Skip to main content

Review: Ask The Dust

Somehow I missed the classic LA-set Bukowski-inspiring novel Ask The Dust by John Fante - despite being a sometime-lover of the sun-soaked- "place where people go to die"-LA-deadbeat-and-eccentrics novel subgenre - N. West country, you could say, dropped in on the wings of Chandler's slumming angel.

I also missed the film version, until last night. It was written for the screen and directed by Robert Towne, whose Chinatown script best captures, on film, the same rough sun-blanched time. Towne is not known as a very good director, but he seems the ideal fit, here. Cast as the struggling, Mencken-mentored Italian writer, Arturo Bandini, is pretty boy Colin Farrell, and the mercurial edgy gorgeous Mexican waitress is played by Ms. Hayek. Both leads are pictorially perfect - Hayek literally embodying the key aspects required of her part - Mr. Farrell with his boyish black bangs and badly-shaved neck, and slowly-declining sartorial confidence, is at once a dreamer and a dreamboat.

I found the film beautiful, for the reasons that many viewers may consider it a wooden nickel thrust in the outstretched palm of an orphan: it is both "realistic" in evocation of time and place (the Cape Town location - how many "towns" can one film possess?) and yet, its mise-en-scene, and particularly, stagy, barroom and hotel room sequences, are "artificial".

It brings to mind, in this respect, the directorial work of another 70s master screenwriter, Paul Schrader, whose Mishima, for instance, or Light Sleeper, are great but flawed versions of their possible selves. The reason is the theme of identity vs. idealism. In this case, Bandini and his Mexican Beatrice both dream the big American one - and the happiness entailed is impossible, so long as they remain who they actually are (non-WASP). In order to render the element of immigrant desire, the element of fiction's yearning, to find a home in a world that is solidly based, Towne has allowed the movie to move, in dialectical fashion, between very complex realistic moments of disrupted character development, and achingly lovely film noir set-pieces. It has the poetry of O'Neill in it.

Those who crave scenes of writers smoking and typing out stories on Underwoods (and stealing milk - under milk wood?), shuffling along dusty, palm-tree lined streets, and young, doomed lovers trying to make something of themselves in a socio-politcally waste land (an arid land where one of the characters ends up buried) with small, confused acts of tenderness (for the night can be tender) and aggression, will find the story moving. It made me want to finish my novel, that's for damn sure.

As an aside, there's a fun cameo by Donald Sutherland, as a drunk who haunts the cheap hotel, his lungs gassed in the war; Sutherland played Homer Simpson in the film version of West's The Day of the Locust, the fullest treatment of similar themes of displacement and a quest for permanence, in the impermanent, empty world at the edge of the West Coast - and it's good to be reminded of that here.

Comments

Mike Begnal said…
Todd-- I really loved the original Fante novel, so I suppose it was always going to be hard for the film to live up to it in my mind. But I pretty much agree with your review here. There were a lot of great things in the film, but a lot of stagey sets, and I thought the ending was a bit overdone. It actually clung pretty close to the book, but somehow I was more willing to go along with the latter. The film is worth seeing though for sure...
All the best.

Popular posts from this blog

IQ AND THE POETS - ARE YOU SMART?

When you open your mouth to speak, are you smart?  A funny question from a great song, but also, a good one, when it comes to poets, and poetry. We tend to have a very ambiguous view of intelligence in poetry, one that I'd say is dysfunctional.  Basically, it goes like this: once you are safely dead, it no longer matters how smart you were.  For instance, Auden was smarter than Yeats , but most would still say Yeats is the finer poet; Eliot is clearly highly intelligent, but how much of Larkin 's work required a high IQ?  Meanwhile, poets while alive tend to be celebrated if they are deemed intelligent: Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill , and Jorie Graham , are all, clearly, very intelligent people, aside from their work as poets.  But who reads Marianne Moore now, or Robert Lowell , smart poets? Or, Pound ?  How smart could Pound be with his madcap views? Less intelligent poets are often more popular.  John Betjeman was not a very smart poet, per se.  What do I mean by smart?

"I have crossed oceans of time to find you..."

In terms of great films about, and of, love, we have Vertigo, In The Mood for Love , and Casablanca , Doctor Zhivago , An Officer and a Gentleman , at the apex; as well as odder, more troubling versions, such as Sophie's Choice and  Silence of the Lambs .  I think my favourite remains Bram Stoker's Dracula , with the great immortal line "I have crossed oceans of time to find you...".

THE SWIFT REPORT 2023

I am writing this post without much enthusiasm, but with a sense of duty. This blog will be 20 years old soon, and though I rarely post here anymore, I owe it some attention. Of course in 2023, "Swift" now means one thing only, Taylor Swift, the billionaire musician. Gone are the days when I was asked if I was related to Jonathan Swift. The pre-eminent cultural Swift is now alive and TIME PERSON OF THE YEAR. There is no point in belabouring the obvious with delay: 2023 was a low-point in the low annals of human history - war, invasion, murder, in too many nations. Hate, division, the collapse of what truth is, exacerbated by advances in AI that may or may not prove apocalyptic, while global warming still seems to threaten the near-future safety of humanity. It's been deeply depressing. The world lost some wonderful poets, actors, musicians, and writers this year, as it often does. Two people I knew and admired greatly, Ian Ferrier and Kevin Higgins, poets and organise