*** Psychedelic Pspoilers, Man! ***
I saw this film earlier tonight at the American Cinematheque in Hollywood, in a newly-struck 35 mm print, no less! Yay! This gives me a hunch that they are preparing this film for DVD release. I hope that's right. Of course, that means that there were no problems with the film technically: perfect picture and sound.
Aesthetically, well... Let's just say that this film makes that square Hollywood fraud "Psych-Out" look like a documentary! Don't get me wrong, I love both "Psych-Out" and this film for their entertainment value, but, authentic slices of the Sixties they are not (though Psych-Out is a lot closer, as I said).
First of all, 98% of this film is shot on a Hollywood back lot or sound stage, with about 2% of stock footage from San Francisco thrown in. The film is supposed to take place in San Francisco. (For comparison's sake, "Psych-Out" has about 15-20% shot in San Francisco.) This film is a follow-up (not a sequel) to "Riot on Sunset Strip," with the same director, producer and production company. I'm surprised Columbia Pictures released it though, as opposed to American International.
A loose and cynical retelling of the story of Dr. Timothy Leary, both sides (the Hippies and the Squares) come in for a drubbing in a script that must have seemed somewhat edgy and "with-it" for a film from 1967.
Professor Barnett stands up for some university students who are publishing an underground newspaper in their free time. The students are expelled from the university, and Barnett resigns in solidarity. He goes on the TV show of fascist dipstick Joe Pyne (as himself!) and gets a round yelling at for Barnett's support of LSD use for everyone (and free love).
He goes to live with the two students in their Haight-Ashbury hippie crash pad amongst about six other Hipsters. One of the dudes there seems to be a trustafarian and has the money to manipulate Barrett into becoming a Hippie Messiah, solely to make a ton of money with "Love-Ins" "Happenings" and finally stadium shows.
At first, Barrett seems to support his own principals, but soon starts taking himself too seriously and believing his own hype. He becomes enamored of his silly robes that he wears while speechifying and his "image." He even unironically refers to his followers as "the cult." Paging Jim Jones...
Meanwhile after a bad acid trip, where hippie chick Pat thinks she's Alice in Wonderland, Larry (James MacArthur, who you all know as "Dan-O" from Hawaii Five-O) gets disillusioned and crusades against the "phony" Barrett in the underground paper. The Hippies won't hear of it. Pat defends Barnett so Larry takes a powder and dumps Pat, who becomes Barnett's "personal assistant." Meanwhile, Barnett turns into a complete tool and starts bedding Pat. When she tells him she's pregnant, he orders her to "get rid of it." Shocking! When Larry hears that Pat is "flipping out," he runs to her aid, and prevents her from overdosing on LSD (if that's even possible). She runs away from Larry's grasp, and falls down the stairs, losing her baby in the process (Hollywood melodrama supreme in action, folks). Larry overhears that "the baby won't make it." Pat hadn't told him anything about it.
Meanwhile, Larry (perhaps thinking the baby was his)takes his revenge and goes to Barnett's big appearance at the stadium, after buying a gun in 15 seconds (nice background check there, 1967!), and sneaks into the stadium packing heat (nice security, police department!). Just at the climax of Barnett's speech, he fires the handgun and kills Barnett, without anyone around him noticing him firing, apparently. Then, Larry immediately turns himself in to the police. The End.
Quite an unsettling ending, considering what happened the very next year after this film was made to Robert Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King.
So, does this film show that the Hippie movement consisted of a bunch of dumb naive kids who were led astray and corrupted by some cynical leaders who used their trusting ways just to grab money and power? Or, does the film show that Hippie movement only met its Waterloo by specifically ABANDONING its principles and being led astray by the same corrupting influences that made the Establishment worthy of dumping out and staring over again, namely: money, power, greed, image and hypocrisy? Two differing interpretations. As I said, the film has criticisms aplenty for both Barnett and his followers, and the Establishment, represented by Joe Payne, the Chancellor of the university, a bunch of jocks playing football, and the father of one of the Hippies.
If you can find a copy, give this film a shot and decide for yourself. You can forego the serious discussion of its thematic elements, since it is ultimately a silly exploitation movie, but there is a lot of colorful psychedelic stuff to look at, The Chocolate Watchband appears for about 5 seconds, and overall there's plenty here for 1960's fans to feast their eyes on.
I saw this film earlier tonight at the American Cinematheque in Hollywood, in a newly-struck 35 mm print, no less! Yay! This gives me a hunch that they are preparing this film for DVD release. I hope that's right. Of course, that means that there were no problems with the film technically: perfect picture and sound.
Aesthetically, well... Let's just say that this film makes that square Hollywood fraud "Psych-Out" look like a documentary! Don't get me wrong, I love both "Psych-Out" and this film for their entertainment value, but, authentic slices of the Sixties they are not (though Psych-Out is a lot closer, as I said).
First of all, 98% of this film is shot on a Hollywood back lot or sound stage, with about 2% of stock footage from San Francisco thrown in. The film is supposed to take place in San Francisco. (For comparison's sake, "Psych-Out" has about 15-20% shot in San Francisco.) This film is a follow-up (not a sequel) to "Riot on Sunset Strip," with the same director, producer and production company. I'm surprised Columbia Pictures released it though, as opposed to American International.
A loose and cynical retelling of the story of Dr. Timothy Leary, both sides (the Hippies and the Squares) come in for a drubbing in a script that must have seemed somewhat edgy and "with-it" for a film from 1967.
Professor Barnett stands up for some university students who are publishing an underground newspaper in their free time. The students are expelled from the university, and Barnett resigns in solidarity. He goes on the TV show of fascist dipstick Joe Pyne (as himself!) and gets a round yelling at for Barnett's support of LSD use for everyone (and free love).
He goes to live with the two students in their Haight-Ashbury hippie crash pad amongst about six other Hipsters. One of the dudes there seems to be a trustafarian and has the money to manipulate Barrett into becoming a Hippie Messiah, solely to make a ton of money with "Love-Ins" "Happenings" and finally stadium shows.
At first, Barrett seems to support his own principals, but soon starts taking himself too seriously and believing his own hype. He becomes enamored of his silly robes that he wears while speechifying and his "image." He even unironically refers to his followers as "the cult." Paging Jim Jones...
Meanwhile after a bad acid trip, where hippie chick Pat thinks she's Alice in Wonderland, Larry (James MacArthur, who you all know as "Dan-O" from Hawaii Five-O) gets disillusioned and crusades against the "phony" Barrett in the underground paper. The Hippies won't hear of it. Pat defends Barnett so Larry takes a powder and dumps Pat, who becomes Barnett's "personal assistant." Meanwhile, Barnett turns into a complete tool and starts bedding Pat. When she tells him she's pregnant, he orders her to "get rid of it." Shocking! When Larry hears that Pat is "flipping out," he runs to her aid, and prevents her from overdosing on LSD (if that's even possible). She runs away from Larry's grasp, and falls down the stairs, losing her baby in the process (Hollywood melodrama supreme in action, folks). Larry overhears that "the baby won't make it." Pat hadn't told him anything about it.
Meanwhile, Larry (perhaps thinking the baby was his)takes his revenge and goes to Barnett's big appearance at the stadium, after buying a gun in 15 seconds (nice background check there, 1967!), and sneaks into the stadium packing heat (nice security, police department!). Just at the climax of Barnett's speech, he fires the handgun and kills Barnett, without anyone around him noticing him firing, apparently. Then, Larry immediately turns himself in to the police. The End.
Quite an unsettling ending, considering what happened the very next year after this film was made to Robert Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King.
So, does this film show that the Hippie movement consisted of a bunch of dumb naive kids who were led astray and corrupted by some cynical leaders who used their trusting ways just to grab money and power? Or, does the film show that Hippie movement only met its Waterloo by specifically ABANDONING its principles and being led astray by the same corrupting influences that made the Establishment worthy of dumping out and staring over again, namely: money, power, greed, image and hypocrisy? Two differing interpretations. As I said, the film has criticisms aplenty for both Barnett and his followers, and the Establishment, represented by Joe Payne, the Chancellor of the university, a bunch of jocks playing football, and the father of one of the Hippies.
If you can find a copy, give this film a shot and decide for yourself. You can forego the serious discussion of its thematic elements, since it is ultimately a silly exploitation movie, but there is a lot of colorful psychedelic stuff to look at, The Chocolate Watchband appears for about 5 seconds, and overall there's plenty here for 1960's fans to feast their eyes on.