Reflecting on Howl: Language and Image

When I first read Howl, I had quite a hard time understanding what Ginsberg was trying to get across to the audience. But after watching the film, I feel like I have a much better understanding of him as a person and what he was sharing in his poems. Originally, like many others, I did not see the literary merit in his poems. I can’t say that I completely understand his poetry but I can at least acknowledge his style of poetry. In the movie, he acknowledges the trouble that most people have with understanding his type of poetry: “The problem when it comes to literature is this. There are many writers who have preconceived ideas about what literature is supposed to be but their ideas seem to preclude everything that makes them most interesting in casual conversation. Because they think they’re going to write something that sounds like they’ve read before instead of what sounds like them or comes from their own life.

What happens when you make a distinction between what you tell your friends and what you tell your muse? The trick is to break down that distinction. To approach your muse as frankly as you would talk to yourself or to your friends.”

Most of our initial reactions to his poetry is that it is far too vulgar. However, it seems necessary. As an individual, he grew up at a time that homosexuality was portrayed as a sickness (at least much less accepted then than now). His experiences seem to really influence his style of writing. He couldn’t express the way that he felt explicitly so he would turn to his poetry in order to express his emotions. This is where he reveals himself to the world that he is gay. Throughout the movie, this actually is quite apparent with the amount of times that he speaks about it as well as all the animations that were portrayed. Other than the explicit mentions, there were more subtle images of penises throughout the animations. Around the 30th minute of the film there were trees that were growing that ultimately took on the form of a penis as well as the shooting star that seemed to visualize one as well.

Although his poetry is quite vulgar and repeatedly mentions the image of penises, his message is often misinterpreted. Ginsberg informs us that “the poem is misinterpreted as promotion of homosexuality. Actually, it’s more like promotion of frankness about any subject.” I appreciate how he tries to break the distinction between his muse and his friends. This gives his poetry a more genuine feeling to it since he tries to give his audience a portrayal of who he truly is rather than euphemizing himself through words. I really enjoyed this film since it gave a better understanding of this poet, especially since it was quite difficult to understand his style of writing.


-D.B.

From Poetry to Prose to Animation?: A Review of Howl

“You cannot interpret poetry into prose”, this is a key phrase in the movie Howl. This line comes up during the obscenity trial, when the prosecuting lawyer is trying to determine what literary experts think the meaning of the poem is and if it contains any literary value or merit. On the same token, I don’t think you can interpret poetry into illustrations.

In the film, many sections from the poem, were interpreted into animation. I feel this took away from the movie as a whole. I found the images to be distracting from the reading of the poem. I heard many other movie patrons making the same comments as they were shuffling out of the theater. Instead of listening to Ginsberg’s readings, we were distracted by what was going on in the illustrations. Some of the more shocking images seemed to stick in your mind, preventing the viewer from paying attention to the next scene. In my opinion it would have been best to leave some interpretation up to the audience.

Another aspect of the illustration I found distracting, were the images’ computer generation. It seemed to conflict with the other scenes in the film. For a movie set in the 1950s, I felt the technology was out of place and the animations would have been better suited to be drawn by hand. Being drawn by hand could have given the animations a more dated looking, making it coherent with with rest of the film.

Overall I thought the acting in movie was really well done and I that the film was good, seeing as it wasn’t a movie that I would usually strike my eye. Having read Howl, the film helped me to understand the poem better by explaining Allen Ginsberg past in some detail, including the relationships he had with many people. By understanding his past it helped me to better interpret the poetry for myself.

~J.G.

A Review of Howl the movie by Stanley Fish

Did you catch Stanley Fish's review of James Franco in Howl? Click here for the link!

A Review of Howl with James Franco

Howl, starring James Franco as Alan Ginsberg, focuses on the obscenity trial and controversy that surrounded the poem. Using a variety of cinematographic techniques, the film is constructed in a nonlinear fashion. The directors chose to split the movie into four different sections. In one, Franco reads the poem to a passionate and approving young audience in a bar. In another, Franco is interviewed in his home by an unknown journalist. Still another focuses on the actual court case and the cases presented by both sides. The final, and in my opinion, most unusual portion of the film involve animated segments meant to interpret the meaning of the poem.

Although Franco appears to be an unusual choice to play Ginsberg, he does a surprisingly good job in his portrayal of the famous poet. Known for his good looks, Franco’s appearance is not the center of the film’s focus at any point. Rather, he is able to accurately imitate Ginsberg in the personal interviews with the journalist, particularly when talking about his sexuality. In an unusual yet interesting approach, Franco uses analogies relating writing to his love life. Through this, the audience is able to gain a deeper understanding of Ginsberg’s emotional attraction to the same sex and suffers through the ups and downs of his eventful life.

Throughout the trial, we learn that people are afraid of the poem because they do not understand it. In the climax, the prosecuting attorney even admits that he does not understand the poem’s literary meaning. While there are some distractions caused by the star power of Jon Hamm, the trial provides the audience with a brief analysis of the poem and learns some of its true literary merit.

~A.B.