Dennis
Hopper claimed that Easy Rider was the first film to be made
independently and distributed by a major studio. The statement is
true as far as it goes, but ignores the fact that the group (Bert
Schneider and Bob Rafaelson) financing the film was already working
with studios (creating the Monkees for TV). Further, Fonda came from
Hollywood royalty (his father Henry Fonda of course, sister of
already successful Jane), and Hopper had been toiling away (albeit
grudingly) since he appeared in Rebel Without a Cause.
The
film did address contemporary subjects and issues in a way most
American films at the time didn't, though it used a familiar
Hollywood form, the road movie to do so, and that Roger Corman's
American International Pictures had been successfully making for
years (and which both Fonda and Hopper had appeared in). In other
words, the independence wasn't more in financing—a unexpected boon
to the films producers, namely Rafaelson, Schneider, Fonda and
Hopper.
This was the first time I'd seen the movie. I really kind of wanted to be surprised, which is why I didn't rent the film before seeing it last night. I'm glad I did it that way.
ReplyDeleteEven though it was a road picture, I had a feeling this wasn't as fun as it was intended to be. I enjoyed the movie, but I didn't have the sense that they would be riding off into the sunrise, with wonderful days unfolding for the rest of their lives.
The film was deeper than I had expected, and that is always a pleasant surprise.
I think audiences of the time might had a similar impression, but I don't think the film was intended to be fun.
ReplyDeleteThis was also the first time that I had ever seen this film. I normally don't watch movies in the "road picture" genre, so I wasn't sure what to expect. I was pleasantly surprised by this film because it did a great job of reversing stereotypes. I liked that the beginning of the movie starting off differently by not giving character back-story. This was intriguing because it forced you to look at the character in the moment and not just based on their pasts. The movie also gave you the impression that it would be more lighthearted and just centered around 2 guys, doing drugs and going to Mardi Gras. Instead, it's more about the transformation of their goals as they meet "ordinary people." The biracial couple and the people living on the commune were great examples of people who would have been severely judged by society, but in turn were the most welcoming people of all. By the movies end, true freedom is really questioned. The two main characters weren't free even while out on the open road because of the judgments of others. This ultimately led to their senseless deaths.
ReplyDelete~Carrie Scheiber~
The visual style of the movie struck me more on the second watch. I first watched the movie probably 10 years ago and didn't pay attention to detail the way I do now. This time, I loved how the movie opens up with them in wide open spaces and everything seeming to tighten around them the further east they went, almost like the walls were closing in. Even at the end right before they get shot, the road doesn't seem as big because of fences and trees on either side. I also loved, even though it was an obvious point, the way Jack Nicholson's speech about UFOs and aliens was later highlighted by the way the men and women at the bar talked about the trio when they walked in, like they were seeing a new species for the first time.
ReplyDeleteI had never seen the movie until viewing it in class. I have to say I really enjoyed the movie and it was not what I was expecting. I was drawn in immediately by the progression of the story and the progression of the two main characters. The movie goes beyond being a road trip to Mardi Gras with frequent drug use and delves more into the deeper the transformation of the two men by the film's end. There was a constant forshadowing of death and a downward spiral (the restaurant scene) (graveyard Acid trip) which the characters couldn't escape. Both men were friends and has a similar goal but the way viewed the world around them and their place in it was contrasting. I would definitely watch this again if I was in the mood for a good road drama.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I see transformation in Billy. He's still the same live-for-the-moment guy we meet at the beginning of the trip. It's possible Wyatt may alter some of his views as a result of the journey, but he's not given to much self-revelation.
ReplyDeleteI had not seen the movie previous to this class. The beginning of the movie made me think it was going to be an action/drug culture movie. As the movie progressed it became evident that it was more than an exploration of the drug culture. It was a broad view of the discrimination of the people involved in the “hippie” culture. Having longer hair most of my life I didn’t think that was such an issue at the time. I grew up at a time when most men had longer hair and it wasn’t a shock to see long haired men. I thought it was strange that the movie showed an intolerance of simple outward appearances. I didn’t know the movie was going to end the way that it did.
ReplyDeleteDidn't expect the movie to end that way. I loved the lack of dialogue towards the beginning and the great scenery. I never expected the deaths after the Jack Nicholson character died. Especially so soon after. You get the feeling that they will get to ride off away from their troubles. Also, I didn't understand what the point of the drug trip scene was. It didn't seem to progess the story. However, it was interesting visually.
ReplyDeletei remember we talked in class about not knowing the past of Billy and Wyatt but when they were in jail Billy ask the officer if he did not recognize who Wyatt was that he was captain America and that if he didn't recognize him from post so I'm guessing they were stunt men of some how
ReplyDelete