[REVIEW] Gore Vidal: The United States of Amnesia
This evening, with a friend I caught the 6 o'clock showing of producer Nicholas Wrathall's Gore Vidal: The United States of Amnesia at the Bloor Hot Docs Cinema ( 506 Bloor Street West).
I expected much from the film. I'm not as big a fan of Gore Vidal as some, never having read any of his fiction for instance, but I'm quite aware of his history as a public intellectual of note. Besides writing popular and often thematically innovative fiction--his novels may well be the first mainstream novels in the English language to feature explicit gay sex or sympathetic transgender characters--Vidal gained fame as a witty and intelligent controversialist, in the last decade of his life gaining particular renown for his criticisms of American imperialism abroad and corruption at home. Surely, with so many media appearances in archives everywhere, any documentary would have to be good, especially a documentary filmed with his active collaboration. The advance press on The United States of Amnesia was also encouraging. (See, for instance, Norman Wilner's NOW Toronto review, Linda Barnard's Toronto Star review, and Geoff Pevere's review in The Globe and Mail.)
It was unfortunate, then, that the documentary left us both wanting the film to have had more meat to it, to have been better than it was. Technically, The United States of Amnesia was quite competent. Its problems lie entirely in the realm of its narratives.
The documentary seemed almost like an overview of Vidal's career, pointing to the various points of his public career--his filmed verbal exchanges with Mailer and Buckley, shots from Myra Breckinridge, speeches delivered at any number of public meetings on his life and politics, interviews with his intimates--but not engaging in depth with any. We got aphorisms--aphorisms applauded amid chuckles by the audience in the theatre--but little investigation beyond the aphorisms. His arguments about the decline of American democracy were scattered, separated by celebrity interviews and shots of his homes. The United States of Amnesia was a good overview of Vidal, but it wasn't quite satisfying.
On reflection, The United States of Amnesia also seemed to collaborate with Vidal in diminishing the importance of his work. Vidal was, it bears repeating, a public intellectual. He wrote critically about the processes of American empire and American autocracy, his fiction and his non-fiction alike engaging with the problems of public life in ways that are still fresh today. (When Vidal died, a revival of his 1960 play The Best Man was playing on Broadway.) And yet, even though Vidal's arguments are still relevant, we left the theatre with the decided impression that Vidal and his documentary did not think much of his life's work. Pevere's argument that Vidal came to believe that his failure to change things as much as he liked is plausible, while the sense of loss that an old Vidal felt as the people he loved were whittled away by death and disagreement is understandable. It just isn't the sort of argument that I'd expect to be made by a documentary that--I assume--was created with the intent of arguing that a man and his work are of lasting relevance even after his death.
The United States of Amnesia was a good enough documentary on Gore Vidal. We still have to wait for a great one.
I expected much from the film. I'm not as big a fan of Gore Vidal as some, never having read any of his fiction for instance, but I'm quite aware of his history as a public intellectual of note. Besides writing popular and often thematically innovative fiction--his novels may well be the first mainstream novels in the English language to feature explicit gay sex or sympathetic transgender characters--Vidal gained fame as a witty and intelligent controversialist, in the last decade of his life gaining particular renown for his criticisms of American imperialism abroad and corruption at home. Surely, with so many media appearances in archives everywhere, any documentary would have to be good, especially a documentary filmed with his active collaboration. The advance press on The United States of Amnesia was also encouraging. (See, for instance, Norman Wilner's NOW Toronto review, Linda Barnard's Toronto Star review, and Geoff Pevere's review in The Globe and Mail.)
It was unfortunate, then, that the documentary left us both wanting the film to have had more meat to it, to have been better than it was. Technically, The United States of Amnesia was quite competent. Its problems lie entirely in the realm of its narratives.
The documentary seemed almost like an overview of Vidal's career, pointing to the various points of his public career--his filmed verbal exchanges with Mailer and Buckley, shots from Myra Breckinridge, speeches delivered at any number of public meetings on his life and politics, interviews with his intimates--but not engaging in depth with any. We got aphorisms--aphorisms applauded amid chuckles by the audience in the theatre--but little investigation beyond the aphorisms. His arguments about the decline of American democracy were scattered, separated by celebrity interviews and shots of his homes. The United States of Amnesia was a good overview of Vidal, but it wasn't quite satisfying.
On reflection, The United States of Amnesia also seemed to collaborate with Vidal in diminishing the importance of his work. Vidal was, it bears repeating, a public intellectual. He wrote critically about the processes of American empire and American autocracy, his fiction and his non-fiction alike engaging with the problems of public life in ways that are still fresh today. (When Vidal died, a revival of his 1960 play The Best Man was playing on Broadway.) And yet, even though Vidal's arguments are still relevant, we left the theatre with the decided impression that Vidal and his documentary did not think much of his life's work. Pevere's argument that Vidal came to believe that his failure to change things as much as he liked is plausible, while the sense of loss that an old Vidal felt as the people he loved were whittled away by death and disagreement is understandable. It just isn't the sort of argument that I'd expect to be made by a documentary that--I assume--was created with the intent of arguing that a man and his work are of lasting relevance even after his death.
The United States of Amnesia was a good enough documentary on Gore Vidal. We still have to wait for a great one.