Chappaqua

i'd been waiting with incredible & building excitement to see this film since i first learned of its existence in the mid-seventies when the American film institute's Catalog of Feature Films 1961-70 was made available. unfortunately this "feature" film runs only about 80 min. in length. but i think that's just about right for the careful pacing & overall content. i didn't get a chance to see it until 1997 when it was released on video. in all those years, i couldn't track down conrad rooks & connections with burroughs, ginsberg, et al. didn't yield anything of use however much i inquired. when i finally saw it, it did not disappoint me on any level even with that build up of incredible expectancy of greatness. the robert frank cinematography is amazingly beautiful, as usual (check out those panning, beautiful color lens-flares in the "peyote sequence"). the intriguing & eclectic shankar, glass, coleman & fugs soundtrack is perfectly utilized & integrated. the script is just about flawless & quite complex in it's sometimes subtle & sometimes not-so-subtle symbolism & arcane inferences. the acting may not be perfectly consistent, but is almost always arresting. filmed for at least a couple of years before it was released, it truly is a pioneering effort of its genre (if you can classify that genre). rooks' direction is masterful, particularly when you consider the complexities delved into with this subject matter. & finally, its self-reflexive touches are appropriate, intrinsic & not overdone. definitely miss this one if yer brain-dead!

-bobby cormier

Chappaqua is about a man who goes to France to get off drugs and during which he flips out and has flashbacks. Essential beatnick viewing. Im surprised not many people have seen this. Burroughs and Ginsberg have small parts. The soundtrack and visuals are very good. One of my favorite scenes is when the man flips out and the doctor comes to give him a shot and as the camera pulls away, it is on an ice rink and people on skates swerve by. Check it out. ****

Conrad Rooks was a visionary; this film loosely recounts his journey to rehab, with Ravi Shankar and others providing the ethereal soundtrack. Images fly across the screen in wild abandon...not a "real" storyline, but mesmerizing. Available on DVD, seek it out and let your mind go free. Enough of the '60s blather, it's a cool movie that should be seen. Paula Pritchett isn't hard on the eyes, either. Ginsberg, Burroughs and others from the era are included. Phantasmagoria reigns supreme as Rooks plays out his drug-fueled life on celluloid. It's well worth seeing, a curiosity from the '60s, but more than that, it's a project of love from Rooks, who has disappeared from the scene, whatever that is or was. I enjoyed it in the theater, bought the DVD recently and revisited the feelings we felt back then. Beats many current offerings hands down.

Semi-autobiographical story of Conrad Rooks, who travels to France to undergo a drug-withdrawal cure. Flashbacks to the beginnings of psychedelia in San Francisco.

The film briefly depicts Chappaqua, New York, a hamlet in Westchester County, in a few minutes of wintry panoramas. In the film, the hamlet is an overt symbol of drug-free suburban childhood innocence. It also serves as one of the film's many nods to Native American culture. The word "chappaqua" derives from the Wappinger (a nation of the Algonquian peoples) word for "laurel swamp." This is like the very definition of an art film. For those interested in Burroughs, Ginsberg and the beat generation, 1960s counter-culture, or any of that... this is a must-see. But it is first and foremost an art film, not a movie with a strong narrative. Dracula showing up for no reason? Yeah, it has that. Drug-induced delusions? Yep. It is interesting and I don't doubt it has a cult following, but it is really more of time capsule than a good movie.

Unlike most movies which try to illustrate drug and hallucinogenic experiences by using a bunch of jarringly bizarre and heavily symbolic images randomly strung together, Chappaqua struck me as having a strange emotional continuity throughout -- that is, every odd new scene and image that appears somehow feels perfectly appropriate when it occurs. It's as if Rooks not only put together visions and sounds that evoked his actual emotions and experiences, but also managed to assemble them in the order they happened, one flowing seamlessly into the next even though there is no obvious connection between them. In fact, the film strikes me as being not so much hallucinogenic as dreamlike, another state rarely captured well on film. So this is definitely not a film for those who insist that movies should explain, clearly and completely, exactly what they're all about. But if you want a chance to ride on the meandering currents of another person's mind, then you might give this film a try.