad with Jenny losing her deaf mind on the Golden Gate Bridge and Paul getting a superimposed crack over his brain; the poster for “The Trip” (on IMDb) has the words, “A Lovely Sort of Death” with the L, S, and D highlighted.
On the other hand, “Alice’s Restaurant” gives us people that are trying to make the collective communal ideas work, though ultimately their personal flaws show through their disguises and leave them with a battered church and hopeful wishing, much like the ending to “Woodstock” (Michael Wadleigh, 1970). They all want something to happen, but what it is and how they can make it happen are left up in the air with the assumption that it will work its way out eventually, which the wedding scene brings the uncertainty to a boil. “[N]obody knows how serious its meant to be, including Ray and Alice,” its supposed to be a marker for a real event with real significance, but “as with all the other celebrations in the film, the realization falls short of the conception” (90). In the end, the long dolly shot focuses on Alice’s blank expression when she realizes the failure of it all as if asking, “What now?”
http://www.avclub.com/review/the-trip-psych-out-dvd-11976 (Scott Tobias’ review of “Psych-Out” and “The Trip”)
Both “The Trip” and “Psych-Out” really surprised me in their approach to portraying drug and hippie culture. Despite being hippie exploitation movies that were, in part, an effort to cash in on the mysterious appeal of the new counterculture, the filmmakers seem to have made an effort to include both the positive and negative aspects of the movement. In “The Trip,” for example, one might prepare for a wholesale condemnation of drugs after the stark opening that warns the audience of the sometimes-fatal results of using black-market hallucinogens, yet what follows is more of a simulated trip that lets the audience come to their own conclusions. The over-the-top light effects and forays into medieval fantasy, while sating the appetite of an audience in search of a spectacle, also try to make a point about hippie spirituality and the need to search inside of oneself for truth, with or without the use of hallucinogens. Paul gains insight into his desires and, through the use of “trippy” out of body sequences in which he watches himself make love to his soon-to-be ex-wife, works through his marriage. Towards the end when the negative elements of the drugs become more apparent, such as fractures appearing over Paul’s head or the appearance of a young woman at the house who can barely form a coherent thought due to drugs, one can weigh the potential benefits and disadvantages of adopting such a lifestyle.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, the criticisms of the hippie culture in San Francisco are, in turn, criticized in “Psych-Out.” As much as the hippies in the film are criticized for their divergeant ideals or manner of dress, those doing the criticizing are also shown to no better. For example, when the band goes past a group of churchgoers who judge them based on their different clothes, the camera pans over to a group of men dressed up as biblical figures and then up to a stained glass portrayal of Jesus, suggesting that they judge not. Also placing the hippies in a good light is their juxtaposition with the irrational junkyard thugs who attack them and attempt to rape Jenny because of her brother’s preaching of free loving ideals. In face of these examples, negative moments in the group such as Warren having a bad trip and trying to cut off his hand with a circular saw or Stony defying the all-loving ideal by mistreating Jenny complicates the audience’s perception of hippie culture and, like in “The Trip,” forces them to assess the situation rather than having it shown to them as either wholly good or wholly bad.
Before watching both The Trip and Psych–Out simultaneously, I read a book earlier in the semester called Weird Scenes Inside The Canyon which argues that the hippie movement began in Laurel Canyon, a hilly suburb of Los Angeles, and not in the San Francisco’s Haight–Ashbury area and the Monterey Pop festival and it’s interesting how both these films, only a year part, reflect these different eras. The Trip, for example, stars three actors who lived in Laurel Canyon during this time (Peter Fonda, Dennis Hopper, and Bruce Dern) and Jack Nicholson, the screenwriter, also lived here as well, not to mention IMDB lists other Canyon dwellers such as singer Gram Parsons and actor Brandon De Wilde in uncredited roles, and finally according to the book, the main house used in the film was an actual Laurel Canyon house.
ReplyDeleteThe author suggests that when understanding the family connections many of the aspiring actors and musicians in Laurel Canyon have to the military intelligence community (which includes The Trip’s three main actors), it seems unlikely that the hippie movement was a grassroots creation but rather an deliberate operation to counter the original anti–war movement that started had in highly–respectable colleges like Berkeley. This seems true especially when considering everything about the hippies seemed alien and distasteful to mainstream American values, which we can see in these films and the way they are marketed to their youth audience. Also, when understanding that the hippies came out of Los Angeles, it seems obvious that their image was, in part, created and maintained by Hollywood. It is interesting though that it seems with The Trip and Psych–Out that low–budget exploitation films were the “testing ground” for these types of films, which until they proved to be profitable, we see an emergence of Hollywood hippie and protest films in the late sixties and early seventies.
Tony William in “The Vietnam War on Campus” mentions a paradox that exists when a “capitalistic movie industry supports films whose themes appeared to oppose the very system producing them.” You can’t have it both ways and the overwhelming majority of American “student–protest” or hippy films are very exploitative and shallow for a reason. For example, Both The Trip and Psych–Out barely attempt to, if even at all, explicitly describe the assumed political motivations that the hippy movement was part of, and as several students suggest, they seem to further paint an unappealing image of the contrived hippie movement by relishing in its extremes (as exploitation movies do). When researching the film I learned The Trip’s prologue was added by the producers, at Roger Corman’s behest, and this addition makes the film very reflective to early 1930s American exploitation films where producers would make a film about a subversive topic, but use an introductory clause in an attempt to designate the film as “educational” for economic considerations rather than truthfully acknowledging what it really is.
When I sat down to watch The Trip I was immediately reminded of the film Reefer Madness because of the way it portrays drug culture, the only difference being the drug used. The Trip opens up with a warning statement that condemns the usage of LSD and other black-market drugs, making the films negative stance on drugs and hippie culture extremely evident.
ReplyDeleteThe main character', Paul's reasoning for taking LSD is that he wants to find himself, a sentiment that was no doubt familiar to first time users in the 1960's, almost to the point of cliche; this was no doubt meant to get the attention of viewers thinking about trying the drug themselves for the same reason. After he takes LSD we enter a bizarre, non-nonsensical, almost scary world. Paul is plagued with visions of sex, colors, and death. Things start to spiral out of control when he leaves the sanctuary of John's pad, and it was about here that the message of the film is blasted the most "don't do drugs".
Paul wanders the streets paranoid, sweaty, and most of all lacking control of his own actions. Every part of this film is overtly used to scare people away from hippie culture be it the creepy environment of John's house, the hard to look at colors and lights, the visions of death, and the inevitable appearance of the police.
The film ends with Paul looking out at the beach, he is asked if he did wind up finding himself, to which he answers yes. The film however keeps going for a little bit as if to ask "was it worth it?". The answer the film would like us to come to is "no."
Psych Out and The Trip both especially, provide the viewer with complex aesthetics that add to the dynamic of the idea of perception of reality. In Psych Out this idea of reality is explored most obviously through the Seeker, and in The Trip this idea of perception of reality seems to be more of the plot of the film. In Psych Out the premises of the film is to find the Brother of a deaf woman, Jenny, who also has to deal a great bit with this idea of reality in that there are several instances where she has to decide what information to take in how to receive it because she is deaf and she is limited in that sense. When we meet her brother, The Seeker, he seems to inside of reality of his own this is seen when he is retelling a memory to Stoney , who first discovered him, in this memory he talks about the instance leading up to how his sister became deaf and we the viewers are served with strange images of black substance leaving the little girls mouth, I would assume this is signifying sort of lost innocence but the way in which the seeker tells the story paired with the strange imagery leads the viewer to assume the realities of the story, but it also leaves us feeling like the Seeker has some sorting out of realities to do himself. This idea of perception of reality and how it is presented is much different in The Trip because the entire film is made up of dream like sequences wedged in between scenes of what Paul is experiencing outside of his mind. This kind of travel between what is happening inside of his mind as well as outside of it is a trip in itself, and puts pressure on the differentiation of reality throughout the film rather than on just one character.
ReplyDeleteAfter taking a long time examining much of the politics surrounding the global movement of 1968, it is an uneasy transition into the psychedelic culture explosion of the 60s. Of course, in America the drug culture is a seemingly larger part of its equation, compared to other regions around the world. What effect this seems to have, as has been indicated in the american cinema this week, is that the 60s movement in America had both larger breadth and less fire than similar movements around the world. Perhaps it is because of how ingrained the consumer culture is to americans, but it seems that far leftist ideas are absent from the conversation. Is it that the American's sense of individualism cannot be overcome by romanticization of the collective. That seems to be what these films are arguing, particularly Psych-Out and Alice's Restaurant. Even The Trip, speaks on an individualistic level with the very singular lens with which it views its titular trip. (1/2)
ReplyDeleteCharacters like Ray and Stoney are people who espouse free love, harmony, and unity, but over the course of their stories we see that they are inherently selfish individuals. Ray needs people around him to give himself a sense of importance and throws a fit when he falls out of the limelight. Stoney upholds the values of the hippy movement only when it is convenient for him. He is a violent person who has a hunger for money and he uses the shield of free love when it gives him opportunity to get in bed with more women. These are the men at the forefront of their respective rebellions, and while they ostensibly champion the values of hippy culture they cannot divorce themselves from the patriarchy they seem to rebel against. (2/2)
DeleteIn class on Tuesday, Chandler made an interesting point on Alice’s Restaurant that I believed could be applied to all three films this week: that the stories could be thought of as disasters before they even play out. In Psych-Out, we have the character of Dean, a character who represents the spirituality of the counter-culture. He’s irritatingly all-knowing, gives warnings to Jack Nicholson as Stoney about the dangers of choosing money over passion; he is clearly the one on a righteous path, the real movement, as opposed to the popular culture where drugs overtook many of the budding passions that were possibly present within the movement’s participants. And so when he comes into the screen and brings ominous warning to the audience, he echoes Chandler’s ideas of these films and counter-culture white hippie movement being predestined for disaster.
ReplyDeleteThe Trip only stood out to me for the moment when Peter Fonda’s character breaks free from the house, and a series of advertisements are flashed on the screen, popular advertisements that bear over him as he’s on his trip. This quick interjection of well-known symbols reminded me of La Hora de Los Hornos, and how these images bear over us in a capitalist society.
Alice’s Restaurant stood out as the most important of the three films we watched this week, as it really shows an immediate community trying to come together as such. Yet, it is a combination of the people like James Broderick’s character Ray and other impending elements that end the film’s movement in disaster. However, what interests me most from the film’s moral standpoint is the character of the only confirmed Vietnam Veteran, whose name was mentioned once. He shows up late into the film and is possibly one of the only parts of the film that aren’t lightened with gimmick. When Arlo sees his hook he reacts shocked, and if I remember this causes a quite blunt question as to what the hook was. To this, the character replied that it was exactly what it looked like, giving Arlo an idea of what is possibly waiting if he is to go through with the draft. He comes to the screen in one other movement in the film, and watches the ‘family’ walk back into the church, he is quiet, and stands away from the rest, but his silence hung over me as a viewer simply as a reminder of what was real in the film.
As we have already talked about in class, many of the films from the late 1960’s are pretty depressing. All of them either end in death, jail or even more severe death. Nothing good happen in the 60’s at all, all people did was die on their motorcycles or get kill by the police. It was all pain and misery, except that it was not. Because three of the films we watched focused on a aspect that has only been referenced in other films, The hippie-drug culture man, a time where there was no worries man and everyone was friends man. In the plotline, Psych-Out and Alice’s Restaurant comes from a place of companionship, Stoney wants to take care of Jenny and does the best that he can, Alice created her own restaurant so that she and Alro and Ray and the others could all be together. There is a feeling of warmth and togetherness that excuses from these films that has escaped all of the other films we have watched. It’s refreshing to see that someone smiled back in the late 1960’s, but do not worry, any signs of happiness evades quickly. Robin Wood talks about how in Alice’s Restaurant “The hippie funeral derives its poignance not only from the snowy setting but from the lack of any real unity” (88). This scene analysis articulate how in almost every film from this era, that as soon as something goes wrong, that when all of the fun stops. It is almost like how the peaceful 1960’s ended. As soon the Hell Angel’s killed Meredith Hunter at the Altamont concert, all the fun seemed to stop and sadness seem to kick in. In Psych-out everything is all fun until Dave dies and you are left stranded in the highway. Everything fine in Alice’s Restaurant, until your friends dies and your left to ponder what left with your life.
ReplyDelete"Alice's Restaurant", "Psych-Out", and "The Trip" are all about life for hippies in the sixties. But I wanted to talk more about the stereotypes that the films show and disprove; at least from the films perspective.
ReplyDeleteIn "Alice's Restaurant", the stereotype that I saw the most, or was shown the most obviously, was the theoretical "freedom" that hippies had. Now Arlow's character was moving and driving all over the place, but the reasons for his coming and going were far from random whims. He had his family to think about, with his dad’s illness and his grieving mother. Now he was also linked to his friends and comrades that shared his beliefs and his ideals. He was very connected to all of them, especially Alice, Shelly, and Ray. And the drama and conflict between all of them grounded him into this way of living, willingly or not. Alice’s character is more grounded than any of the main characters. She had her own business, responsibilities that without her probably wouldn’t have been taken care of. She is also the nurturer in the group. She cares deeply about the people she is invested in, but she is strong enough to fight back if she is disrespected.
In “Psych-Out”, the stereotype that is being shown is the common use of drugs and, in the stereotype, the lack of consequences of drug use. But the film shows the real world effects of using drugs. The main character brakes into a house, harasses a woman in a Laundromat, and gets chased by the police. The paranoia and the lack of logical thinking is obviously a big side effect. But even at the end of the film, the main character is still not fulfilled, or with a good understanding of whatever he was trying to figure out.
Alannah, you mention the point during The Trip when Peter Fonda leaves the house and is overwhelmed by the neon signage and advertisements lighting up the night. It ties in well with the points Lucas makes about the American movement’s considerable fondness for drugs, and the consumer culture we find engrained in American society. Americans love having the ability to pay to escape reality for a while. The movement as a whole seemed disenchanted with the capitalist society championed by those in charge. Thus, they rebelled, rejecting traditional means of earning a living, all the while setting up peaceful communes, experimenting with drugs and free love as they pleased. We see these large house based (and, sometimes, church based) communes in both Psych-Out and Alice’s Restaurant. But, as we discussed in class, not all is perfect in these communes, particularly in the community created in Alice’s Restaurant. Like Lucas mentioned, the strong American sense of individualism cannot always be overcome—in this case, by Ray. Despite trying to build a community, he can’t conquer his own masculine alpha male tendencies long enough to be a successful leader. He constantly has to remind those around him that he’s in charge and that he owns the church, separating and elevating himself above the others, undermining the idea of the “collective.”
ReplyDeleteIf the hippie community in Alice’s Restuarant is to be viewed as a congregation of sorts, it allows viewers to be critical of the hippie community. The film promotes this idea by placing the community in a church. Instead of the church bells signalling for a time of worship, the bells signal the making of love. ‘Amazing Grace’ sung by the revivalist and the hippie community almost certainly has a different, but meaningful resonance for both. There is a slideshow of the different churches in the town of Stockridge, leading up to the point when the we see the hippie community singing ‘Amazing Grace’ on Thanksgiving. That particular montage is a direct tie to hippies being part of their movement similiar to the way lay people are members to their church. The symbol for the christian church is a cross, where this hippie community has an symbol that doubles for a racing decal. Groovy.
ReplyDeleteThe church is Ray’s, as he reminds the congregation of a few times. Ray sees himself as the father of the community, and Alice as the mother. One of these times is in the scene when he finds Shelly’s drugs, and the other when Arlo is about to leave. Ray saying “his church” sounds like a father saying “his house” to his children. Ray finds stability in it being, ‘his church’, but the members of his congregation don’t have a real home, which makes their ultimate departure even more desperate. They are moving on trying to escape the movement in order to, as Arlo says, “finding out what my thing’s going to be.” The members of this brief community end up seeing themselves as individuals, not a community under Ray’s patriarchy.
In class yesterday, we briefly discussed the decision to cast Arlo Guthrie as himself and why this is so. All of the other characters are fictional, why isn't he? I believe this decision was made so that the viewer can see the history and literal/figurative genealogy of the hippie movement and the American Left as a whole.
ReplyDeleteArlo Guthrie's father was of course, the most famous American folk singer, Woody Guthrie. He wrote what is probably the most famous folk anthem, namely, "This Land Is Your Land,"which has lyrics such as "By the Relief Office i saw my people/ as they stood hungry, i stood wondering if/ this land was made for you and me."And also, on Woody Guthrie's guitar, was written "THIS MACHINE KILLS FASCISTS."Here, we see obvious leftist leanings. I point this out to show that the hippies did not come from nowhere. They evolved from a long history of the American left. Before the 60's, there were fervent leftists, socialist, and communist movements in America. Before Bob Dylan got to Greenwhich Village, it had already been a hub for creative, leftist, folk artists for decades.
In the film, we see Pete Seeger play himself, as well as an actor playing the role of Woody Guthrie. Both of these folk singers belong to the leftists generation preceding Arlo and the hippies. By having the real Arlo an the real Pete Seeger and a representation of Woody, the film forces the audience to see the historical genealogy in which the hippie generation stems from. This is not meant to be seen a s total moment of nostalgia, but as Wood's essay states Ït testifies to the vitality of the folk tradition to which Woody belonged, but it also leaves one questioning the degree of ultimate satisfaction and sense of meaning )in the face of death) that such a tradition can offer." By tying these two generations together, one can't help but see similarities in their ideologies, but also in their failures. Woody dreamt of a land which is your land and my land. In the film, Ray and Alice attempt to create this land with the church and restaurant. but their endeavors fail and Woody's dream stays a dream. And then Woody dies.
In all three of the films that we had to watch for this week, the two in class "Alice's Restaurant" and "The Trip" as well as the at home screening, "Psych-Out" all dealt with the same aspects of the '68 counter culture movements. This idea of a community of people that had the same ideals and lived pretty freely and open with each other. In each film we see a different perspective on what that culture actually was, or how people inturpreted that culture. It wasn't as cut and dry as we may think of it today.
ReplyDeleteIn the film "Psych-Out" we see what we often think of when thinking about this time period and movement. People doing drugs, living with each other, free sex, and this idea that you don't need to much everybody is with everybody and everything belongs to everybody. We see this in the scene when Jenny (Susan Strasberg) needs new clothes so she won't stick out as much, so they go to a store when anybody can take what they need and money is the farthest thing from anybody's mind. Which is the complete opposite of how Jenny felt when she was a child. She cared for her little box of mementos so much that she lost the ability to hear fighting for it back. She will eventually try to seek out her brother, while trying to get away from her home life just as her brother did. After not finding him she kind of just stumbles into this movement and becomes one of them. I feel like this was an easy thing to do at this time, and she does so almost seamlessly.
Now, in the film "Alice's Restaurant" directed by Arthur Penn. They have a similar idea of this movement, but nearly as stereotypical as in "Psych-Out" in this film Ray (James Broderick) and Alice (Patricia Quinn) buy a church for everybody to live together in. They first start fixing it up and then when they get to a place that they like with that they start to build a restaurant for Alice, which is a bit free thinking and doesn't seem to have any real thought behind it. But Alice works hard in that restaurant and she seems to want to do that so she can feed and take care of the people she loves. In this film I feel like Alice is with Ray because he as extravagant ideas and she thinks they are great and going to be great for the people that she loves. She is in this movement to do good by her family that she has created. Ray on the other hand is all over the place and does things just to do them it seems like. With people like Ray and Alice as almost the leaders of this community it is different than other communities like we see in "Psych-Out" and other films like that. They are just as free as the others but it isn't without purpose. They have a driving force, although it may not seem that way all the time. This is how we get characters like Arlo, like Trent said in his post, Arlo is not moving around for no reason, he has a sick dad that he wants to see. As well as wanting to be with this community of people and play his music. He knows the places that he has to be and doesn't think twice before he goes there. In a weird way he is always trying to do the right thing. When he hears is dad is getting worse he goes. When Shelley runs off he tries to go after him. When he has to go to his physical he goes right away. I think that is the reason that he knows that it is time for him to leave at the end of the film. At that same moment when we see Alice standing outside the church as he drives away I think she is feeling like it is almost time for her to leave as well, she knows that the life she lives can not last, but she is now stuck with Ray. So she has no other option but to watch her family that she has created drive away.
This weeks theme seemed to be “American hippies” and the counterculture around the American “movement” in the 1960’s. “Alice’s Restaurant”, “Psych-out” and “The Trip” all, in a different way, touch on Hippies & the counterculture around them. In regards to Alice’s restaurant, I agree with Andrew. I think arlo’s role in this film is to personify and symbolize the “movement” in the 60’s, as well as counterculture as a whole. Arlo travels from place to place, meeting up with different groups that represent the counterculture of America at this time. Arlo never seems to be a real part of any of the groups of people he visits, because Arlo seems to see the short comings of each group and thus distances himself from ever becoming a real part of any one group. Arlo seems to personify what the movement and hippie culture aspired to be, but couldn’t obtain. Almost every character in “alice’s Restaurant” seems to have at least one glaring character flaw. Wether it be Ray, Shelley or Alice herself, everyone seems to have one short comig, except for Arlo. I am not sure wether the reason for this is since Arlo was playing himself, they didn’t want to tarnish his imagine by giving him a glaring character flaw as well, or perhaps this was done intentionally so that the juxtaposition of Arlo and how he seems to embody the ideals of the movement with the other characters, shows how each group/character falls short of living up to their potential, seen in Arlo. In “The Trip” we are shown a “reefer madness” like way of looking at the drug LSD. If you take this film’s depiction of LSD, it is not a thing you’d want to try, seeing as Paul has a fairly bad night from his trip.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn her article "Sons, Daughters and Patriarchy: Gender and the 1968 Generation," Sarah M. Evans identifies the existence of patriarchy that managed to slither even into the movement of 1968. She explains that "the revolt of sons of the elite against institutional, economic and governmental authority challenged patriarchal power but not patriarchy" (338). She explains that even within the groups who worked to change the system had misogynistic hierarchies where women only could gain status if they had relationships with the male leaders. Similarly, she explains that women were oppressed in the far-left groups in that the "men monopolized discussions, spoke in a masculine political language with which women did not identify, the way that the sexual division of the political activity was maintained and the way that women were in general kept in inferior positions" (348). This observation is extremely helpful in observing the role of women in all three of the films we watched this week.
ReplyDeleteThe best example lies in the Psych-Out character Jenny and the men of the film's interactions with her. In nearly every way, they represent a form of sexism, from benevolent to violent. While they may be into opening their mind and becoming free, in regards to Jenny, they most certainly are not. They hold on tightly to the objectifying and misogynistic values of the patriarchy. Beginning with Jenny's arrival to San Francisco, she is instantly approached on the street by what appear to be the hippies who offer their home to her. While one might argue this is nothing more than a friendly gesture, it is probably more of a "come-on" since they instantly lose interest in her when she states she already as a place to stay. When the men insist she changes clothes, they go to a store where the men help her decide what they prefer to see her in. A montage of Jenny in different outfits flash on the screen until they finally decide what is correct for her to wear. After she learns that Stoney is cheating on her, she explores an open-minded view of sexuality as well and almost begins a sexual relationship with Dave. While it appears to be perfectly fine for Stoney to have an open relationship, he is so furious with Jenny for kissing Dave that it results in violence. This double-standard that Stoney reinforces is rooted in misogyny.
Not only does the plot of this film exemplify Evans' article, but the way in which it is filmed is also an example. For instance, throughout the film the camera contributes to the male gaze, panning up and down women's bodies as they walk down the street. In the scene where Jenny comes home, disgusted with the mess, the camera pans over many half-naked female bodies without revealing their faces. This type of filming in itself contributes to the patriarchal system that was under attack. This objectification is also used in The Trip. The women of the film are, at least for the most part, not necessarily used to advance the plot. Rather, they are used as sexual objects for the main character. This objectification in both films could probably be justified by many as a representation of the women's sexual freedom during the time period. However, there is a huge difference between embracing one's sexuality and being sexualized. Through the film techniques I mentioned above, I argue that both films embrace the latter.
ReplyDeleteAlice's Restaurant, on the other hand, does place more emphasis on a woman's right to sexuality that was emphasized during the time period. This point is most driven home in the final shot of the film where we see Alice in her wedding dress at a church, watch longingly as Arlo and Mari drive away in the van. The fact that she is in a wedding dress and on the stairs of a church is not unimportant. This probably represents the institution that ties her to her husband who ties her to her job that represents well the patriarchal institution that the hippies were trying to rebel against. She is a free spirited and free loving character, but who is tightly leashed by her "opened-minded" husband. This representation exemplifies Evan's point in her article that while the counterculture may have been fighting for freedom for all, the patriarchy and misrepresentation was still heavily at play.
It’s interesting that the common link between our three viewings for the week seem to be somewhat counterproductive. Living communal style is a point of interest that each film has an emphasis towards displaying as a part of the counter culture. However there are scenes in each film marred by selfish individualism. Many characters in each film are immensely attached to a personal euphoria because of the intense effects from drugs
ReplyDeleteWe see drugs idolized very different in each film. “Psych Out” portrays drugs as this awesome tool that can help you be a free thinker, having a huge influence on this culture. “The Trip” gives a different view on the drugs in counter culture. Flashing to scenes in creepy smoke filled houses, and dark horsemen chasing the character throughout the story is more negative towards the drugs than our other films. . “[T]he changed roles of women and men in the economy, the family, language, and public life, and the ideological, cultural, and institutional reverberations of these changes represent a profound transformation” (Evans 347). I agree with this excerpt for multiple reasons. Drugs were an excuse to break away from the conformity of society at that time. Up until the 1960’s, traditional family values were the norm. Dating and marriage remained sacred which made the scene from “Pshyc Out” where Stoney Yells at Jenny proclaiming “I Don’t have a leash on You!” a vital reference to teen romance. Music is also important in these films because being an artist is the ultimate representation of free thought. Each film involves some sort of musician yet they each represent music a bit differently.
“The Trip”, is not as “groovy” and can be jazzier I would also consider dark, gloomy, and mysterious. “Alice’s Restaurant” has more folk music in it. This film directly deals with conflict between police and counter culture and has more folk tradition in it, so I believe it’s important for the films purpose.