Chappaqua

In this underground classic of the 60's, Conrad Rooks's semi-autobiographical account of a man who travels to France to undergo a drug-withdrawal cure and captures his journey from sickness to health, anguish to well-being. He aligns with the counterculture figures such as Allen Ginsberg (playing Messiah), William Burroughs (as "Opium Jones"), Jean-Louis Barrault (as "Dr. Benoit"), Moondog (as "The Prophet"), and Ornette Coleman (as a Peyote eater).

It's a Paradoxical audio-visual film with intoxicating dance scenes (which involves a druid-like character grooving at the Stonehenge) and ethereal visions of transcendental beauty (gorgeous non-professional actress Paula Pritchett, credited as Water Woman), all to the hypnotic score by the Fug and the Hindustani virtuoso Ravi Shankar (in the role of the Sun God). The movie is conventionally constructed with a beginning, middle, and end.

Chappaqua is about a man who goes to France to get off drugs and during which he flips out and has flashbacks. Essential beatnick viewing. Im surprised not many people have seen this. Burroughs and Ginsberg have small parts. The soundtrack and visuals are very good. One of my favorite scenes is when the man flips out and the doctor comes to give him a shot and as the camera pulls away, it is on an ice rink and people on skates swerve by. Check it out. ****

Unlike most movies which try to illustrate drug and hallucinogenic experiences by using a bunch of jarringly bizarre and heavily symbolic images randomly strung together, Chappaqua struck me as having a strange emotional continuity throughout -- that is, every odd new scene and image that appears somehow feels perfectly appropriate when it occurs. It's as if Rooks not only put together visions and sounds that evoked his actual emotions and experiences, but also managed to assemble them in the order they happened, one flowing seamlessly into the next even though there is no obvious connection between them. In fact, the film strikes me as being not so much hallucinogenic as dreamlike, another state rarely captured well on film. So this is definitely not a film for those who insist that movies should explain, clearly and completely, exactly what they're all about. But if you want a chance to ride on the meandering currents of another person's mind, then you might give this film a try.

I'd heard about 'Chappaqua' for years, and had it built up in my head as something special, but finally seeing it was such a letdown! I'm a fan of psychedelic movies and music, and even I found it insufferable. If you aren't a fan of this era, then all I can say is AVOID.

If anyone is to blame for this garbage it must be Conrad Rooks, who is on the writer/director/star trip. Orson Welles he ain't! His acting in the first third of the movie is laughably bad. He plays "drunk" like he's auditioning for 'The Benny Hill Show'! After he sobers up things improve slightly, but then we hit the torturous psychedelic freak outs and hallucinations which go on and on and on until you either scream or fall asleep.

The only reason to watch this is to catch glimpses of Burroughs, Ginsberg, The Fugs, Moondog and other legendary cult figures. Unfortunately none of them do much to speak of. One decent thing about 'Chappaqua' - the soundtrack. Some tasty jazz (presumably Ornette) and lotsa Shankar.

Isn't it weird how all these years later "real" psychedelic movies like this bore you stupid, but "fake" ones like 'Psych-Out', 'Head' and 'Cult Of The Damned' get better and better?

Semi-autobiographical story of Conrad Rooks, who travels to France to undergo a drug-withdrawal cure. Flashbacks to the beginnings of psychedelia in San Francisco.

The film briefly depicts Chappaqua, New York, a hamlet in Westchester County, in a few minutes of wintry panoramas. In the film, the hamlet is an overt symbol of drug-free suburban childhood innocence. It also serves as one of the film's many nods to Native American culture. The word "chappaqua" derives from the Wappinger (a nation of the Algonquian peoples) word for "laurel swamp." This is like the very definition of an art film. For those interested in Burroughs, Ginsberg and the beat generation, 1960s counter-culture, or any of that... this is a must-see. But it is first and foremost an art film, not a movie with a strong narrative. Dracula showing up for no reason? Yeah, it has that. Drug-induced delusions? Yep. It is interesting and I don't doubt it has a cult following, but it is really more of time capsule than a good movie.