The Rum Diary (2011)

Hunter Stockton Thompson, the father of gonzo journalism, has been described in a variety of ways: an alcohol abuser, a drug abuser, schizophrenic, brutally honest, a mad-man…a genius. By injecting himself into his articles he became part of the stories themselves, extending some into full novels. Thompson has written for the screen and had his work adapted for the screen, but there are two key adaptations that are worth noting today, both of which star Johnny Depp, both of which are very different, and yet both are incredibly autobiographical. The first is Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998), the film adapted from a book originally meant as an article written for Rolling Stone. It follows Johnny Depp playing Raoul Duke, Thompson’s alter-ego, on a drug trip in disguise of a journalist writing a story. The second is The Rum Diary (2011), in which Johnny Depp plays Paul Kemp, a journalist who moves to Puerto Rico to work for an international newspaper and winds up finding trouble everywhere he looks.

Duke and Kemp are two entirely different characters, so was Thompson Raoul Duke or Paul Kemp, or both, or neither? 

Having already played a Thompson alter-ego, and having been a friend and accomplice to Thompson, Johnny Depp appears to be the perfect actor to play Kemp. Their friendship lasted longer than the production time of Fear and Loathing with Johnny Depp organising a cannon to fire the late author’s ashes into Colorado’s night sky, as per his wishes. Separate to his relationship with Thompson, Depp is living proof that contemporary bohemian culture isn’t reserved for East London hipsters, and that it can be cool. Depp is bohemian enough to not be considered mainstream, but not too much that he pushes his everyday fan away. His body of work, although far from being able to categorise as ‘indie’, is generally not chosen on projected sales figures or award potential. He chooses the roles he wants to play, no matter how alternative they appear. In the exceptions to this, which some people have described as selling out (Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl (2003) most notably) his approach to the work and the personal development of his characters proves that he is not about pleasing studios heads and financial providers. This project, the first of his new production company, is no exception, when asked if he cared about the financial return of The Rum Diary he replied: 

“No, God no, no. It's always a crap shoot, and really if you have that in your head while you're making a movie the process would become something very different. No, I couldn't give a rat's arse really, not really." 

He went on to say: 

"I believe that this film, regardless of what it makes in, you know, Wichita, Kansas, this week – which is probably about $13 – it doesn't make any difference. I believe that this film will have a shelf life. I think it will stick around and people will watch it and enjoy it."

The word ‘cult’ is thrown around too often these days, especially around cinema. An independent, alternative or foreign film is not automatically given the description cult. However Bruce Robinson earned the use of this word with his film Withnail & I (1987), whether loved, hated or simply not known about, it is the very definition of the word cult. After retiring from the film industry Robinson was pulled out of retirement by Depp (a huge Withnail fan) like a Hollywood maverick cop.

The collaboration of these three talents for the adaptation to screen of Thompson’s The Rum Diary creates huge expectations.

The Rum diary was written in the early 1960s, but not published until the late 1990s. While doing research at Thompson’s for his performance in Fear and Loathing, Depp found it, loved it and persuaded Thompson to publish it with the intention of filming it further down the metaphorical road. It’s written in a style that pre-empts the journalism and writing style that readers came to expect from Thompson, but shares many characteristics, the key characteristic being brutal honesty. There are no likeable characters in the book, even the protagonist, Hunter S. Thompson himself (Paul Kemp). Even from the very beginning we are unable to empathise with Kemp, or even sympathise for him, it’s not like a hero gets dragged down when he encounters new cultures; he is rotten to the core before he leaves the States. The book doesn’t glorify or glamorise, but it doesn’t condemn the majority of the subjects it illuminates either. It doesn’t condemn Puerto Rico (quite the opposite at times) and it doesn’t condemn the constant consumption of alcohol. So what is the message of the book? What is being said? There are two key things that are being denounced are capitalism, and above all, journalism. Thompson summarised his feelings in a section of his following work, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas: A Savage Journey to the Heart of the American Dream:

“Journalism is not a profession or a trade. It is a cheap catch-all for fuckoffs and misfits – a false doorway to the backside of life, a filthy piss-ridden little hole nailed off by the building inspector, but just deep enough for a wino to curl up for the sidewalk and masturbate like a chimp in a zoo-cage.”  - Hunter S. Thompson

So how does this dream film crew handle the adaptation process? Unfortunately, not particularly well. While it is more than understandable to want to put your own stamp on an adaptation, Bruce Robinson left out some very key ingredients from the book and added some entirely unnecessary scenes. The key ingredient left out is the character of Yeamon, the volatile, aggressive, unpredictable magnet for trouble. Without him the scrapes that Kemp finds himself in, seem accidental and stumbled upon. Then there were the unnecessary additions, for example the drug scene and the cock-fighting. While both are undeniably beautifully shot, they contribute nothing to Thompson’s original work. In fact, the acid scene takes away from it. Thompson’s time spent in San Juan was drug free, albeit alcohol was prevalent, but narcotics were waiting for him in the near future, waiting to fuel an entirely different sort of writer. Kemp is also a different sort of person, a nicer guy with more integrity, is this really Paul Kemp, or is Johnny Depp just trying to help his hero and late friend save face?

It is far from fair to compare a film to the literary work it was based upon. Despite this fact, The Rum Diary fails work as a stand-alone film. Depp’s performance is disappointing, especially considering the character is based on a real person, who Depp was very close with. Kemp just doesn’t seem believable, he finds himself in a paradise with new friends, adventure, the possibility of the love of a beautiful woman, with the only thing really keeping him down being his boss. Yet none of this makes him bat an eye-lid, the only time Kemp’s pulse raises is when he tries to take down capitalists trying to ruin the landscape that he has almost failed to take in. The journalists who Thompson had berated almost become cohorts for Kemp’s anti-American agenda, something that seems more to suit the Europe loving Anglophile Johnny Depp than Paul Kemp.

The comedy, some of which featured so well in the trailer, seemed to lack the right timing in the finished film. The film’s best features were the performances of Aaron Eckhart and Amber Heard. Heard in particular, played the character of Chenault in a way that seemed true to the book, but also fitted with what was being attempted with the film. The scene that proves her talent is the scene in which she appears at Kemp’s front door, a character so previously full of life and untameable seems so fragile, innocent, dependent and apologetic with no dialogue necessary.

Despite all of this the film isn’t completely unsalvageable. There are some laugh-out-loud moments and scenes with great acting talent from the entire cast. There is an incredible scene in which Lotterman (Richard Jenkins) explains to Kemp that their readership isn’t interested in real news, or even interested in having their eyes opened to the damning truth of the ‘American Dream’. They are happy to continue sleeping so as to live the dream. This scene has two powerful performances and a message with real integrity; however it is a short scene in a two hour movie.

This was the first film from Johnny Depp’s production company and he has stated that financial gains wouldn’t have affected the making of it. The question to ask is if the project was so personal to him, why would he ruin it? If Thompson was such a hero, why play him your way when you’re clearly capable of playing him as he wrote himself? Although enjoyable, the film lacked the manic energy that fuelled the book and despite all of Depp’s promotional words, felt distinctly impersonal. 

Written by Edward L. Corrigan - 17/11/2011