Drunk Stoned Brilliant Dead: The Story of the National Lampoon

The edgy, twisted, often outrageously funny Lampoon died years ago, although I recall it continued as the walking dead for a few years. This documentary follows the magazine from its pre-creation with the Harvard Lampoon through its early success and then just the tip of its long, slow, painful decline. It is a talking heads documentary, but the talking heads are witty and illustrated with pages from the magazine that work as a Greek chorus and are often cleverly animated.

I probably started reading the Lampoon in the mid-70s - my favorite writers were Ellis Weiner and P.J. O'Rourke - but the documentary is most concerned with what it considers the magazine's glory days in the early 70s. Truthfully, the little bits of Lampoon stuff I've read by the early writers like Beard and O'Donoghue haven't really appealed to me, but the movie tells me they were amazing geniuses and perhaps they were.

The story the movie tells is a fairly superficial one. It gets into some of the drama and gives some nice background, but it sticks very closely to the geniuses-working-hard-and-having-fun. The decline is portrayed as the loss of geniuses to SNL and the movies, which seems simplistic, and there's not really much attempt to put the Lampoon into a larger societal context.

Which is fine, because it's an entertaining documentary, but for me it means people giving this 10 stars just have lower standards for a great documentary than I do. This is just a nice little history that fans of the magazine will enjoy. And it's probably pretty fun even if you don't know the magazine.

DRUNK STONED BRILLIANT DEAD: The Story of the National Lampoon (2015)

*** 1/2 (out of 4)

If you're a fan of the National Lampoon's magazine then you're certainly going to want to check this documentary out. The rise and fall of the magazine is discussed in this highly entertaining documentary that features interviews with surviving members of the magazine as well as those who got their start in the movies like NATIONAL LAMPOON'S ANIMAL HOUSE, CADDYSHACK and NATIONAL LAMPOON'S VACATION.

There's some really good material to have here but the documentary works the best for those who are unfamiliar with the magazine or just don't know the complete history behind it. We get some great stories about the early days as well as how the magazine finally took off, which of course led to Hollywood calling. There's some discussion of Saturday Night Live who stole a lot of their talent as well as some of the darker stories including the death of one of the founding members.

There are some great stories throughout this and there are some great interviews as well. I must say that the interview with Chevy Chase was probably my favorite because we really see a different side of him including a rather painful side as he talks about losing his best friend.

It's notable that none of the truly successful / funny people who got their start via Lampoon- related ventures (Bill Murray, Harold Ramis, etc.) are in this movie, vouching for the quality of the Lampoon. Why is this? Because they owe their start to Second City, not to the Lampoon. Just as the Lampoon blames Lorne Michaels for taking "their" talent wholesale, they took this talent from Second City - people like John Belushi, Gilda Radner etc. ever wrote for or even had anything to do with the Lampoon. Animal House had a few laughs and, as noted in the movie, created a genre, but a realistic viewer will suspect the laughs are the result of (non-Lampoon) Harold Ramis. Caddyshack was crap. P. J. O'Rourke is (still) a pompous, unfunny drunk / conservative. Chevy Chase is here, promoting the Lampoon because the Lampoon is affiliated with his glory years 3 decades ago. The National Lampoon may have been considered shocking, new, or different, but it simply wasn't as funny as this movie makes it out to be. A truly timeless work will stand on its own. What is the legacy of the Lampoon? Quite a few people spell it out in this movie: "tits". Pictures of breasts and juvenile cartoons. Breasts are great, but (generally) not funny. If the Lampoon had classic, funny articles, people would still be referencing them (people still reference the Marx Brothers or Shakespeare). But they don't - why do you think that is?

From the early 1970s to the late 90s, National Lampoon magazine was one of the biggest successes of satirical parody literature. By being a magazine where nearly everyone behind it could push the boundaries without caring about going too far, it has earned its place amongst some of the most innovative shock content out there. So naturally, its long lasting impact on comedy and humour were necessary for the subject of a documentary, entitled Drunk Stoned Brilliant Dead. Released in 2015, on the 70th birth year of co-founder Henry Beard, the film is quite the revelation of the rise and fall of such an iconic magazine.

The film itself details new interviews with National Lampoon staff members and other famous people who were fans of the magazine itself. On top of these interviews detailing a lot of context into how founders and Harvard alumni Douglas Kenney, Henry Beard and Robert Hoffman approached producer Matty Simmons to make their own inspired rendition off of the Harvard Lampoon, there are also never-before seen archival material from former late players including John Belushi, Gilda Radner and Michael O'Donoghue. As a magazine done to comment on society and the world in the mosto outlandish ways, the documentary breathes so much life into the material through the photos, animated recreations of already existing Lampoon work and even some transitional parodies from their radio show. At its core, National Lampoon was about saying what no one else had the guts to talk about, and while they were the subject of possible racism and sexism, anyone who understood raw comedy and anger through laughter kept the magazine afloat for so long.

However, like most documentaries, it is also a chronicle of the biggest downfalls in the magazine's history, specifically related to Doug Kenney himself. Known for being as manic as he was brilliant, Kenney was known for unannounced AWOLs and frequent substance abuse which turned off some of his closest collaborators, not at all helped by his other experiments such as book and script writing being hit or miss. There are also talks of creative differences and bad behavior mentioned by Tony Hendra, Anne Beatts and Michael Gross. In spite of those, the main focus of the documentary is chronicling how a lot of the magazine took a downward spiral following Kenney's sudden death and newcomers being forced to go in directions that negatively affected the humor. Where National Lampoon was meant to say something absurd and shocking about a subject, its later years made it all shock without the substance. From numerous crazy additions, to film spin offs to different voices being heard, it's no wonder the magazine would stumble as much as it would triumph.

Through a lot of dedication to the most far out magazine of its time and arguably today, Drunk Stoned Brilliant Dead might be the best retelling of the National Lampoon the world will ever get. Despite the creative shortcomings the magazine would face later on, its impact on parody and satire will forever remain a staple of pop culture for years to come. If you're curious to check out the documentary, by all means give it a go, for you don't even need to be all that familiar with the original source material to get invested. As far as documentaries on controversial comedy go, this one is up there among the greats.

I've given National Lampoon: Drunk Stoned Brilliant Dead a 5 out of 10. It's entertaining to watch: I was happy to find it on the Sky Arts channel here in the UK. But while the film traces the history of the magazine and its creators, and richly describes how the success of the magazine led to its expansion into radio comedy, comedy albums, stage shows, and movies, its images and interviews fly past quickly without the film explaining what factors led to the creation of the magazine and how it was related to other magazines, newspapers, comics, and cultural products of its time.

As the documentary pointed out, the magazine grew from the Harvard Lampoon, a Harvard humour magazine that didn't reach a national audience. In the 1920s there were nationally published magazines that collected articles and cartoons from universities around the US: "College Humor" was probably the largest, and was published from 1920 to the 1940s. These college humor magazines were aimed at a young but mainstream audience.

It surprised me that Drunk Stone Brilliant Dead didn't mention Mad magazine. It was Mad. first published in 1952, that brought radical and subversive humour that poked fun at authority figures to a country wide audience. Without Mad, there probably wouldn't have been a National Lampoon. It also surprised me that the documentary made no mention of the Underground press and Underground comics of the 1960s. The art style of the first issues of the Lampoon looked very reminiscent of the style of Robert Crumb and other artists from Zap.

I didn't like National Lampoon very much in the 1970s. I read my older brother's issues. Even back then, I thought they were indulging in printing pictures of naked girls and making jokes about drugs and sex simply for the sake of it. They didn't have the force of the Underground comics, which were breaking ground in discussing subjects that before then couldn't be mentioned, and were using the archaic spirit of Mad to take apart the establishment and cultural heritage of the era. I remember the issue of National Lampoon that printed a spoof of Mad, taunting that Mad was stuffy, middle aged, and had long forgotten the meaning of satire. I thought that while Mad didn't print cartoons of naked women and guys smoking pot and snorting coke, it still featured strips that aptly commented on society: strips that have been reprinted and discussed in many studies about US history and the growth of graphic novels.

I thought while I was watching the documentary that National Lampoon branched out very quickly into other media and became a brand: while Saturday Night Live wasn't officially associated with National Lampoon the show clearly stole their talent and their style of satire. I think the magazine pulled its punches keeping an eye on their advertising revenue and growing empire. I'm not saying it wasn't funny- I thought the record albums and movies were funny- but I think the humour of the magazine was aimed at pleasing its creators and audience of liked minded readers, rather than exposing the darker aspects of its targets. The publisher of Mad, William M Gaines, didn't allow advertising in the magazine because he said a satire magazine couldn't make fun of an advertising campaign and then print an ad a few pages later for the same product or a similar product. He also saw it as a practical issue, saying that the magazine would then try to attract more advertisers, and if it started losing some of its advertisers and the advertising income, the readers would still expect the same fancy package, but without the advertising income to pay for the higher production costs, the magazine was sunk. Which it seems, along with loss of readership, was what ultimately happened to National Lampoon.