Easy Rider (1969), the Film…

Many thoughts raced through my mind as I watched Easy Rider (1969), the least of which was that it is a protest film of traditional American values. I didn’t know much about this film going in—except for the idea that it is a chronicle of an era—and I’m glad for my initial ignorance. 

But then again, on second thought, what else would the 1960s produce but protest media?

IMDB is always so generous with its descriptions of films. Many times, I ignore them and just scroll down to the cast and crew. Here, ER is described as “dark comedy,” “psychological drama,” “quest,” “road trip,” “tragedy,” “adventure,” and “drama.” I guess I’m to take my pick and view it accordingly. 

The film is about two bikers, which already summons images, if not judgments, in the American conscience. I mean, what is a biker? First and foremost, they are a rebel. Even in real life, as I drive along from point A to point B, I’ll sometimes observe a motorcyclist zip between cars, making their own lane, forging their own path despite the rest of us on the road. Never have I witnessed a motorcyclist obey the same rules as a motorist. Knowing this, I blanch at the fact that there are fewer motorcycle-related deaths than there are automobile ones. This is no judgment; this is merely observation. 

So what does the above have to do with Easy Rider? Does how a motorist views a motorcyclist have anything to do with the plot and the themes of this film? I think so, especially concerning the turns (no pun intended) this film takes. 

Peter Fonda (Ulee’s Gold) plays Wyatt, the biker who, according to the movie poster, “went looking for America and couldn’t find it anywhere.” Dennis Hopper (Blue Velvet), plays Billy, Wyatt’s partner, who is naïve, unmannered, and quite clueless as to the situations they both encounter. The film is also set at the end of an era, the 1960s, which sets it all up for a major fist-shaking at society, if not making an outright obscene gesture. 

The film begins with the both of them making a drug deal, then, after purchasing their shiny new motorcycles, deftly hiding their leftover cash in their fuel tanks. Then onto the road they go. Their newly found riches mean something here. At least, according to critics and historians. Does money equal freedom? Does the fact that materialism equals open doors say anything about the entire concept of freedom? Taking into consideration today’s politics, I’d have to say yes. But what did this mean at the end of the 1960s? 

Wyatt and Billy meet many characters. One in particular is George Hanson, played by Jack Nicholson (The Shining). He’s a lawyer they meet at a local lockup who decides to travel with the bikers. Along the way, and amidst many marijuana-induced hazes, George imparts wisdom to the pair that is based in reality but waxes philosophic. 

And then there’s the dark turn of events. 

Easing into small town America, the pair turns heads and fires up prejudices. To traditional Americans, they represent everything that went wrong, and that is wrong, with America. God-damned hippies and all. Wyatt and Billy are treated as such in just about every stop they make. 

After one stop, when the three of them, including George, are not even served in a cafe, they, feeling quite unwelcome, decide to leave the town and camp out—which is what they have been doing for most of their trip, anyway. But this time leads to violence and tragedy. 

Directed by Hopper, this film evokes scenes and images of rural America, visions of drug trips, and the violence suffered by our travelers. Frame by staggered frame are scenes predicted, visions realized, fates foretold. At times, I recalled my own experiences with illicit drugs, and was glad that said experiences existed in my past. 

As the thoughts raced through my head, so did the feelings punctuate my mood. I was disgusted at the bigotry, in awe of the freedoms, in fascination about the plot twists in a film that doesn’t even have a traditional plot.  

I’m not sorry I viewed this film, and I’m not sure how to recommend it. Do I recommend it as a criticism of American materialism? Or as an evaluation of bigotry? Or maybe as a window into the short-sightedness we Americans easily illustrate? One thing is for sure, I cannot and will not recommend this film as one to enjoy. One to ingest and contemplate, yes, but a film as seminal and inflammatory as Easy Rider cannot be enjoyed. It can only be beheld.