Fuga da Hollywood

Dennis Hopper's now notorious second feature fulfilled the promise of 'Easy Rider' by doing to his career what those Southern rednecks did to his character at the end of the earlier film: blasting it to an early grave. Given the disposition of its maker and the attitudes of his era it's not surprising the film took shape the way it did, but unlike the more unified mess of his debut feature (in retrospect a happy accident) this sophomore effort is merely chaotic: an ill-conceived, sloppily executed, helplessly edited riot of unintended laughs.

There's a germ of an idea here about the essential artifice of movie-making (in which the film itself finally disintegrates into random outtakes), but the director painted himself into a creative cul-de-sac by envisioning a project that had to fail in order to succeed. And fail it did, famously so, putting all of Hopper's drug-induced limitations on public display. Seen today, it's a fascinating example of professional self-destruction, and a laughable catalogue of hippie flotsam scraped from the bottom of the '60s barrel.

I watched this film twice. The second time I watched it I was simply trying to figure out why I liked it the first time---but like it I did. Usually I don't like this kind of film, because I think they're pretentious. (NORTHFORK, as an example.) I think if ten people watched this film, those ten people would take ten different journeys and wind up at ten different destinations--so I can only describe what I felt---and it really was, for me, strangely enough, only a feeling.

For me it boils down to this: I'm from Oklahoma. During the early years, growing up in the great American heartland, the moral compass is very clear for most people. But the feeling, as you grow older (and migrate away from your roots), that with each season something precious is slowly draining away, and that things you care deeply about become like sand dunes that change shape and form with every rising sun---and there seem to be a progressive sense of loss---loss of the north star, reference points, meaningful trails in your life, until one day you are forced to stop and ask yourself, "Where am I, and what the hell do I care about anymore?" That's when you go to the pound and adopt a dog. I'm sure that my response to the film had absolutely nothing to do with what the authors intended, but I liked the film very much, and can't help but feel that this film is vastly underrated and was never given a fair chance.

It's difficult to see why people have such a hard time with this movie. Anyone who is interested in European art cinema of the '60's or even the novel since Joyce should have no trouble reading the film on at least some levels. Hopper's method here is to try and get inside the head, to put thought and memory on the screen, not just pictures.

Part of the problem may be the sheer complexity. There are probably enough ideas crammed in here for a dozen movies, and Hopper throws them all at us, often simultaneously. There's a story about American imperialism, there's a story about the artifice of film-making, there's a story about the way audiences view cinema, there's a Christ allegory wrapped up with a general sacrificial victim theme, a story about men and women, sex, money and power, there's Hopper's own story, the story of cinema itself, there's a satire of Hollywood conventions in general and the Western in particular, very notably there's a story about the Peruvian landscape, ravishingly shot by Laszlo Kovacs. There's even the story of Hopper's gofer lost in a society he doesn't understand if you want a simple narrative to hang on to. The film combines all these facets into a structure which can only be described as crystalline.

Devotees of "folding" should find plenty to occupy them here - there's the film about Hopper's character "Kansas", the film Sam Fuller is making, the villagers' "film", "The Last Movie" itself, an on-set home movie and probably several others besides.

Hopper gaily references (and steals from) everyone from Fellini and Godard to John Huston and Nicholas Ray, and of course goes bonkers in Peru well before Werner Herzog got around to it (and appropriates tribal culture in a strikingly similar way).

Definitely not a film to be missed by anyone interested in fractured narratives, postmodernism in film or the beautiful image. Vastly underrated and well worth its Venice prize, this is to "Easy Rider" what "Pulp Fiction" is to "Reservoir Dogs". Hopper as a director has never been better.

The Last Movie (1971)

* 1/2 (out of 4)

If you knew nothing about THE LAST MOVIE and you just started watching it, it's highly unlikely by the time it was over you'd know what it was about. The film is an incoherent mess but apparently it was supposed to be about an extra (Dennis Hopper) filming a movie in Peru. After the movie wrapped the extra stays behind and falls in love with a local girl. This here leads to a land development deal as well as a group of local Indians using the movie sets to try and film a movie not knowing that movies are fake.

Say what? Hopper was on the highest of highs in Hollywood after the smashing success of EASY RIDER so he went to Peru to film this movie and it pretty much became a disaster. The drugs, the confusion, the fights and everything else that was going on pretty much ended Hopper's career as a director and the film was a financial disaster. Even to this day it's pretty hard to find unless you know where to pick up bootlegs. Is THE LAST MOVIE one of the worst films ever made? Technically speak it probably is.

For my money Roger Ebert's review of this is spot on. In it he talks about how films can be saved by the editor who can usually find enough material to make a story make sense. That's certainly not the case here. Apparently Hopper can back with hours upon hours worth of footage but as I said in my opening paragraph, if you didn't know what the film was about you certainly wouldn't be able to figure it out watching the movie. Nothing in it makes a bit of sense and scenes just happen for no reason and they end without a resolution. There are moments where the screen fades to all black and we just hear the dialogue. There are moments where "scene missing" appears and then there are scenes that appear to be out of place with the rest of the story.

A non-linear movie? That's what the supporters will tell you. If someone is able to watch this film and take something away from it, more power to them. I personally found this to be an incredibly bad movie and a film that's story is so bad with what material we're seeing that you can't help but call it technically awful. With that said, there's some entertainment value to get out of it because you just sit there wondering what was going on and how things ended up the way they did. You get several of Hopper's friends showing up including Peter Fonda, Julie Adams, Rod Cameron, Samuel Fuller, Michael Greene, Sylvia Miles, Tomas Millan, John Phillip Law, Kris Kristofferson, Dean Stockwell and Russ Tamblyn.

THE LAST MOVIE certainly deserves its notorious reputation in Hollywood's long history. It's easy to see why the film bombed when it was released and it's easy to see why no one has really tried to get it back into release. With the various behind-the-scenes battles you do have to wonder if there's perhaps more footage out there and perhaps a coherent film could be put together. With Hopper now gone it's hard to tell. THE LAST MOVIE is certainly a bizarre little number that I'm guessing only its director knows what it's meant to be.

The Last Movie would have been much better if Dennis Hopper hadn't let his hippie friends in the editing room. If the scenes where rearranged in a chronological order rather than being non-linear as it is, it would have stood a chance. However, the late 60's/early 70's (which many critics consider a "golden era" in filmmaking) was a time of experimentation, so if Hopper wanted to be self-indulgent he was in the right time at the right place. This is one title that begs to be recut. I would suggest a DVD with the original cut on one side and a new directors cut on the other. It would be fascinating to hear Hopper's audio commentary for further insights into where his mind was at the time (if he is capable of remembering, that is). By the way, this movie won first prize at the Venice Film Festival, so it wasn't the total failure (artisticly) that many critics have tried to make it out to be. I personally like it. The only other non-linear film I can think of from that era is HEAD(1968) which was far more succesful in terms of structure, or rather, non-structure. Had these films been commercially successful they might have revolutionized filmmaking, or at least spawned a non-linear film genre.