Easy Rider

Jeremy Ordan

Jeremy Ordan

Major Contributor
Last night I was watching Easy Rider. It has been at least five to eight years since I had seen it last, and I had a much different reaction to it this time than previous viewings.

Out of curiousity, what are other people's opinions regarding this film from both a cultural/story viewpoint, but also from a technical viewpoint?

Just curious...
 
I've only seen it once, years and years ago. On culture as a whole, I really can't comment because I wasn't around during its release. Historically it's essentially the film that recharged Hollywood. The studio methods of filmmaking were dying and generally people were under the impression that TV was going to completely replace movies. Then Easy Rider came out and made a ton of cash for a relatively small investment. Then Copolla had some ammunition to take to Warner Bros to start American Zoetrope. Then Lucas all but killed Zoetrope with THX-1138, but that's for a different discussion. :)

I liked Easy Rider, up until the drug scene. They kind of lost me there, not because it was a drug scene perse, but I didn't think it was particularly well-done, and after that scene the rest of the movie alwasy felt haphazard to me until it eventually ended. Great soundtrack though.
 
This film is required viewing for the APs working on our new show.

In my mind, it ranks as one of the greatest American films simply because it took a vivid snapshot of several emerging cultures many viewers hadn't otherwise been exposed to.

Fonda, Hopper and Nicholson were all brilliant - especially when they were off-script. The campfire sequences in particular have a palatable tension to them that cuts right through the flowers-in-your-hair notions often associated with the hippy movement. The film isn't so much a statement as it is a semi-coherent exploration of itself.

Technically, like most of the films shot in the late sixties and early seventies, there would appear to be, on the surface, issues that date the film somewhat.

Unlike Picnic, The Sting, McCabe and Mrs. Miller or Day of the Locust and other experimental films of that era, it was actually within context for the film to call out "shot in 1968" for all to hear. Lens flares, flashing and bleach-pass cinematography styles lend themselves to a road-trip picture shot on a shoestring budget.

In addition to serving as a rallying cry for the end of the Vietnam War, Easy Rider boldly proclaimed that America was a nation in disentigration.

Strictly as entertainment, now and then, it is a film centered on edgy characters finding themselves. For anyone who hasn't seen it or hasn't seen it in a while, give it a good viewing - I think you'll agree that it holds up very well in both capacities.

e
 
Overland, I think that you make a couple of great points. One of the areas that I have to disagree with you though is regarding the transitions that were used.

This film was directed by Hopper, and I think Fonda lends the best performance of his life. The story itself, sound track, acting, vibe, everything I think is great.

Technically I have to say that the movie is what it is. It's transitions are cheesy and the cinematography is lackluster. The first campfire scene rings really true, Wide shot, mid shot, OTS, OTS, Wide, Mid, Wide, OTS...

It just doesn't flow. Maybe this is more of a comment on the editing, but the visual style just doesn't flow for me... Great movie though.
 
I don't like the transitions in the film. But dig the story and scenic shots. Music is great too. The ending is brilliant. One of the best.
 
I agree.

On a technical level, the film isn't up to the same standard as other films of 1969. Then again, Easy Rider represented a total departure from the confines of major studio techniques and the static formulaic results that accompanied them. That is what makes it remarkable to me. New York Cinema and the earlier French New Wave were similar in the way they collectively influenced the larger established system.

Believe me, that doesn't mean that I'm defending poor coverage or edit choices made during its production. While I wouldn't heap into the perfect film category (e.g., Raiders of the Lost Ark, Casablanca and so on) it definitely has a safe spot among the top films of all time - where technical problems can be overlooked based on the strength of the larger collective work.

e
 
Yup- Love that movie.
I always loved the biker=cowboy connection they played with in the movie.
They roamed free, like the cowboys of old. You see it when they visit the ranch to fix Fonda's bike. They are acccepted and understood by the rancher and family. Jack Nicholson refered to it when he explained why the cafe patrons bad-mouthed them- they were afraid of them and what they represented-freedom.

Well, that's my interpretation.

Jeff Patnaude
 
If its true that Hopper has voted Republican since Regan then I have lost all faith in humanity and the relevence of Easy Rider has completed faded through the passage of time.
 
If Dennis Hopper has voted Republican, then that is one of the signs of the coming end times.

I disagree that there are technical flaws in the film. Denniss Hopper, Petter Fonda and Laslo Kovacs (the DP) where all experienced individuals, in there respective crafts. What we now view as flaws are, IMO, aesthetic choices of the filmmakers. I am of the opinion that without personal knowledge of the times, analysis of this film is impossible. (of course, I was 7 years old when it came out). I think that the film is perfect. It is the right film for the right audience at the right time. Any opinion outside of the audience at the time, is irrelavant. IMO.
 
I think that the film is perfect. It is the right film for the right audience at the right time. Any opinion outside of the audience at the time, is irrelavant. IMO.
Click to expand...

A good argument, but isn't one of the beauties of film the fact that they act as timecapsules? We being a new generation of audience for this film can look back on it and form opinions as well. Should the only opinions regarding Citizen Kane come from people who saw it in first run release?

Without argument the opinions of one generation to another will be different, but I don't think that invalidates the opinions.

My two cents.
 
I don't want to come off my own original reply too far, but I'm going to argue that there were myriad overexperimentations slash flaws in filmmaking technique that were especially prevalent in the late sixties and early seventies. There were some "stylistic choices" made that call clamorous attention to themselves and do little if anything to establish period, aside from the fact that you can say, "...oh, this was obviously produced in the late '60s".

I'm not nitpicking here, because what I'm talking about transcends two overexposed and poorly tracked shots of a chromed Captain America wheel - the film is fraught with purposely ill-conceived ****-the-system cinematography.

Kovacs, Alemendros, Zsigmond, Willis and on and on (all personal heros) all broke the rules during this period. It was fun for a while, but the studios hated the look and eventually they all started properly exposing film again or seriously reigned-in their boisterous camera-play to lens pictures in a more natural and balanced way.

Again, you should read my first post on Easy Rider, because I pray that Hopper never pulls a Lucas or Spielberg - going back in there to "clean things up".

I can look at films from the late thirties and early forties and pick out a Warner's picture quickly and easily - Jack had a look that differentiated his product from everyone else, so it is with films like Easy Rider. Certainly, this was the look of an era - I'm just of the opinion that this style did little to help tell the story other than to say that the shooter left all his tools and proper technique at home for seven years.

:engel017:

Easy Rider deserves to be seen within the contextualization of the time it was created - though the real irony is that the world isn't so different in 2005 that a thinking and savvy filmgoer would miss the brilliantly-rendered political undertones. My wife recently commented that the film is as poignant in today's climate as it was in 1969.

e
 
In my opinion, as a young adult all of 13 seeing this film in the theatre blew my mind. It is aside from certain stylistic sloppyness is a great American film defining a time of tension, and cultural exploration within the youth of that era.

A must see, 3 thumbs up.
 
I personally love Nicholson's comments (around the campfire) about freedom. I think its the crux of the entire movie. This is also one of the best roles I've ever seen him play, and he's in the movie for an absurdly short period of time.
-Ryan
 
well maybe the editing wasn't up to par they did a lil acid smoked a lot of pot kinda ended up like a hunter s thompson novel. for me growing up fast in the 60s this movie showed both sides hippocritical (we blew it man we blew it) ( fonda) their whole foundation of their trip was bad from the get go, karma man. whats the difference between them and the pusherman(phil spector and his limo driver) we did it man(hopper) yeah you sold out. you became what you where running from. e(stab)lishment helluva movie. and jack, a by stander with the brains but drinking himself to death watching a two headed snake gobble up each other. aw what can you do
 
and as for hopper voting for reagan were you you there when carter was in office. iwas living off beans and rice for a year . no jobs.hitchhiking around the country working here and there . who did i vote for guess.i liked carter one of the smartest pres. we ever had but his admin. lacked. oh i didn't vote for reagan. but i can understand why people did anyways ditto on price of tea in china. before you make a statement(movie)get your facts and see both sides then you can show the bottoms of your moccasins
 
krestofre said:
A good argument, but isn't one of the beauties of film the fact that they act as timecapsules? We being a new generation of audience for this film can look back on it and form opinions as well. Should the only opinions regarding Citizen Kane come from people who saw it in first run release?

Without argument the opinions of one generation to another will be different, but I don't think that invalidates the opinions.

My two cents.
Click to expand...

I appologize for my statement that the only interperetation that counts is from the generation that the film was made for. Of course re-interperetation is necessary in all areas of art.

I still think that the film is perfect in that it was totally embraced by the audience it was designed for. As for the technical aspects, we have to remember that they only had $375K. I think that Hooper, Fonda and Kovacs rose above there limitations quite well.

As for the drug scene in the end, try watching it with headphones on. It is a very cool sound montage, as well as being very interesting visually.

Do you know what one of the coolest things about this movie is? It was released by Columbia Pictures! It is not and INDEPENDENT film, in the traditional sense, at all. Sony Pictures Entertainment (who own Columbia now) would never consider doing anything like this again. Well, I quess, nobody would.

I wonder who will be the next filmmakers to take small, light weight cameras, sound and lighting equipment and change the world?
 
I went to an Aspen Film Fest discussion two years ago and Lazlo Kovaks was one of the panelists. He spoke about filming Easy Rider and how raw it was. He shot Hopper and Fonda from the back of a pick up truck and would yell at them to switch the lead so they were constantly moving back and forth. I also watched the documentary series, Decade Under the Influence, and the producer, upon viewing the finished film said, "I don't know what the **** we've got here, but we're going to make a **** load of money."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top