 |
Book Reviews |
|
Links |
|
Film@11 Companion |
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Film Chat |
|
Directors Project |
|
Sid Falco |
|
Nocturnal Admissions |
|
Archive |
 |
Site Search |
Head Trip
Grass
by Poly Phemos, www.cinemonkey.com
|
| |
must begin this review with a confession. Like many of our fellow Baby Boomers, my spouse and I have experimented with marijuana or "grass."
It was in our youth, in "party situations." We, like Al Gore and assorted other politicians, celebrities and office seekers, were deeply sorry we had purchased and smoked the grass, or at least we would have been sorry if we had gotten caught.
Due to the moral laxness of the times and some chance failure of the Drug Enforcement Administration, we were not caught. Consequently, we experimented with marijuana again a few weeks later. We have continued to experiment with marijuana to this day.
In short, we are basically sympathetic toward this 1999 documentary's claim that the dangers of marijuana have been exaggerated by politicians and the media in the past. Ron Mann, the film's director, suggests that this message has seldom been stated before. However, probably because we are not only middle-aged stoners but also nit picking social scientists, we were skeptical about this point. We felt that we had seen other documentaries on this subject, and that the only way to fairly judge the full merit of this particular offering was to watch it once straight and once under the influence of marijuana. We believe this gave us a chance to assess how different audiences might respond to the film.
hen we watched Grass straight, we both had mixed feelings about Mr. Mann's 1999 effort. Although the film is historically accurate, we felt that we had heard virtually every one of the points it covered made more effectively elsewhere. This film puts too much emphasis on the influence of one man, Henry Anslinger, in the global wave of marijuana prohibition, as though he was the Svengali who almost magically controlled presidents from FDR through JFK. The documentary suggests that it was primarily Anslinger's lobbying efforts that caused policymakers to support the domestic war on drugs and the rest of the world to support the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. While it briefly touches on broader issues which were clearly involved in the U.S. reaction to marijuana use, like racism and ethnic discrimination, it fails to adequately explore these forces.
During recent years a number of better documentaries have appeared on cable TV. For example, the History Channel aired an excellent series some months ago dealing with the long term cultural and historical development of current drug use and regulation in this country . The segment in this series dealing with marijuana pointed out some interesting facts that helped us to really understand the issue, such as the role of William Randolph Hearst in stirring up concern about cannabis in California during the 1930s. Hearst's campaign in turn had economic motivation in that it accompanied efforts to remove Mexican workers from the U.S. labor force. Further, it was part of the publisher's promotion of anti-Hispanic public opinion to create support for the Spanish-American War.
Another problem which plagued us when we watched Grass without the benefit of smoking marijuana, was its reliance on numerous film clips which seemed to include both genuine archival footage as well as clips made specifically for this documentary in styles mimicking vintage films. Since the documentary relied on these film clips as evidence in support of its arguments, the failure to provide information about their sources weakened the credibility of those arguments.
While the History Channel's Web site doesn't currently have information about the channel's programs dealing with the history of hemp, there are several Web sites that provide much better, more interesting facts about marijuana prohibition in America than does the Grass's DVD. There is info about marijuana laws, various introductions, organizations, and surpport groups that provide a great deal of information.
bviously, my wife and I were both quite critical of Grass when we viewed it through the cold lens of cannabis abstinence. On the other hand, when we watched it stoned, none of this seemed to matter. We smiled at the familiar voice of the narrator, actor/hemp activist Woody Harrelson. We giggled at the funny clips from old propaganda films including Reefer Madness, a silent western called High on the Plains, and an old Dragnet episode. We smiled quietly to ourselves as self-righteous tobacco smokers pontificated about the dangers of "marijuana addiction." We grooved on songs like John Prine's "Illegal Smile." We were amused by the animation of comic book artist Paul Mavrides.
This experience helped us to understand how and why this film was made. The DVD includes an interview with the director in which he says that most of the people he knows smoke marijuana regularly but that he hoped his film would appeal to those who do not smoke and who favor criminalization. Nevertheless, after watching the film with and without the aid of marijuana use, it is clear to both my spouse and myself that the movie was made by the stoned for the stoned.
When I am stoned, I can believe the whole history of marijuana prohibition is just a ghastly mistake foisted on a gullible public by self-serving politicians and I want to say, "Don't harsh my buzz with the facts." When I am straight, though, I have to admit that the story can't be that simple. There are two sides to the debate on marijuana prohibition and both must be taken seriously if we are going to arrive at rational marijuana policy. Unfortunately, those who made this film do no service to the search for a rational policy on marijuana. This film will be enjoyed by those who share the film makers' views and disliked by those who do not. Such a film merely increases polarizing conflict.
incerely,
Poly Phemos
4/02
Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium
without express written permission is prohibited.