Here's the problem - On the Road (2012) Discussion

[–] jerrellejames-1 11 years ago

I had problems with the cast as well (Sam Riley being the main offender), but I read somewhere that the director wanted to tell the "real" story of On the Road rather than the fun semi-autobiographical version in the novel. I think that's where the film went completely wrong.

reply

[–] raven1066 11 years ago

I've never read the book so I can't speak to that aspect of the adaptation but I have to disagree w/the OP about Garrett Hedlund performance of Dean Moriarty. I thought he did a fantastic job. To me, in film, he came across as someone who's magnetic charm and personality was so great that people crowded around him like moths to a flame. Which in turn made the story work. Again, I haven't read the book but I thought the movie was well cast and very well acted.

An 8 out of 10 for me.

"The world is coming to an end. So where would you rather die, here or in a Jaeger?"

reply

[–] jerrellejames-1 11 years ago

To me, in film, he came across as someone who's magnetic charm and personality was so great that people crowded around him like moths to a flame. Which in turn made the story work.

But everybody abandoned him in the end. Some "magnetic charm and personality."

reply

[–] appyyh 11 years ago

I feel the same way as you do. I've never read the book myself, but the film did manage to keep me engaged in and care about the protagonists, Sal and Dean. Admittedly, Dean is a flawed character, but that is exactly what the story is about: that Sal had been drawn to him at the beginning because of Dean's energy and charm that Sal found exciting, but at the end discovered that Dean was only a friend for partying and wine, so to speak. Dean's abandoning Sal in Mexico was heart-breaking, which I would ascribe to Dean's immaturity (at age 22 ?) rather than callousness - perhaps he had been abandoned by his father before so he thought just walking out on somebody on a whim would not be that hurtful. In fact, he himself showed no resentment or hatred against his father despite that, but instead kept looking to reunite with him whenever he could.
He did manage to cross the country twice with only a shirt on his back just to see Sal, which I took it as showing more than just superficial friendship. Anyways, I have mixed feelings about Dean's character, and the sadness at the end did linger in my mind for a few days after watching the movie.

The character Sal in this film in a way reminds me of Nick Carraway in the Great Gatsby, serving as a first-person narrator/observer for the tragic main character of the story. Sam Riley delivered an excellent performance in that respect. But I think Garrett Hedlund's performance as Dean really captivated my attention. Hope to see more of them in drama films in the future soon.

reply

[–] craigbhill 10 years ago

That's where Neal Cassady died, Mexico, albeit decades later. From suicide.

~ Native Angeleno

reply

[–] dangus 11 years ago

I thought the problem was that they didn't use any pre-war cars. Also, the colour temperature of the street lights, the round hay bales, and not nearly enough neon signs. And the Viking radio; that was a Canadian department store brand, unlikely to be found in America.

reply

[–] gonemoab 11 years ago

Been looking at this board for several weeks just to be sure how I feel, and all I'm sure of is I'm the oldest person here. For all the people who've never read the book, don't reply to me, we have nothing in common. Many of the analyses of the roles and characterizations, the liberties and licenses taken in the film end up to be only that, just analyses of things. Substitute any film. True, I only saw the film once, and will likely never see it again. It was good--I didn't hate it. But it will have to stand on its own. And it will need time to do that given its poor distribution. I watched reluctantly.

Millions my age lived in this book; it's a body part. Evidence exists on this board that some young people today have done the same. It's not just one book, but an entire way of thinking that lives indefinitely. What the fine academic film analyses here fail to comprehend is that the generation instituted a lasting cultural shift that radiates even now. Highly doubtful this movie will create anything so venerable.

Few critics here would dare a road trip today without their Iphone, debit card, air conditioning; without their multiple entertainment platforms, creative expression software and satellite access. Likewise, the movie may stay or may fade, but to me its creativity is superficial for now only as it represents Kerouac's book, which it doesn't. It can't. On its own, it may improve in time.

Sorry I didn't comment on the legitimacy of casting. I don't know any of the actors. And I didn't know the beat poets in person. All I know is how we lived as interpreters of the writing.

the casting is way off for most of the characters - Sal, Carlo, and especially Kristen Stewart as Marylou

Boy, that's true. It felt to us (group of upper middle aged viewers) as though the casting of the main characters was based on a dare of some kind! Anyone here who walked into City Lights as late as the 60's knows these characters bore no resemblance...this is the first film I have chosen not to rate...

Beer--now there's a temporary solution ~ Homer Simpson

reply

[–] lazarillo 11 years ago

I'm not quite that old--I would have had to crawl or flop my way into City Lights Bookstores in the 60's, but I remember when they put in theft detectors in the 80's to stop all us street punks inspired by the book from STEALING the book and re-selling it to used bookstores (which would pay cash for copies).

I loved the book, but it was kind of annoying that it was one of three books (along with "Fear and Loathing" and "The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test") that EVERY hipster in the 80's and 90 had read--and pretty much only those books. I liked "Desolation Angels" better and Kerouac really had nothing on Hemingway, Dostoyevsky, or Nabokov.

I'm not sure what I thought of the movie. The book is unadaptable really and it's classic American myth-making, so why you would focus on the "real" story behind it is beyond me. I have no problem with Kristen Stewart (and her boobs) being in this since it's such a small part (which inevitably got bigger when she was cast). The two main male actors probably aren't totally convincing in their roles, but actually Kerouac HATED the kind of people who would been in City Lights in the 60's and I don't think hardly anyone today remember what it was like to be a beat hipster in 1948 when this book takes place. I don't this movie is what it is. . .

reply

[–] shempXIV 11 years ago

re: actually Kerouac HATED the kind of people who would been in City Lights in the 60's

It's a wee bit ironic: Jack K was/is a hipster icon but in real life, he was not, uh, all that cool. By the time the '60s came 'round, he was an absentee father to his daughter; an arch-conservative, an alcoholic, he was a bisexual that used the "f" word disparagingly about gay men, and a mama's boy. (Sorry, if you're living with mom after the age of 30, you are a mama's boy.)

reply

[–] juanmonge69 11 years ago

Kerouac also considered himself a patriot and didn't like the anti-war(Vietnam) movement.

I have read all these "beat" books and studied the era. Drugs and alcohol pervade the literature and in the end... It amounts to nothing.

The question should be: What did Sal Paradise learn from being on the road?

reply

[–] DCI77 11 years ago

>>The question should be: What did Sal Paradise learn from being on the road?

I'm part of the millennial gen. You'd think I'd fall over heels over this book. I simply did not. I mean, I liked for what it is, and nothing more. I've read many thoughts of my generation - those that liked this book, those that share the same idiotic behavior and entitlement of those displayed in the novel. They talk about passion, the "here and now," standing up to ones fears ... And I say "And?" They talk about pushing oneself and not letting social norms define them. And I say "So you're a kid. Wait, you're 23. So you're physically an adult but mentally naive - in the worst possible sense." Their mantra is "Never be normal," and I say "You just dissed 99.9% of the entire human population."

Rootless fools trying to gain credit for "living life." Rootless fools for "standing up to ones fear" (which they never admit what their fear is).

It's mostly psychological, pseudo-intellectual BS. Waxing and waxing but never producing a shine. Sophistry written by average people, ironically.

2014: Whiplash, Cold in July, that Terrence Malick project set in Austin

reply

[–] craigbhill 10 years ago

Unfortuantely, you are a cliche of your generation, dismissing a lot that went before you without understanding it. You don't. You don't get how the '40s generation WAS, which strikes you as beyond naive---DUHHH---and how they were blazing a trail to the Beats of the '50s and the general revolution against every ugly thing of the establishment in the '60s. Their naivete was joined in by most everyone of their generation until they read the book. That negan to change everything.

As far as how they described the goal of living life, it involves risks and a kind of blind launch into the unknown. That probably sounds like just another cliche to you jaded know-littles, who must put down everything before you so you don't have to bother understanding it.You oughtta look at egolessness, it helps to understand and have compassion, except you'd dismiss that too out of hand as a cliche.

~ Native Angeleno

reply

[–] DCI77 10 years ago

>>Unfortuantely, you are a cliche of your generation, dismissing a lot that went before you without understanding it. You don't.

I can sum up your entire post: You don't like On The Road so you're a cliche and don't "get it." I assure you I "get it." It ain't rocket science, buddy.

>>You don't get how the '40s generation WAS, which strikes you as beyond naive---DUHHH---and how they were blazing a trail to the Beats of the '50s and the general revolution against every ugly thing of the establishment in the '60s. Their naivete was joined in by most everyone of their generation until they read the book. That negan to change everything.

You assume if I understood how the '40s WAS I'd go along with you and The Beat writers.

I'm dissing the hipsters who eat this up. I like many things that are from the past and I am not obligated to like this or any of what you like. In fact, my entire post above is being critical of On The Road and what it stands for. That's just one part of the '40 generation, so the jokes on you.

>>As far as how they described the goal of living life, it involves risks and a kind of blind launch into the unknown. That probably sounds like just another cliche to you jaded know-littles, who must put down everything before you so you don't have to bother understanding it.You oughtta look at egolessness, it helps to understand and have compassion, except you'd dismiss that too out of hand as a cliche.

LOL what "risks"? Seriously, you act all butt hurt like these "rebels" were doing any good or anything productive. You blow hot air and think it's wisdom.

Bold: Nah, you think I'm putting "everything" down before me when I'm just dissing The Beats and those that are like them. So I'm actually dissing you.

Ironic enough there's a lot of ego for those like the book.

2014: American Sniper, Inherent Vice, Foxcatcher, Into the Woods

reply

[–] DCI77 11 years ago

>>The book is unadaptable really and it's classic American myth-making, so why you would focus on the "real" story behind it is beyond me.

That's a good point. Unless one was there with Sal, Dean & Marylou or knew Kerouac anything "real" put into the movie is laughable because you're just injecting what you thought was said and what was actually done. And like you said "I don't think hardly anyone today remember what it was like to be a beat hipster in 1948 when this book takes place."

Director Joe Wright said it best, when talking about period pieces, that a director/ screenwriter is just making stuff up in terms of dialogue and actions of the characters since no one was there. At best you can get the era of the dresses, speech pattern, accent, social norms and items used at that particular time, but anything else is just what one thinks is anywhere near accurate. This applies to almost every indie movie.

>> I have no problem with Kristen Stewart (and her boobs) being in this since it's such a small part (which inevitably got bigger when she was cast).

The role was degrading, for the most part. I have pity for her.

>>I don't this movie is what it is. . .

It comes full circle: hipsters, counterculture, whathaveyou. Those who have enough wisdom saw it coming; those that didn't saw it like it was the most coolest, most fearless thing since slice bread. Like poster shempXIV said, "Ironic."

2014: Whiplash, Cold in July, that Terrence Malick project set in Austin

reply

[–] DCI77 11 years ago

>>Millions my age lived in this book; it's a body part.

So you went on a cross country trip, "married" a girl under 18 and mooched monetarily off your aunt well into your 30s? Sh_t, son, at least it seems you finally got your crap together.

>> What the fine academic film analyses here fail to comprehend is that the generation instituted a lasting cultural shift that radiates even now.

To put the entire hedonistic lifestyle and self-congratulatory attitude on Dean, Sal and Marylou and the like is a bit over credit. The type of attitude and ideology displayed in the book has been stirring in the pot long before that with a final kick of vodka once the Sexual Rev. came.

2014: Whiplash, Cold in July, that Terrence Malick project set in Austin

reply

[–] Nikon11 11 years ago

by DCI77
» Wed May 14 2014 22:55:05
IMDb member since June 2004
Post Edited:
Wed May 14 2014 23:02:07

>>Millions my age lived in this book; it's a body part.

So you went on a cross country trip, "married" a girl under 18 and mooched monetarily off your aunt well into your 30s? Sh_t, son, at least it seems you finally got your crap together.

How literal do you want to be?

You either get it or you don't. Not everyone needs to wander or travel or act out, to find out what they're about, what they want, or just to try to calm some inner restlessness. Some do.

reply

[–] DCI77 11 years ago

It's calling it like it is. To say "millions my age lived in this book" is not only outrageous but also foolish. To say "it's a body part" would be giving it a status that it really doesn't deserve.

>>You either get it or you don't. Not everyone needs to wander or travel or act out, to find out what they're about, what they want, or just to try to calm some inner restlessness. Some do.

The 'you get it or you don't' card. Typical. Oh, I "get it," heck I'm a millennial whose suppose to innately 'get it.'

2014: Whiplash, Cold in July, that Terrence Malick project set in Austin, Foxcatcher

reply

[–] Nikon11 11 years ago

By that I meant that the book either speaks to you, and you can identify with it - or it doesn't and you don't.

I wasn't saying that you are too thick to understand it, or something like that.

I mean, are you saying that there's no bit of film, literature, or music that you totally identify with, makes you feel alive, or seems to scream exactly how you feel, like it was written just for you?

It's amazing if there isn't, and it's sad too.

Growing up, it was Quadrophenia, even though I never had multiple personality disorder.

Then it was Herman Hesse novels, even though I've never been through psychotherapy.

Then I discovered Kerouac. And while I didn't do exactly what was done in his books, I did some similar things, and I felt a kinship with Kerouac and his characters. He put a voice to some of my feelings, which I'd never seen before in other books that I'd read.

So, maybe you took offense to my first statement, but what I said next, if you think about it, explains it.

Not everyone needs to wander or travel or act out, to find out what they're about, what they want, or just to try to calm some inner restlessness. Some do.

reply

[–] karmacoupe 11 years ago

Very well put, Nikon.

reply

[–] jtice_va 10 years ago

I'm with you Nikon11. I am probably your age, maybe even older. I read "On The Road" several times, decades ago. Kerouac's voice resonated with me. I had some adventures that gave me a basis for being able to relate. I'm a huge jazz fan. I've been broke and well off. I've traveled the lower 48 by motorcycle, all of them, most several times. I did a cross country road trip adventure with a buddy (early 20s) in an old Chevy with 100k + and marginal tires––before cell phones, with just a few hundred bucks in cash between the two of us, and no particular plan. We calculated distance and gas money the whole way, not so much worried about eating as getting home eventually. This was long before reading On The Road.

Anyway, the point is not about accuracy and being a dead-on literal interpretation of the book. It's also not about judging qualitatively as measured by a standard yardstick. We accept that it cannot be that, just as we accept that the book is not a literal accounting of events in the lives of Kerouac and Cassady. It's an artistic expression based on an artistic expression, an entity unto itself, related to something known but intended to stand on it's own and convey the feelings and concepts as interpreted by the many artists who contributed. If one can experience this film openly... without judging, comparing or holding it to the Hollywood formulaic expectation, then one can simply enjoy and appreciate it for what it is. Music lives between the notes, and in this film the artistry lives somewhere between the book, the screenplay, the characters, the director and cast, the sound and the imagery. Someone who has the foundation for appreciating it probably will. Perfection is not what it's about.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DCI77 10 years ago

>>If one can experience this film openly... without judging, comparing or holding it to the Hollywood formulaic expectation, then one can simply enjoy and appreciate it for what it is.

That's part of the issue I have with some of the advocates of this movie. You think that people are holding it up "Hollywood formulaic expectations" ... whatever that means and whatever that entails. Yea, I get it, it's totally "real" and not Hollywood-ish: It's made by a non-Hollywood/non-American director that makes movies closer to Europe type cinema.

Drop the "Hollywood vs us" card. It's f_ckin' becoming a cliche.

2014: Whiplash, Cold in July, that Terrence Malick project set in Austin, Foxcatcher

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DCI77 10 years ago

It did "speak to me" but not to the degree that it had on a host of people.

>>I mean, are you saying that there's no bit of film, literature, or music that you totally identify with, makes you feel alive, or seems to scream exactly how you feel, like it was written just for you?

Of course there are, but it sure ain't this.

I don't wallow in, look back in nostalgia or cherish on what would be my angsty, entitled tenure of wanderlust. I grew up.

2014: Whiplash, Cold in July, that Terrence Malick project set in Austin, Foxcatcher

reply

[–] karmacoupe 10 years ago

But you do wallow in ... and look back on ... for months on end ... message boards ... of entertainment ... YOU DON'T EVEN LIKE!

How entitled and idle must a person be who can spend their short time on this planet repeatedly returning to and nattering on about some tiny trivial point about some movie ... they didn't even like?!

If I don't like a movie, I don't spend one more second on it than it took to watch it. What kind of neurotic nostalgia for negativity is this? We got your point the first 45 times you made it. Why don't you take a road trip and clear your head ... and maybe this movie will then make sense ... or you'll forget about it entirely, leave it in the rearview mirror, and find NEW things in this world.

reply

[–] DCI77 10 years ago

Poor 'gotcha.' Returning to discuss a topic months after is fine by me.

>>How entitled and idle must a person be who can spend their short time on this planet repeatedly returning to and nattering on about some tiny trivial point about some movie ... they didn't even like?!

Ah, the "short time on this planet" card. No wonder you come across as a lost cause, too self-involved.

From the looks of it I return to this thread every few months since I first posted here, so your 'entitled and idle' accusation is a reflection of your inability to deal with criticism of your beloved movie/book.

Also I don't believe what concerns me is "trivial" in the movie's scope. If you've read and comprehended my posts you'd be in the know that I'm talking more so of the book than the movie.

Like I said a poor 'gotcha.' I'll quote myself, "I don't wallow in, look back in nostalgia or cherish on what would be my angsty, entitled tenure of wanderlust. I grew up."

I'll spell it out: I don't look back on movie/books like On the Road with teary eyes and think to myself "Gosh, those were the days. I need another road trip to 'find myself' cause I'm stuck in middle management. Such squares my co-workers are." I like Catcher in the Rye -- probably one of favorite YA novels yet I don't look back on it with nostalgia. I may return to it to discuss it, but that ain't nostalgia.

These boards are made to discuss film and its aspects. Posters who like a particular movie, posters who don't and posters who fall in between. If you don't like the freedom that people have of discussing a film in a critical way that you obviously like (cute review) then I think you need to leave the "feelings" at the door and take a road trip where you actually grow up. You know, learn some facts. Maybe start a sociological study on the Indians. Maybe start a blog detailing the places you've been and visited, the people you've met. Maybe even reflect if your "American Puritanical" movie rating is either accurate or just a nonsensical accusation from a person whose philosophy on life is as unstable as the characters portrayed in the movie (but you admire such characters and their actions, don't cha?)

>>If I don't like a movie, I don't spend one more second on it than it took to watch it.

So what. This is the only movie board I care to return to discuss previous things I've engaged in. If someone replies to my posts I'll reply back even if it's months later. I like other movies, post on their boards and I don't make fun of posters who may not like it. I ask why and if they keep on posting their disdain then so be it. I ain't trolling.

Obviously I hit a sensitive nerve of yours so your reaction to my post is understandable.

>>What kind of neurotic nostalgia for negativity is this? We got your point the first 45 times you made it. Why don't you take a road trip and clear your head ... and maybe this movie will then make sense ... or you'll forget about it entirely, leave it in the rearview mirror, and find NEW things in this world.

bold: In other words "Leave me alone!"

Uh, the last time I checked people responded to me so it's a choice to either respond back or not.

I replied back less than ten times on this thread. I know you're a big fan of this movie and what's depicted in it, but at least don't act like a sensitive Nancy. After all, this is an adult film (as you wrote in your review) so as someone who thought this movie was amazing I'd have thought you could handle a person who doesn't see it your way. I guess you're not as hardcore as you think you are. I suppose this discussion is an NC-17 ... too much for your innocent mind to handle.

Thinking "Oh, I did write couple of posts a few months ago on that one board. Wonder if I have any responses ... " isn't nostalgia. It isn't a feeling of yearning but a simple motivation to engage in dialogue if I chose to.

I've taken many a road trips. I'm from the middle of the country - drove to the east coast a couple of times. Drove as far as Nevada on the west side. Had an internship down in Alabama, so I drove; later drove to New Orleans with my fellow co-workers. I drove across the Great Plains as well. Guess what? The movie doesn't confuse me so there's nothing to "make sense" of. In fact, my second road trip to the east coast was this past September. My view of what the film represents and what the book represents is still the same as before.

Here's some advice: Geezers like you don't deserve admiration or respect. The 1940s came, you had some fun in the 1960s and when this movie came around it gave you multiple orgasms. I mean, don't be so predictable despite the "I was there when it happened little duckling."

2014: American Sniper, Inherent Vice, Foxcatcher, Into the Woods

reply

[–] pmjeger 10 years ago

I wouldn't say the casting is the only issue of this film, but I totally agree about the Dean character. In the movie, we see some kind of stupid male model version of Dean, with no a spice of the effect that his unhealthy lifestyle had had on him. He's not supposed to be cool and have abbs; he's supposed to be crazy and spontaneous.

The rest of the cast is not that bad (although is not ok either). I agree about Viggo Mortensen and I also liked Amy Adams's performance.

reply

[–] Nikon11 10 years ago

Amazingly, (for me), I haven't yet seen this movie. That said, I'm not thrilled with the casting choices.

Having seen Big Sur, though, I can say that I am more impressed with those choices.

reply

[–] Yinky (159) 5 years ago

Hey Nikon, I am still waiting at the Marriott, where we were supposed to hook up after the Roger Dodger love fest we had around ten years ago. You’re awfully late.

reply

[–] metusbatmanv 9 years ago

Absolutely nailed it!

reply