Chappaqua

Written, Directed, Produced, and Acted in by Conrad Rooks. A true Beatnik cult classic. Swami Satchidananda was the first Swami to ever be brought to America, by Conrad Rooks himself. The United States was in turn introduced to Yoga and to the Eastern philosophies of Spiritual Healing. Conrad knew Andy Warhol before Andy knew Andy. And Conrad was integral part of the beat movement. He could be found in the coffee shops of Greenwich village long before it was hip or "Far Out". He grew up in New York city, but lived in India for years,traveled the Globe and met some very unusual characters. One must applaud this Filmmaker for having the perseverance and foresight to recognize that America was heading in to a very twisted and "trippy" period, one of the most unusual times in American History for sure. He invested all of his own money, yes it's true, NO other investors, unheard of today, for So many obvious reasons, did all of his own stunts, and somehow cast the icons of the beat generation to "act" in this movie. Ravi Shankar, Allen Ginsberg, And William S. Burroughs to name a few, what a cast indeed. He then proceeded to lead the viewers into this strange and hallucinogenic world where everything was psychedelic. Strange, interesting, and definitely warped, see it for yourself, you will be sure to be left "speechless".

Semi-autobiographical story of Conrad Rooks, who travels to France to undergo a drug-withdrawal cure. Flashbacks to the beginnings of psychedelia in San Francisco.

The film briefly depicts Chappaqua, New York, a hamlet in Westchester County, in a few minutes of wintry panoramas. In the film, the hamlet is an overt symbol of drug-free suburban childhood innocence. It also serves as one of the film's many nods to Native American culture. The word "chappaqua" derives from the Wappinger (a nation of the Algonquian peoples) word for "laurel swamp." This is like the very definition of an art film. For those interested in Burroughs, Ginsberg and the beat generation, 1960s counter-culture, or any of that... this is a must-see. But it is first and foremost an art film, not a movie with a strong narrative. Dracula showing up for no reason? Yeah, it has that. Drug-induced delusions? Yep. It is interesting and I don't doubt it has a cult following, but it is really more of time capsule than a good movie.

I'd heard about 'Chappaqua' for years, and had it built up in my head as something special, but finally seeing it was such a letdown! I'm a fan of psychedelic movies and music, and even I found it insufferable. If you aren't a fan of this era, then all I can say is AVOID.

If anyone is to blame for this garbage it must be Conrad Rooks, who is on the writer/director/star trip. Orson Welles he ain't! His acting in the first third of the movie is laughably bad. He plays "drunk" like he's auditioning for 'The Benny Hill Show'! After he sobers up things improve slightly, but then we hit the torturous psychedelic freak outs and hallucinations which go on and on and on until you either scream or fall asleep.

The only reason to watch this is to catch glimpses of Burroughs, Ginsberg, The Fugs, Moondog and other legendary cult figures. Unfortunately none of them do much to speak of. One decent thing about 'Chappaqua' - the soundtrack. Some tasty jazz (presumably Ornette) and lotsa Shankar.

Isn't it weird how all these years later "real" psychedelic movies like this bore you stupid, but "fake" ones like 'Psych-Out', 'Head' and 'Cult Of The Damned' get better and better?

Unlike most movies which try to illustrate drug and hallucinogenic experiences by using a bunch of jarringly bizarre and heavily symbolic images randomly strung together, Chappaqua struck me as having a strange emotional continuity throughout -- that is, every odd new scene and image that appears somehow feels perfectly appropriate when it occurs. It's as if Rooks not only put together visions and sounds that evoked his actual emotions and experiences, but also managed to assemble them in the order they happened, one flowing seamlessly into the next even though there is no obvious connection between them. In fact, the film strikes me as being not so much hallucinogenic as dreamlike, another state rarely captured well on film. So this is definitely not a film for those who insist that movies should explain, clearly and completely, exactly what they're all about. But if you want a chance to ride on the meandering currents of another person's mind, then you might give this film a try.

i'd been waiting with incredible & building excitement to see this film since i first learned of its existence in the mid-seventies when the American film institute's Catalog of Feature Films 1961-70 was made available. unfortunately this "feature" film runs only about 80 min. in length. but i think that's just about right for the careful pacing & overall content. i didn't get a chance to see it until 1997 when it was released on video. in all those years, i couldn't track down conrad rooks & connections with burroughs, ginsberg, et al. didn't yield anything of use however much i inquired. when i finally saw it, it did not disappoint me on any level even with that build up of incredible expectancy of greatness. the robert frank cinematography is amazingly beautiful, as usual (check out those panning, beautiful color lens-flares in the "peyote sequence"). the intriguing & eclectic shankar, glass, coleman & fugs soundtrack is perfectly utilized & integrated. the script is just about flawless & quite complex in it's sometimes subtle & sometimes not-so-subtle symbolism & arcane inferences. the acting may not be perfectly consistent, but is almost always arresting. filmed for at least a couple of years before it was released, it truly is a pioneering effort of its genre (if you can classify that genre). rooks' direction is masterful, particularly when you consider the complexities delved into with this subject matter. & finally, its self-reflexive touches are appropriate, intrinsic & not overdone. definitely miss this one if yer brain-dead!

-bobby cormier