The Saturation of "Doctor Gonzo"
A new film on Hunter S. Thompson’s life is yet another in a long list of postmortem biographies, but fans should just reread his best work.
By Andy Kroll
September 16, 2008
Image courtesy Magnolia Pictures.If Hunter S. Thompson—the creator of Gonzo journalism—had been asked how he wanted to be remembered, he would’ve undoubtedly wanted his legacy to be his writing. And for good reason: The most vivid, revealing and often shocking depictions of Thompson, his life, and his maniacally brilliant Gonzo alter ego appear in the hundreds of magazine articles he wrote for Rolling Stone and Esquire, and in the many books he wrote. Since Thompson’s tragic yet not unexpected suicide in 2005, there has been an unfortunate onslaught of biographical books and films written by friends, family, and admirers that explore and, at times, exploit his life and work. These biographical works—unlike Thompson’s own writing—draw on the same cast of characters who share tired anecdotes and hackneyed Thompson mantras. They all ultimately fail to capture the essence of Hunter S. Thompson.
The latest addition to the Thompson biographical canon, the documentary Gonzo: The Life and Work of Hunter S. Thompson, written and directed by Academy Award-winner Alex Gibney and narrated by Johnny Depp, is no exception. For anyone who knows absolutely nothing about Thompson or his brand of Gonzo journalism, Gonzo, which premiered at the Sundance Film Festival this year and will be out on DVD on Nov. 18, is a adequate primer on the writer’s journalistic career—though it mostly ignores his equally absorbing and considerably darker personal life. Yet almost all of Gonzo has already appeared in the many books and films that preceded it, and offers little in the way of interesting or novel information or stories. The film describes how Thompson retyped whole novels by Fitzgerald and Hemingway in order to “feel the rhythm” of their sentences and paragraphs, an anecdote that is far from revelatory.
Like many earlier Thompson biographical works, the film begins with his reporting on the notorious Hell’s Angels motorcycle gang in California in the early 1960s. Thompson spent a year on the road embedded with the Angels (which meant following the menacing gang throughout the Golden State in his Volvo) to research and write his acclaimed debut book, Hell’s Angels. The film recreated scenes from Hell’s Angels as if from a feature film. These scenes (later in Gonzo, Gibney does the same to a famous passage from Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas to equally disappointing effect) feels forced and rings false; anyone who’s read Hell’s Angels and other Thompson books knows that his writing is best experienced on the page.
Soon after publishing Hell’s Angels, Thompson befriended Rolling Stone’s young editor, Jann Wenner, a relationship that engendered some of his finest writing. Gonzo follows Thompson as he becomes Rolling Stone’s national affairs correspondent, covering American politics for the magazine and, more specifically, the presidential elections in 1972 and 1976. It was during this time that Thompson first met Welsh artist Ralph Steadman, with the two collaborating on “The Kentucky Derby is Decadent and Depraved” for Scanlan’s Monthly. As many interviewed in Gonzo point out, “Decadent and Depraved” marked the birth of Gonzo journalism and the beginning of a lifelong friendship between Steadman and Thompson.
Thompson’s fame rose in the 1970s with the publication of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. The book, inspired by a pair of articles Thompson wrote for Rolling Stone under the pseudonym Raoul Duke about a drug-addled visit to Las Vegas in search of the American dream, was heralded by critics as the apogee of Gonzo journalism. The New York Times called Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas “by far the best book yet written on the decade of dope.”
From there the film focuses on Thompson’s coverage of the presidential campaign of 1972. Thompson interviewed Democratic nominee Sen. George McGovern, former Nixon adviser Pat Buchanan, and fellow Rolling Stone political journalist Tim Crouse on the campaign trail. Although Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is easily Thompson’s most widely known and read book, Fear and Loathing: On the Campaign Trail ’72 is arguably his finest journalistic achievement. Thompson had a blatant bias toward McGovern and rejected “objective journalism,” something he labeled a “pompous contradiction in terms.” Fear and Loathing: On the Campaign Trail ’72 illustrates Thompson’s ability to cut through the political detritus and campaign cant to the ugly truths and realities of a presidential campaign. Frank Mankiewicz, McGovern’s campaign director in 1972, said On the Campaign Trail ‘72 was “the most accurate and least factual account of that campaign.”
According to Gonzo, it was all downhill for Thompson after that. His next big assignment after the 1972 election was to cover the Ali-Foreman boxing match known as “Rumble in the Jungle” for Rolling Stone, but, once in Zaire, Thompson refused to attend the fight or to write a word about the entire trip. He wrote less and less throughout the 1980s and ’90s. His colleagues, friends and family interviewed in Gonzo attributed to his struggle to reconcile Thompson the man with Thompson the manic, outlandish, drugged up Gonzo caricature his readers expected. “To feel compelled to be Gonzo all the time must’ve been a burden,” Tom Wolfe said in the film. “He so identified with the life he’s describing, it was hard for him not to be in costume.” In footage from a 1978 BBC documentary about his life featured in Gonzo, Thompson admits, “I’m really in the way as a person. The myth has taken over.” But even this admission by Thompson, as revelatory as it is, has become a cliché given how often it is cited. Anyone who’s read Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas or “The Kentucky Derby is Decadent and Depraved” will understand—far better than Gibney’s film can describe—how Gonzo, Thompson’s own creation, eventually engulfed its creator whole self.
What does distinguish Gonzo from its predecessors is its focus on Thompson’s 1972 presidential campaign coverage. The film devotes more energy than any other biographical work to describing the writer’s relationship with McGovern, his utter revulsion toward Richard Nixon, and his wildly successful campaign trail dispatches that comprise most of On the Campaign Trail ’72. And thus Gonzo should be lauded for pointing viewers to the book that grew out of that political reportage, considering that it is often overshadowed by the more famous Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. The film so brilliantly captures McGovern’s unexpected ascent to the top of the Democratic Party and his subsequent loss to Nixon that viewers will surely want to read or reread On the Campaign Trail ’72.
Thompson may have been flattered at the outpouring of admiration and artistic homage to his life and his writing. Still, he always put his writing above all else: “The fun of these things is not just what they say on a page, you know, ten or 100 years later,” an older, almost unintelligible Thompson says in Gonzo. “The real fun was writing it and doing it.” All the documentaries and unauthorized biographies and celebrations of Thompson can only reveal so much; to truly appreciate and know him, it’s best to start with his work.
Andy Kroll is a former editorial intern at The Nation. He is a senior at the University of Michigan. He can be reached at andykroll@gmail.com.
Social Bookmarking
--------
Comments
!
Your article, much like the film, revealed nothing new and interesting about Thompson. “Insights” into his life you hit and the film missed did little, if anything. God **** man, this is Thompson we’re talking about. Not Gonzo or Fear and Loathing (any of them) or Kingdom of Fear ever truly be able to grasp who the man was and what he did. He was a visionary and in the constant pursuit of truth. And you’re wrong about quite a few things. Thompson was never “flattered at the outpouring of admiration and artistic homage to his life and his writing.” He was a well known megalomaniac, but people loved him for it. I loved him for it, and I still do. If you want to talk about the faults of the film, and there were quite a few, that’s valid. But your article tries to sum up what from Thompson’s life was missed in two quick conclusion paragraphs. True fans will always go back and re-read his works, but this film WAS NOT CREATED FOR FANS. They’re already established, so **** em’. It’s trying to reach out to a broader public, and in that, it is a wonderful success. Thompson is, and will remain to be, one of the most complex individuals in history. Even those who knew him best will never claim to have known everything about him. The film is as successful as a 2 hour movie could ever be.
— Doug McIntosh - Sep 18, 04:49 PM - #I don’t want to belabor this topic too much, but I am a fan of Hunter Thompson’s writing and do want to throw in my two cents. I actually liked the film a lot. I thought it did a just job of reviewing Thompson’s work and adding in details that I was unaware of. For instance, in the film’s portrale of the confrontaltional relationship that Thompson had with the Hell’s Angles it takes up a sexual incident between a woman and several of the Angeles that occured at Ken Kesey’s house. The issue at question is whether or not the incident was a gang rap. It is of particular interest because it is described in Tom Wolf’s “The Electric Cool-Aid Acid Test”. In Wolf’s account, which at many times throughout that work sounds almost like Ken Kesey’s, the incident is not described as a gang rap. Rather, Wolf describes the women grabbing these men, pulling them into a room, and letting them go at her. It was fine about “it was her movie”, “it was her trip”. To hear Thompson describe what happened, paints a completely different picture. He makes it very clear that he saw it as a gang rap. I don’t know what that does for you, but for me it totally changes my mental picture of what was going on at Kesey’s house.
The only other point I would make, and the this is the reason I loved the film, is that it did not put Thompson on a pedestal. (He did that enough himself, as is evidenced by the huge statue he erected of himself on his property in Colorado) At one point in the film Thomspon’s reaction to McGovern’s pick of Thomas Eagleton for Vice President prompts one interviewee to call Thompson’s style infantile. Perhaps he was, that does not take away from his work as a writer or commentator, but it does make us question and think about Thompson’s work. The fact that the film probes Thompson’s character as much as it admires it is what makes it an extremely worthwhile watch. I highly recommended to all of his fans.
— Eli Turkel - Nov 18, 09:45 PM - #