Nobody yells fire in theaters as a way of expressing a twisted form of rabble rousing anymore because the stipends are steep. Free speech isn't cheap, and some parks which use to provide LA residents with miniature bar-b-que grills have outlawed activity involving flames. It's a result of a fire earlier this year which burned a considerable part of Griffith threatening the inhabitants of the LA Zoo and costing taxpayers plenty. In the words of Henry Fool "an honest man is always in trouble", this movie earned an R rating for "strong sexuality, violence and language", according to the MPAA, not for "smoking" and that may soon change because the controversy over smoking in public will limit smokers to their homes. I don't know whether that will stop the great American conspiracy of tobacco pushers, but it makes this film so worthwhile because I found myself trying to avert the urge to smoke.
A question formed in my mind about how independent films merit sequels if they gross nearly nil in comparison to major productions like INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM. I was reminded about HENRY FOOL when the movie FAY GRIM premiered in HD on cable. I liked it so much I started reading the messages left on IMDB, which seemed to convince that HENRY FOOL would be important to see. I needed to understand the depth of the characters in the sequel. Movie studios have taken great measure to defeat the schema that categorizes sequels as nothing better than money makers. Their latest attempt has been producing prequels, which seems to be the subplot of what HENRY FOOL seems to revolve itself around as metaphor after profound verse is used to define what creates quality literature.
In the time that it may take to finish smoking a single cigaret, it would appear as though the confessions that Henry holds so dear, the memoirs that capture the attention of everyone he comes in contact with, will open the skies and the film will have ended; the audience, satisfied that they themselves defeated the urge to smoke, and sticking to their resolutions of quitting, will wax in awe at the two plus hours they've accomplished watching toke after puff, from light unto flick, that carries more weight on indulgers, because a person who overrates such vanity might become the part of parenthood that duped the world into a surreal habitat. Contained in this film are few but serious plot keywords: alcohol, rape, poetry, vomit, excrement, fame, pedophile, independent film, and character name in title which don't involve smoking. I hear it's fine to make a film that doesn't show smoking in a good light for adolescents. What I don't hear is that, all this time we've been watching movies containing smokers smoking in scenes, R rated films scheduled for network broadcasting will replace fags between a characters lips with straws, and cigarets between somebody's fingers, with pencils.