User reviews

Poetry can seriously damage your health. That's the main thing I've learned from recent biopics in which Johnny Depp's pox-ridden John Wilmot (The Libertine), Ben Whishaw's consumptive Keats (Bright Star) and Gwyneth Paltrow's depressive Sylvia Plath (Sylvia) have cornered the market in self-destructive behaviour.

I approached Howl, a movie about Beat Generation poet Allen Ginsberg, with a mixture of excitement and trepidation. On the one hand, it stars James Franco as Ginsberg and Mad Men's Jon Hamm as his lawyer, Jake Ehrlich. I'd watch these two ridiculously handsome actors in just about anything, but I really didn't want to sit through another Ode to Angst.

Directors Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman -- The Times of Harvey Milk, The Celluloid Closet – are renowned for their documentary work and this film was originally conceived along those lines. Ginsberg's epic poem "Howl" was first published in 1955, but its explicit references to drugs and homosexuality (amongst other things) led to the prosecution of his publisher Lawrence Ferlinghetti in 1957. The intention was to commemorate the 50th anniversary of those events.

But instead of a straight documentary, the film-makers have opted to show us three sides of "Howl". There's the poem itself, with Franco trying to channel the spirit of Ginsberg as he addresses a rapt audience, in the b/w sequences from 1955. By contrast, the trial scenes are shot in colour and feature many voices with differing opinions about the merit of Ginsberg's work. Finally, the poet's own thoughts are recorded by an unseen interviewer. At the centre of all this, "Howl" is also given visual form, with a series of animations created by artist Eric Drooker.

For me, the courtroom scenes are the most enjoyable and thought-provoking element of the film. A succession of expert witnesses – some pompous, some just prejudiced – try to get to grips with issues of literary merit and the nature of obscenity. David Strathairn is admirably straight-faced in the role of prosecuting attorney Ralph McIntosh, as he tiptoes through a minefield of sexual imagery and baffling phrases like "angel-headed hipsters". Hamm's tight-lipped defence lawyer brings a sense of intellectual superiority to the proceedings – he's a crusading Don Draper with the added bonus of a moral compass.

Ginsberg himself wasn't on trial here and wasn't present at the proceedings, but the debate about whether the law is an effective tool for censoring and constraining artists remains highly topical. As one of the more thoughtful witnesses (played by Treat Williams) explains, "You can't translate poetry into prose. That's why it is poetry." The poet's own perspective on his life and work is captured in conversation with an off-camera reporter. A bearded, chain-smoking Ginsberg talks openly about his homosexuality, his mother's psychiatric problems, and fellow writer Carl Solomon, to whom "Howl" was dedicated. This strand of the film was inspired by a never-published interview that Ginsberg gave to Time magazine, but the film's dialogue is culled from a variety of sources.

Trying to explain the process of translating feelings into verse is a hard thing to pull off on film. Perhaps that's why most film-makers prefer to concentrate on the broken marriages and substance abuse that go hand in hand with tortured literary geniuses. Epstein and Friedman, who also wrote the screenplay, have done a good job trying to condense biographical detail and literary theory into what is basically a monologue – without being pretentious or boring. Brief flashbacks of Ginsberg pounding away at his typewriter, with his friend Neal Cassady, and in bed with long-term partner Peter Orlovsky, help to round out a portrait of the artist.

The final piece in the jigsaw – the poem – is the most problematic aspect of the film. How much of the work does the audience need to hear, and how do you hold their attention through some long and difficult passages? I quickly became bored of Franco's declamatory style, as he reads to a gathering of smug-looking hipsters at the Six Gallery in San Francisco.

When the recitation continues over Eric Drooker's animation, the effect is even worse. It's a matter of taste whether you thrill to the repeated imagery of fire, the minotaur-like Moloch and weirdly elongated bodies flying across the night sky. I prefer not to have someone else's interpretation of the verse foisted on me. Archive footage from the period would have been another option to fill the gap, but overall I think the poetry should have been used more sparingly.

Howl is bold, stylish attempt to capture a period in the mid-20th century when writing poetry could be an act of political rebellion – a shot across the bows of dull, conformist, heterosexual America. By casting the handsome and charismatic James Franco as Ginsberg, the directors could have turned this into yet another movie about the cult of personality. Instead they've largely succeeded in keeping the focus on the verse and on the act of writing. As the man said, "There's no Beat Generation. Just a bunch of guys trying to get published."

"I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked, dragging themselves through the Negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix, angel headed hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machinery of night…"

So begins the poem "Howl" by Allen Ginsberg who was one of the most respected writers and acclaimed American poets of the so-called Beat Generation of the late 1950s, poets that included Jack Kerouac, William Burroughs, Lawrence Ferlinghetti, Gregory Corso and others. The poem about sex, drugs, politics, and race shocked many people when first published with its explicit language and sexual images and became a cause célèbre leading to an obscenity trial in San Francisco that tested the limits of the First Amendment. According to Ginsberg, reflecting the culture of the fifties, "If you could write about homosexuality, you could write about anything."

Directed by Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman, the film Howl is a celebration not only of the poem but of the artist who, amidst the turbulence that surrounded its initial publication, sought to define his own identity. It is a non-linear work that interweaves a reading of the poem by actor James Franco as Ginsberg with animation by the graphic artist Eric Drooker, a dramatization of the obscenity trial, and an interview with Ginsberg culled from the poet's own words. The film begins with the young Ginsberg reciting "Howl" in a coffeehouse to a young and approving audience. As the poem is being read aloud, the spoken words are animated on screen. Though expertly conceived, the animation creates a literal interpretation of the poem that fails to convey its power and beauty.

According to the poet, he never planned to publish "Howl" because he thought some of the language might offend his father and thus felt free to write anything that came to mind, knowing that no one would ever read it. Consequently, "Howl" delivers a wild torrent of words filled with lines about radical politics, drugs, and homosexuality conveying images that are often erotic and sometimes scatological. The poem may not always be understandable but, especially as read aloud, is filled with a rhythmic pulse that is pure music. The poem describes people who are in love, in pain, and in joy, people who "howled on their knees in the subway and were dragged off the roof waving genitals and manuscripts, who let themselves be f**ked in the a*s by saintly motorcyclists, and screamed with joy, who blew and were blown by those human seraphim, the sailors, caresses of Atlantic and Caribbean love, who balled in the morning in the evenings in rose gardens and the grass of public parks and cemeteries scattering their semen freely to whomever come who may."

The interviews reveal Ginsberg's mental state and how he ended up in a mental hospital, his only way out being to lie to the doctors that he would pursue heterosexuality. His friend in the institute, Carl Solomon to whom the poem is dedicated, however, had no easy way out, having to endure electro-shock therapy and a strait-jacket. Ginsberg's mother, Naomi, was also in a mental hospital for an unknown illness before she died. These troubling personal events in Ginsberg's life are integrated into the film in a way that is very moving although, because most of the poem consists of readings and conversations, the film itself is not very cinematic. One of the strong components is Ginsberg's homosexuality and the film depicts his relationships with Neal Cassidy and Peter Orlovsky with whom he loved and lived with for most of his adult life.

Using actual court transcripts, Howl also dramatizes the courtroom drama with attorneys played by Jon Hamm and David Straithairn arguing the case before the judge (Bob Balaban). Ginsberg himself was not at the trial since it was brought against the City Lights Publishers and Lawrence Ferlinghetti. The witnesses consisted of academics and literary figures either condemning the poem as worthless and without merit or praising it as an innovative and important work of art. The judge in the case eventually determined that the poem had "redeeming social importance," a landmark decision.

Franco's performance captures the energy of Ginsberg's poetry and his feelings about his life and art in the interview but overall fails to convey his warmth and humanity, his spirituality, his playfulness, or his progressive political views. In short, it succeeds in capturing most everything about the artist except the very qualities that make him so inspiring. As the film ends, we see updated information about those mentioned in the film while, in the background, we hear Ginsberg singing "Father Death Blues," a moving ode to the death of his father in a version by the aging poet as he nears the end of his life.

"Father Breath, once more farewell. Birth you gave was no thing ill. My heart is still, as time will tell. Genius Death your art is done. Lover Death your body's gone. Father Death I'm coming home."

Though Allen Ginsberg now home, his art will never be done.

I'm surprised that this film worked as well as it did, and that it has been received as well as it has here. I read Howl about 5 years after Ginsberg wrote it, when I was in high school, and, like it or not, it became part of my thinking in the fifty years since then. Still in high school, I could quote passages from the poem at my friends, who would follow up with the next passage, etc. Boooring. But if you had told me that a film would be made about it, with a script constructed of trial transcripts and interviews in the public record, alternating with a recreation of Ginsberg's first public (paying-public; there was ONE previous reading of the full poem) reading of the poem, I wouldn't have expected much. And I would have been wrong. It's well-done and well-acted, and no excuses are made for anything about Ginsberg or his work. I was dismayed at first to see the poem interpreted into animation, but the filmmakers were savvy enough to produce the animation in the style of the times, i.e., 1955, when Disney's Fantasia was still the state of the art, and the animation in Howl could have come out of the Night on Bald Mountain section. In the end, it worked, I think, by keeping the viewer visually in the world of the poem itself, rather than in the biographical material about Ginsberg or the trial and the litigants. So if you want to watch a movie about a poem, and the poet and his friends, but mainly about the poem, this one does a pretty good job.

In admiration of James Franco and his portraying a literary person is why I wanted to see this film. Since I'd never read the poem "Howl" by Allen Ginsberg (& I knew of Ginsberg in his later years as he was fairly renown as almost an elder poet statesman), I actually dug up a copy of "Howl" and read it before I viewed the movie. It turns out that it wasn't necessary to have read "Howl" -- the film sufficiently presents the poem and its complete text so that the viewer gets a good understanding just from the movie itself (at least I thought so...). This occurs in not only Franco's public reading of "Howl," it is brought out in the animation aspect of the film -- for me the animation was unexpected yet not intrusive. What is the film's major strength is James Franco's portrayal of Ginsberg. Franco's actual physical resemblance to the younger Ginsberg adds to his portrayal and his public reading of "Howl" is also quite good.

What is additionally satisfying in my mind is the evoking of a time and place (mid 1950s America) when a group of writers and quasi-vagabonds lived their lives on their own terms (& not in accordance to what was then considered the status quo) and wrote about it. This is brought out in depictions of Ginsberg's relationships and also in the court room obscenity battle about "Howl."

Watched in June 2010 I've never read Howl or really have had much interest in Allen Ginsberg, but having seen this delight of a film, things have changed.

The film takes a look at several key moments in Ginsbergs life. In B&W we see Ginsberg recite his poem Howl: there are also insights into his friendships with Jack Kerouac, Neal Cassady and his relationship with Peter Orlovsky. The reading of the poem is segmented throughout the film and in between these segments we see Ginsberg being interviewed, whilst we never see the interviewer, we do see Ginsberg talk about his life. The other main element is the trial of Howl, which was deemed obscene. All these aspects combine well and it never feels disjointed; they are nicely contrasted and offer great insights into the life of Ginsberg.

Add to this some wonderful animation that plays during much of the recital of Howl; it creates something of a reality to the poem and made it even more stunning and graphic and tragic and beautiful. The trial scenes are fascinating with the constant questioning by the prosecution as to what certain lines or words meant. And how wonderful the judge, who seemed to have made his decision well before the trial was over. Thank goodness for him.

James Franco plays Ginsberg and does so well, although he doesn't have too much to do, he is mostly either being interviewed or reciting; but it is in this he impresses, the passion, the intensity of the piece shines through: the ending of Howl, known as 'Footnote to Howl' is brilliantly spoken and I found it hugely emotional. The film has a slight doco feel to it at times, but it is otherwise an absorbing and wonderfully told account.

I was lucky to watch this movie at the Athens Film Festival last Saturday and, despite its occasional flaws, I loved it. Ginsberg is fairly known to Greece , though most people (myself included) got to know him through his connection with Dylan. In that sense, I wasn't familiar with HOWL or the obscenity trial. For me , the movie's main attraction is the fact that it is not a biopic but a study on the creation of poetry, the power and magic of the words, the creator's struggle for genuineness through a dark path of madness and sexual frustration. The film is an unusual blend of poetry recitation, psychedelic animation, a graphic dramatization of Ginsberg's interview and a straight-forward dramatization of the trial.Some of them work fine and some not. Franco catches the right spirit of a young poet striving to find his way of expression and he is magnetic both in the recitation and in the interview scenes.The trial scenes , though well acted, seemed a little flat to me as compared to the vibrant tone that the poem itself imposes to the film . The animation was a bit uneven , in cases great (the Moloch section was terrific) , in cases indifferent and sometimes, for me, annoying. Apart from those parts that didn't work for me to the extend that I expected , the film is a unique docudrama, a magnificent and courageous ode to the power of words and the freedom of speech and a great depiction of the personal struggle of an artist to be truthful to himself.

If it weren't for James Franco's winning involvement, this biopic would be less of a howl and more of a whimper. The film is a combination of three strands: the 1957 obscenity trail for publisher Lawrence Ferlinghetti of City Lights bookshop; a candid interview with the poet himself; and Franco/Ginsberg's reading of the poem.

This last strand is sometimes accompanied by pseudo-mystical animation, at others by a modishly monochromatic reconstruction of Ginsberg's original Six Gallery reading. This took place, coincidentally, in San Francisco two years before the trail.

As for the animation – it doesn't work. Poetry is never best served on film by being decorated visually (despite Ginsberg's own involvement with the illustrations). We end up watching an urban fantasia of mawkish 'beat' spirituality, sentimentalised poverty, and psychedelic sex.

When Daniels tells the courtroom that poetry is poetry because you can't translate it into prose, we might add that it hardly lends itself to cartoons either. It's a lesson Julie Taymor might have learned before giving us her CGI-fest 'Tempest'.

Casting John Hamm, America's four-square straight guy, in the role of Jake Ehrlich, Felinghetti's defence lawyer, leaves us in no doubt as to which way the verdict will blow. The presence of Bob Balaban as the judge, Marie-Louise Parker in a cameo, and Jeff Daniels as a priggish professor also give this slight film a somewhat over-produced sheen. Was it only due to these big hitters' involvement that the film got made?

Howl the film is not an appraisal of the 'Beat Generation' in all its wonderful squalor and, frankly, un-selfconscious mediocrity. For that, you'd be better off reading James Campbell's wonderful 'This is the Beat Generation'. Campbell is superb on the more marginal figures of that loose group – the likes of Herbert Huncke, Burroughs, and the fascinating 'fallen angel of the beat generation', Lucien Carr. I longed for more of the Beats in the film.

The two figures that haunt 'Howl' the poem, however, are its dedicatee, Carl Soloman, who Ginsberg got to know in a mental institution, and another psychiatric patient – his mother. It's that relationship, which Ginsberg found too painful to talk about, that I wanted more detail of. In its narrow concentration on Howl the poem, Howl the film tantalisingly narrows its scope.

When Ginsberg tells us "there's no such thing as the Beat Generation. Just a bunch of guys trying to get published" we might remember that it was Allen himself who was the most ambitious of those guys. It was he who personally invited important poets and publishers to the Six Gallery reading, including Gary Snyder, Philip Lamantia, Kenneth Rexroth and Michael McClure. Howl was second to last on the bill, and the not-yet 30 year old poet knew this was his chance.

In response to Ginsberg's reading, McClure wrote: "Ginsberg read on to the end of the poem, which left us standing in wonder, or cheering and wondering, but knowing at the deepest level that a barrier had been broken, that a human voice and body had been hurled against the harsh wall of America..." Allen couldn't have planned it better.

What, half a century later, would Ginsberg have made of James Franco playing himself? I can't help thinking he'd sooner have Franco playing with himself. Franco is a latter-day picture of the angel-headed hipster Ginsberg eulogised and adored. Somewhere, up there, the old mystic must be smiling.

This is a brilliant film. I have not seen a another film that successfully shows how someone creates a work of art, especially a literary work. This film does it brilliantly, largely by quotations from the poem read very effectively by James Franco, who plays Ginsberg. Acted out interviews illuminate many things and the trial itself is extremely involving to watch. Even the animated portions we see while we hear parts of the poem work well. It's a remarkable film about artistic creation and how the artist must be allowed to use his own words and to use language that expresses his meaning fully, not language that is inoffensive to some imaginary reader.

Franco, John Hamm, David Strathairn, Bob Balaban, Jeff Daniels are all at their best, and seem truly committed to the project.

You don't even have to be a fan of Ginsberg, or know much about who he was to enjoy this. I was really impressed, one of the best films of this year, but it will likely be ignored by many.

'Howl (2010)' is an offbeat experimental historical film about Allen Ginsberg's 1956 poem "Howl," the subject of a highly-publicised obscenity trial on its initial publication. James Franco plays Ginsberg, the reluctantly homosexual poet who poured his fears and frustrations into a four-part magnum opus, deemed a masterpiece and an obscenity in equal measure. I haven't read all that much poetry (though I have been known to recite Poe's "The Raven" in my most Vincent Price-ish voice), but I did like Ginsberg's poem, which is lyrical and evocative in a manner resembling the songwriting of Tom Waits. Several computer-animated sequences attempt to ascribe visuals to Ginsberg's words, but I wasn't sure about these: the CGI animation seemed too clean, too ordered, to represent such inner torment. Worth seeing, but perhaps not for everyone.

Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman's 'Howl' is an interesting and humorous depiction of the 1957 trial regarding Allen Ginsberg's controversial poem 'Howl'. In between the trial we are given glimpses of Ginsberg's life (in black and white) and an interview with him. The black and white sequences are beautifully shot. The style reminds one of French movies from the 50s. The recital of the poems takes some getting used to but once it is coupled with the animated sequence there's no turning back. It brings the poetry to life. Those are the highlights of the film. Moreover the animation is beautifully done. The pacing is uneven as its slow at times (especially in the beginning). I would have liked to have seen more glimpses of Ginsberg's life. The actors do a fairly decent job. James Franco does a good enough job and he is well supported by David Strathairn, Jon Hamm, Bob Balaban, Alessandro Nivola and Mary-Louise Parker. Overall, 'Howl' is an intriguing account and does quite well in introducing Ginsberg's poems to those who are not familiar with his works. The animation gives it a unique touch.

Franco was magnificent. Everybody was good. I was in my teens when all that happened, and the production was wonderfully REAL. I loved hearing the poem read and pieces of it being re-read, etc. BUT major complaint. The animation. The outsourced animation could have been moving or touching or enlightening or anything, but it looked like hallmark cards! CHEEEEESY. Terminally unimaginative. Haven't these filmmakers ever seen any REAL animation? By artists? Take a look at Ryan by Chris Landreth. Take a look at anything done by Ryan himself. Look at Mirrormask!!

Another reviewer who attended a Q&A says that the artist is one who worked with Ginsberg on an illumated Howl. Ginsberg, aside from his involvement in "Pull My Daisy" was not a filmmaker. These folks were either too reverent or lacked creativity. Or both.

Or maybe they just couldn't afford it? There are brilliant out-of-work animators who would work cheap, who've got some serious intelligence, but this stuff brings down the tone of the whole film. Howl is a classic. Not a Hallmark Card.

(61%) A decent stab at bringing poetry to the sliver screen in this part animated snippet of Allen Ginsberg's life during a public obscenity trail around the release of his most noteworthy work. The runtime is pretty brief as it allows the poetry to do a fair amount of the talking with Ginsberg's life playing almost second fiddle between the court hearings. James Franco does a fair job in a role that mostly requires him to recite poems to quite mesmerising looking music video style short films that I thought worked perfectly well. The fact that a series of poems needed to be brought to a court of law to decide whether or not to ban them from public circulation in a so-called free country to me is as utterly laughable as it is annoyingly true. And marks the fact that rich and powerful prudes even today still seem to have a say on things that don't concern their tiny, weak, and largely closed minds.

Howl was an interesting look into the life of Allen Ginsberg. The movie was mainly about the trial that questioned whether or not Ginsberg's poem, "Howl" was too obscene. However, there were brief bits where James Franco as Ginsberg was being interviewed about his personal life.

I felt that the animations that were displayed during the reading of the poem made the poem more powerful and clear. The contrasts between the beautiful imagery of the poem and the scenes of the tense trial were great. The trial scenes were very powerful, and the actors that played the witnesses (namely Mary Louise-Parker and Jeff Daniels), did a really great job creating believable characters.

I loved the film and Franco did a great job portraying Allen Ginsberg.

Howl is a film based on Allen Ginsberg's life and works and most notably his controversial poem Howl which contains reenacting various aspects including Ginsberg's debut reading of the poem. As well as the obscenity trial relating to its explicit content. The films jumps between the trial, the reading and Ginsberg's past experiences and his influences as well as an interview with him. The film utilises a number of techniques mostly animations which if you're not used to seeing in a surreal sense you may not enjoy. Although to be fair to the film there are probably not many other techniques that could be used to illustrate this but in my view it was done fairly well. As mentioned though the film jumps and slides between the elements of his life and the trial. It doesn't really dissect the poem in the way that it could have done. In this sense it may have perhaps been its run time which let it down. James Franco performed brilliantly and really carried the film but it will fail to set an impact because it interchanged quickly and we didn't see the external influences in the form of the people in his life as much as we could have done. In this way it feels like the James Franco show where I am not knocking him as an actor but it feels like we could have seen more people in the story more. Like I say Franco does well he doesn't ham up the performance in the way that in these films can become a threat. In summary though the films comes at the audience and tries to impress right away but doesn't make for a very challenging film but a half decent introduction to Ginsberg's work if you haven't come across it before. Personally though on a second viewing I may grow to dislike this film for its questionable pacing even for a film that is relatively short. For that reason I may not even give this film the time of day again.

In 1955 Allan Ginsberg sat in a cafe in Berkeley California and wrote a poem. He was asked to perform the poem at a reading and at first refused, but changed his mind after completing a rough draft of Howl. The poem was published and confiscated when it went through customs after being printed in London. A trial of the publisher, Lawrence Ferlinghetti ensued. What should we make of the poem, and of the trial? The film intertwines the poem with the trial in a most illuminating fashion. It shows us Ginsberg's milieu using a mix of archival footage and enactments. Much of the trial, and the judges final comments make it clear that is indeed the milieu and the language used to express that milieu which make the poem great.

The film has a heavy weight Hollywood cast and is very well dramatized. The use of graphics helps illuminate the poem and keeps us engaged during the readings, particularly given the difficulty of the imagery.

I was drawn to this film by the topic and also by the polarized reviews. People seem to feel fairly strongly about this work. But they have antithetical views: some say that the film is great but Ginsberg mediocre. Some say that Ginsberg is great and the film a joke.

I find the topic interesting and much of the film worthwhile, probably because I am a poet and also a staunch believer in freedom of speech. That said, I found the animation of parts of Howl to be obtuse. The words used by any poet are open to multiple interpretations. This childish animation of the visual elements of some of the stanzas is ridiculous. The animation technique used is the one found in Avatar, which I actually hated, so that may explain part of my aversion to what is being done here. This film would be so much stronger if all of that nonsense were cut out. True, it would have been shorter, but maybe then other elements of Ginsberg´s experience, beyond his homosexuality, could have been explored.

It seems pretty clear that the makers of this film have no understanding of poetry. I also wonder whether they understand Ginsberg´s work, in particular. He is portrayed here as a ¨gay poet¨, whose work is primarily important for the cause of the gay community. I respectfully disagree.

Please do not animate poetry, unless you really want everyone to know that you have no idea what poetry is.

I first read On The Road about four years ago and have since been a passionate devourer of anything to do with the Beat generation. I was genuinely excited by the prospect of a film telling the story of Howl's trial, but ended up being thoroughly disappointed.

Franco's vocal performance was the first thing to frustrate me; it seems that he has concentrated so hard on imitating Ginsberg's way of speaking that he's forgotten about the passion and conviction necessary to make a poetry reading compelling. More upsetting however was the animation. An extremely modern digital animation, clean and quite simplistic in style, being used to portray a complex, emotional, explicit fifties poem about life as a down and out poet? No. Not okay. The animation was too safe, there was no daring or shock or edge to it - certainly none of the strange figures were to be seen waving genitals and manuscripts. Rather than enhance the meaning of the poem the animated sequences detracted from Ginsberg's beautiful words and imagery. The whole thing just felt very "Hollywood". The entire set-up of the movie was too clean and perfect looking, not at all in keeping with the tone and atmosphere of the poem. The only parts that I didn't find myself skipping through were the scenes of the trial, perhaps because I didn't know a lot about the people portrayed in these scenes and therefore didn't make comparisons between the actors and the reality. These were genuinely interesting to watch, they are well acted (though unlike the rest of the people portrayed in the movie I had no prior impression of the people within the trial scenes to compare with) and provided an interesting insight into the reception of Howl in the literary world.

Overall, I would not recommend this film to anybody who has a prior interest, admiration, or passion for the Beat generation. And if you are coming to the film without any knowledge of Ginsberg and Howl, then I would advise you to go on youtube and find Ginsberg's reading of the poem before watching the film so that you can make up your own mind about it before the dire animation ruins it for you.

Howl might be a one-of-a-kind film experience if not for Chicago 10, another film that blended documentary, dramatization and animation together into a blender of personal history. But what sets this film apart from that and all others is that poetry becomes interwoven into a courtroom trial procedural - all, apparently, taken from the actual court transcripts of what the prosecution/defense asked of the people on the stand - so that it becomes about free speech. At the same time it's a quasi-biopic on Allen Ginsberg, who was a real free spirit, but also a shy Jewish kid from New York city who lost his mother as a child and worried about writing poems that might irk the ire of his father (he even considered not publishing Howl for that reason).

It's a beautifully surreal little treat of a film that treats its subject seriously while also giving life to the epic poem that stays timeless, as with Walt Whitman's Leaves of Grass (which also gets name- dropped here). The filmmakers bring together the poetic readings - done by James Franco, one of his real 'embodiment' performances like Saul in Pineapple Express that is basically stunning - from in front of a live audience (where one sees how Ginsberg at first has an audience patient and waiting and then is full of life and looking forward to every next thing he says) and in animation. The poem becomes alive through the low-budget drawings, and depending on the stanza it can be at least acceptable and at most mind-blowing. You almost want the poem to go longer to sink in deeper to those Ginsberg stanzas that flow out with what appears to be stream of consciousness, but really has a structure to it.

Acting is fantastic - David Straithairn, Jon Hamm and in a one-scene keeper Jeff Daniels - Franco keeps things moving so well with his performance, and the poem is given it's best context in personal and social history. All of a sudden, thanks to a film like this, the material becomes alive again, like a student picking it up and sinking into it for the first time.

James Franco has established himself as quite a character actor. There was his lauded (not by me) portrayal of intrepid mountaineer Aron Ralston. He played James Dean in a T.V. film, which again widely impressed. And now, as the adverts proudly proclaim, 'He IS Allen Ginsberg', a leading figure of the 'Beat' generation and one of the 20th Century's most celebrated poets.

'Howl' could have worked as any of its sole components, but it's an exercise in – and triumph of – style. It's told in an expressive, fun way, using a quartet of interwoven stylistic modes. There's the central story of the 1957 obscenity trial, to ascertain whether Ginsberg's most famous poem, 'Howl' had any literary value. We have Ginsberg's back story in sleek monochrome. There's a reenactment of an interview he had (with a faceless interviewer). And then there's the splendid, psychedelic animation, needed to elucidate 'Howl's' arcana.

It's an art film, to be sure, but it has enough appeal for intellectuals and non-intellectuals alike. The courtroom scenes are a joy. Jeff Daniels made me laugh as a disapproving professor debating the intricacies of what can be called literature. David Strathairn and Jon Hamm as the prosecuting and defending lawyers give superb lifelike performances, which is a necessary contradiction of the other fantastical aspects.

Franco has done a marvelous job of mimicking Ginsberg's elocution. The fillers, the long pauses before snapping at the right word, the occasional maundering. A quick look on Youtube confirms that Franco has even mastered the mannerisms and the way Ginsberg declaimed his poetry. I was glad that 'Howl' was read in (I think) its entirety throughout the film; I found it a pleasure to listen to.

I resiled from poetry at school. This film, especially Franco's enthusiasm, has done something to stimulate an interest.

www.scottishreview.net

Howl is a great poem; Howl is a weak movie. If you want to be talked at for 90 minutes, then maybe you'll find it edifying, but to be honest, I found that this film took some really interesting people, a really interesting moment and a really important poem and turned them into words, words, words. I would have liked the portions in which Ginsberg reads the poem at the Six Gallery because I think James Franco does a pretty good job of getting Ginsberg's voice and cadences down as well as his gestures and body language. Never been much of a fan of Franco, but he does a good job here of paying homage to Ginsberg. Still, I can't get past his pretty boy looks which don't work even for the young Ginsberg. Similarly, the crowd of beats at the poetry reading look like they just popped out of a frat party. They don't look "beat." The courtroom scenes were poor; I am a great admirer of David Strathairn, but he has very little to work with here while Jon Hamm does a fine imitation of a block of wood. Jeff Daniels is laughable as a caricature of academia. The interview sequences include a lot of good material, but there's too much of it to be absorbed and the whole thing comes across as very static. The animations provided a creative way to incorporate the poem, but they didn't really dazzle. Ginsberg was a very interesting man who deserves much better.