Celebrities recall their most mind-bending trips via animations, reenactments and more in this comedic documentary exploring the story of psychedelics.
This documentary begins with archive footage, including Ronald Reagan saying "there is nothing intelligent, there is nothing adult or sophisticated about taking LSD"; the next 85 minutes are devoted to proving him right.
I doubt that was the filmmakers' intention, nor do I believe they intended t
... o make the most effective anti-drug propaganda film I've ever seen – yet here we are. A list of the people interviewed in the movie includes Matt Besser, Lewis Black, Anthony Bourdain, Deepak Chopra, Rob Corddry, David Cross, Carrie Fisher, Will Forte, Adam Horovitz, David Koechner, Nick Kroll, Thomas Lennon, Natasha Lyonne, Nick Offerman, Haley Joel Osment, Rosie Perez, Andy Richter, ASAP Rocky, Paul Scheer, Adam Scott, Sarah Silverman, Ben Stiller, and Sting.
Now, with the exceptions of Bourdain and Fisher, who are dead, and Stiller and Sting, who are cool in spite of themselves, is this really the sort of company you'd like to be in? Consider this: Offerman says at the beginning that "drugs can be dangerous but they can also be fun." He then asks "Why would a person do something dangerous and funny?", and hopes the film will answer that question.
But surely he must be talking about other drugs in other films, because these acid-fueled stories are anything but funny, even though – or perhaps because of – they are told by a bunch of self-proclaimed comedians; meanwhile, the only danger inherent to LSD consumption is, as far as I can discern, acting like a complete idiot with a superiority complex based on the illusion of having privileged access to the wisdom of the cosmos.
Not only does any of this make me want to ingest acid, but I also wish none of these people ever had so I wouldn't have to listen to them in the first place. But since listen to them I did, I was able to detect three problems.
1) HaGT:AiP is purely anecdotal, and anecdote is the poorest form of narrative; 2) my drug experiences are only meaningful and interesting to me, and only while I'm high; and 3) to pique and sustain another person's interest, that person has to be at the time, or have been at some point in the past, stoned out of their damn minds.
If this film's audience is sober, they will find the stories told and recreated in it confusing and impossible to grasp; on the other hand, if viewers are required to be under the influence to be entertained, their entertainment will stem from being high as shit and not directly from watching this or any other film.
It may sound counterintuitive, but I think the main reason HaGT:AiP doesn't work is because it's pro-drugs; its message, if it has one, is one of complacency and self-satisfaction. As a result, there's a frustrating lack of the kind of urgency found in Trainspotting, A Scanner Darkly, or even Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (none of which, by the way, is lacking in the humor department).
