Home > Arts and Entertainment > Movie review: "Gonzo: The Life and Work of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson”

Movie review: "Gonzo: The Life and Work of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson”

Marie Lascu,
Special to Grand Central Magazine

When director Alex Gibney touches upon Hunter S. Thompson's life, writes Marie Lascu, there isn't much exploration of what may have been going on within Thompson to motivate the decisions he made in his life and career. Photograph by Magnolia Pictures
(Click here for more images.)

Dr. Hunter S. Thompson is a legendary figure in the world of American journalism and pop culture. He was a true original, and no one can take that away from him. Thompson was so original it seems impossible that anyone can pay tribute to him in a way that doesn’t end up being conventional.

Director Alex Gibney takes an honest crack at summarizing Thompson's life in his new documentary, “Gonzo: The Life and Work of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson”. Gibney amassed an amusing collection of Thompson footage spanning 30 years, as well as interviews with friends and lovers, and readings from Thompson’s work by Johnny Depp. The documentary is a great “Hunter for Beginners”, so to speak; but it doesn't do much to enlighten the hardcore Thompson fan. There are little windows into his life and personality, but in a hurried effort to compact his life into a couple hours, there isn’t anything new or original explored.

When Gibney touches upon Thompson's life, there isn't much exploration of what may have been going on within Thompson to motivate the decisions he made in his life and career. There is mention of his father's absence, but there is no discussion regarding Thompson's feelings about his life growing up poor without a father, apart from brief speculation by friends. There is no attempt at analysis for his excessive drug use, but perhaps that’s for the better. Only Thompson could have ever known the truth behind what drove him.

The film opens with Thompson's mournful and prophetic testimonial to the events of September 11, 2001. The piece demonstrates his awareness and interest in politics, as well as the deep emotional effect that the state of the country has always had on him. His politics are made clearer with his attempt to run for sheriff of Aspen, Colo. in 1970; and his unique gonzo journalism coverage of the 1972 presidential race.

It’s clear that this is the aspect of Thompson’s life that interested Gibney most. It’s a wonder he didn’t devote the entire film to exploring Thompson as a political animal and not the more familiar sensationalized druggie persona.

Thompson held his beliefs with great conviction, and it’s refreshing to see someone dealing with politics with intellect and sincere human emotion. Near the end of the film, Gibney goes back to Thompson's lamentations on the Bush administration. He clearly wants to make a connection between the current Iraq war and Nixon’s involvement in Vietnam.

He is, however, a bit too heavy-handed in trying to point that out. It would have been simple to illustrate his point with Thompson's words and the footage collected, and then allowing the audience to make the connection themselves.

Gibney also briefly examines Thompson's relationship with genius illustrator Ralph Steadman. Steadman was able to literally visualize what Thompson put down on the page. A film devoted to the two, and how they inspired each other, would have been far more interesting.

The interviews with Steadman are engaging and visually exciting because he uses his art to illustrate his Hunter anecdotes, as opposed to Gibney’s cheap reenactments that pepper the film. Gibney's attempts are slightly cartoonish and don't come close to doing the justice that Steadman’s drawings do.

As reenactments go, this lacks the depth that a more skilled documentarian like Errol Morris possesses. Morris’ reenactments are integral to his documentaries, and art in their own right. The most effective visuals in “Gonzo” are clips from Terry Gilliam's “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas,” but that should not have been the dominant presence in the film. Gibney should have stuck with footage of Thompson in action.

Though his own visuals fall short, Gibney thankfully recognizes the power of Thompson’s words and makes sure the audience experiences several excerpts from his most notable works.

Regardless of who is doing the reading, Thompson’s words will stay with you. The greatest effect this movie has on its viewers is creating the desire to read the man’s work, and that makes for an effective documentary.

Grade: B-