← Back to Reviews
in
Kill Your Darlings, 2013
A young Allen Ginsberg (Daniel Radcliffe) leaves a challenging home life situation--his mother (Jennifer Jason Leigh) is mentally ill--and goes to study literature at Columbia University. Once there, he quickly falls in with Lucien Carr (Dane DeHaan) Jack Kerouac (Jack Huston), and William Burroughs (Ben Foster), and as a group they rebel against the traditions of both the university and the field of literature in general. But Carr's unhealthy relationship with his lover, David (Michael C Hall), leads to tragic results for all of the men.
I always have a mixed reaction to real-story or biographical films because every time something amazing happens I have to wonder if it was a thing that really happened, or something that the writer made up or "adjusted" to make more movie-friendly.
For the most part, I liked this film. While there were several places where reality was, um, adjusted for greater narrative impact, the film wisely centers itself on Ginsberg's reaction to everything that happens. More specifically, Ginsberg experiences the double-edged sword of positioning oneself as a counter to the mainstream. As a Jewish man and someone who is also gay, Ginsberg is already at odds with much mainstream culture (both generally and in academics). This feeling of not belonging makes a satisfying through-thread, and it makes certain events late in the film land with much more power.
If anything, the film takes on a lot of issues, bordering on too many. There is the question of Ginsberg's religion and sexuality, of course. But there are also issues of social status. For all of their counter-culture posturing, all of the men are going to a prestigious school instead of fighting in the war. In one moment, Carr unabashedly positions himself as being better than his "janitor" lover. The film seems to be content with observing that this is all really complicated, and I respected it for that. It doesn't try to tie up anyone's story in a neat bow, but instead lets everything be messy.
A movie like this lives or dies by its performances. I thought that Radcliffe was really strong in the lead role, bringing just the right mix of intelligence, vulnerability, and discontent to his portrayal of Ginsberg. I don't "know" Ginsberg well enough to judge the accuracy of the performance, but the character feels complete and not just like a superficial impersonation.
DeHaan, Hall, and Huston are also good. Elizabeth Olson is very good as Kerouac's put-upon lover, Edie Parker. I thought that Foster's performance as Burroughs was really good--it is very subdued but powerful and a really interesting portrayal of a specific kind of charisma. Now, this isn't his fault, but I cannot divorce David Cross from Tobias Funke. Cross plays Ginsberg's father, and I was mostly distracted when he was on screen because I so associate him with comedy.
I would generally recommend this film, if only on the strength of the performances. I will say that it did get me to read more about the situation with Carr, something I had known a little about previously. People with a stronger knowledge of these real people and the story might be a bit more critical of the portrayal of the story and the characters, but as I said before, I felt that the themes that were developed meant that the movie didn't just rest on the scandal of the story.
Kill Your Darlings, 2013
A young Allen Ginsberg (Daniel Radcliffe) leaves a challenging home life situation--his mother (Jennifer Jason Leigh) is mentally ill--and goes to study literature at Columbia University. Once there, he quickly falls in with Lucien Carr (Dane DeHaan) Jack Kerouac (Jack Huston), and William Burroughs (Ben Foster), and as a group they rebel against the traditions of both the university and the field of literature in general. But Carr's unhealthy relationship with his lover, David (Michael C Hall), leads to tragic results for all of the men.
I always have a mixed reaction to real-story or biographical films because every time something amazing happens I have to wonder if it was a thing that really happened, or something that the writer made up or "adjusted" to make more movie-friendly.
For the most part, I liked this film. While there were several places where reality was, um, adjusted for greater narrative impact, the film wisely centers itself on Ginsberg's reaction to everything that happens. More specifically, Ginsberg experiences the double-edged sword of positioning oneself as a counter to the mainstream. As a Jewish man and someone who is also gay, Ginsberg is already at odds with much mainstream culture (both generally and in academics). This feeling of not belonging makes a satisfying through-thread, and it makes certain events late in the film land with much more power.
If anything, the film takes on a lot of issues, bordering on too many. There is the question of Ginsberg's religion and sexuality, of course. But there are also issues of social status. For all of their counter-culture posturing, all of the men are going to a prestigious school instead of fighting in the war. In one moment, Carr unabashedly positions himself as being better than his "janitor" lover. The film seems to be content with observing that this is all really complicated, and I respected it for that. It doesn't try to tie up anyone's story in a neat bow, but instead lets everything be messy.
A movie like this lives or dies by its performances. I thought that Radcliffe was really strong in the lead role, bringing just the right mix of intelligence, vulnerability, and discontent to his portrayal of Ginsberg. I don't "know" Ginsberg well enough to judge the accuracy of the performance, but the character feels complete and not just like a superficial impersonation.
DeHaan, Hall, and Huston are also good. Elizabeth Olson is very good as Kerouac's put-upon lover, Edie Parker. I thought that Foster's performance as Burroughs was really good--it is very subdued but powerful and a really interesting portrayal of a specific kind of charisma. Now, this isn't his fault, but I cannot divorce David Cross from Tobias Funke. Cross plays Ginsberg's father, and I was mostly distracted when he was on screen because I so associate him with comedy.
I would generally recommend this film, if only on the strength of the performances. I will say that it did get me to read more about the situation with Carr, something I had known a little about previously. People with a stronger knowledge of these real people and the story might be a bit more critical of the portrayal of the story and the characters, but as I said before, I felt that the themes that were developed meant that the movie didn't just rest on the scandal of the story.