Van Sant's "Acid Test"

email this story
read comments (13)
post a comment

Right off the bat, a line in Michael Fleming's story about Gus Van Sant's yet-to-be-written adaptation of Tom Wolfe's The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test gives pause. I'm speaking of the Variety columnist writing that "it's likely Wolfe will not be a major character in the film, which will focus on Kesey and include events that occurred after the road trip."

Sorry, but this falls under the heading of a Big Mistake. If you're going to make a film that's mainly about a bunch of visionary free spirits ripped on acid and driving a psychedelic bus around the country, you need an against-the-flow punctuation character -- a dispassionate overview guy wearing a suit and taking notes and not dropping tabs. Obviously! Anyone who knows the first thing about writing ensemble pieces will tell you this.

Because the entire universe is contained in every blade of grass, I'm afraid the Wolfe deletion is a serious stopper for Van Sant's Kool-Aid project. Without a Wolfe character the film will be a little too Even Cowgirls Get The Blues. Too crazy-60s monotonous, too indulgent-flamboyant. Ken Kesey this, Neil Casady that, etc. Bring in Wolfe and we'll talk but without him, forget it.

"Evan Almighty" reaction<< previous | next >>Moore vs. Bush's OFAC

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on June 11, 2007 at 11:49 AM

comment #1

christian says ...

yes, wolfe is the anchor. still his best book imho.

Posted by christian at June 11, 2007 12:21 PM

comment #2

Monument says ...

I've always liked Ken Kesey's take on Tom Wolfe:

"There's an old saying that applies here. Shit floats, and cream rises. The trick is telling the difference. Jack Kerouac: cream rises. Tom Wolfe: shit floats."

Posted by Monument at June 11, 2007 12:28 PM

comment #3

jeffmcm says ...

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas didn't have a contrast character, and look at how well that turned out.

(clarification: I love FaLiLV.)

Posted by jeffmcm at June 11, 2007 12:32 PM

comment #4

christian says ...

the movie doesn't work at all for me (except performance wise) because i think gilliam was the wrong director. the action is already wild and crazy, but gilliam directs it that way so there's no contrast betwen reality and thompson's surreality. a huge bungle in my view.

Posted by christian at June 11, 2007 12:42 PM

comment #5

jeffmcm says ...

I don't see how that's a flaw.

Posted by jeffmcm at June 11, 2007 12:43 PM

comment #6

nemo says ...

Tom Wolfe was in his early to mid 30s when he was on the bus with Kesey and company. Who would be the right young actor to play an ambitious young Ivy League weasel who revels in being completely out of place?

My vote is for Topher Grace.

Posted by nemo at June 11, 2007 12:45 PM

comment #7

Jay T. says ...

I agree - HUGE mistake. It'd be like watching the tour in Almost Famous without the young journalist's point of view.

Posted by Jay T. at June 11, 2007 12:54 PM

comment #8

christian says ...

it's a flaw because there's nothing to show what thompson is up against in reality if everything is shot from a dutch or skewed angle as is gilliam's wont -- the worst scene being the police officer convention lecture on drugs. instead of letting the officer drone as in the book, gilliam's flying camera turns everything into a circus.

i also hated the scene with gary busey as the cop letting thompson go - in the book it was presented as a decent moment. gilliam adds busey asking for a kiss. bad.

Posted by christian at June 11, 2007 1:31 PM

comment #9

whitemanbrother says ...

My opinion, no mistake at all.

Wolfe was not along for the ride save for later events. It was through interviews and extensive research that he knew what happened up until he met him later on in San Fran.

In the book it is a blur of madness, Wolfe provides no anchor, and I believe the only way a film like this could truly capture the tone is to ride free in the wind, without an anchor.

I am extremely excited for this.

Posted by whitemanbrother at June 11, 2007 1:49 PM

comment #10