SYNOPSICS
Grass (1999) is a English movie. Ron Mann has directed this movie. Woody Harrelson,Harry J. Anslinger,George Bush,Cab Calloway are the starring of this movie. It was released in 1999. Grass (1999) is considered one of the best Documentary,History movie in India and around the world.
This film explores the history of the American government's official policy on marijuana in the 20th century. Rising with xenophobia with Mexican immigration and their taste for smoking marijuana, we see the establishment of a wrong headed federal drug policy as a crime issue as opposed to a public health approach. Fueled by prejudice, hysterical propaganda and political opportunism undeterred by voices of reason on the subject, we follow the story of a costly and futile crusade against a substance with debatable ill effects that has damaged basic civil liberties.
Fans of Grass (1999) also like
Same Actors
Same Director
Grass (1999) Reviews
Highly entertaining; moderately scholarly.
I watched this right after completing a research paper on marijuana policy, and it was certainly a nice break after working entirely out of dry text. Much easier on the eyes than hundreds of pages of tiny type. There certainly is a lot of stuff this movie left out, including some of the funnier things (such as the marijuana murder trials of 1938, or the 120-second Congressional hearings for the passage of the Marihuana Tax Act), but it definitely gets the point across in a colorful, often rather silly way complete with movie clips, weird songs, goofy video-game graphics, old-ranting-politician footage, and some of the more ludicrous public service announcements. The cultural bent makes it much less dry than most of the strictly historical, legal and political reading I've done, which is saying a bit as the legal history is pretty entertaining. Just in case you somehow miss the point (or forget about it while watching Cab Calloway tap-dance), Grass makes a heavy point of repeatedly pointing out the escalating amounts of money spent on this unobtrusive little weed, and highlights the blatant lies the public has been subjected to over the past century by reiterating "The Truth" for every decade or so. The only real downside to the movie is that it skipped over the disclaimer that every marijuana decriminalization piece really needs to have in it somewhere: There is no such thing as an entirely safe drug. In conclusion, I would recommend this movie quite highly if you're looking to be introduced to the subject in a tolerably entertaining fashion, or if you're sick of reading and want something a little more audially/visually stimulating. For real information on the drug, however, I'd recommend reading "Marihuana: a Signal of Misunderstanding" instead.
USA vs Cannabis, and i don't think the yanks are winning!
Woody Harrelson narrates on a very interesting and highly informative documentary on the history of US law and drug policy regarding the highly controversial substance cannabis. Highly entertaining and witty with a vast collection of clips and videotapes of politicians, musicians and pot parties. Yet again, the US government has egg on its face as the amount of money spent on the war on marijuana rises, along with the amount of people using it. Exposing some of the blatant ignoring of government reports and findings, Grass moves along a good pace and doesn't get too carried away at any point with statements of how great cannabis, mostly just the facts. However, there is a lot more to the plant that has obviously not been included, as the film focuses around the efforts made by the US government only, and not cannabis as a whole. Definitely an interesting film, with lots to learn from it, but by no means the definitive word on cannabis.
A Stylish Documentary
A lot of the discussion about -Grass- both here and in the press has focused on what the film is not. It isn't a documentary about marijuana use, nor is it intended to be. Instead, it's a film about the history of the "war" on marijuana in the U.S. Mann's films are done in a "high" visual style (no joke intended) that is very graphic-intensive. While this isn't to everyone's taste, it does cut through the otherwise heavy use of archival footage. The narration is incisive, but it is kept thankfully to a minimum. The result is a documentary that entertains and instructs. I was somewhat disappointed that the film did not go on in any detail about the post-1980 period, where some of the most interesting battles have been fought. Other than that, -Grass- is an excellent summary of how the "drug war" in the U.S. came to be fought in the way that it is today. I suppose my other disappointment is that the film focuses exclusively on the U.S.; I had hoped that a Canadian such as Ron Mann would have examined the equally interesting history of marijuana prohibition in Canada. -Grass- is well worth a viewing, both for its visual appeal and its committed take on an interesting subject.
Pot 101
Nice that they got Harrelson for the narration (not to mention some of the Firesign guys, etc.). Perhaps a little *too* boffo at times, but nonetheless a wonderful compendium of pot Americana crafted, accrued, and organized to drive home an important point; what on God's green earth drives this monumental institutional fuss over a weed? I will look at anything Paul Mavrides (Art Direction) puts his hand to; he's such a monster, gob bless 'im! For some reason, I'm driven to make a very generic point about this genre of film by highlighting the "inscrutability" of the subject matter. In my mind, "Grass" is in the same category as unexplained phenomena, religion, conspiracies, suppressed inventions, etc. I call it "topic candy", as it pushes the mind to attempt to objectivize the subjective in a fun and frolicsome way. Again: What, after all, *are* the underlying mental/spiritual/social attitudes that fuel marijuana scares, and a kind of concentrated paternalism that makes state socialism look like mom 'n' pop free enterprise by comparison? And attempts by films like "Grass" to attack these kinds of topics is a high-risk game. When you tackle a subject which is, after all, a mental state, you risk appearing irrationally predisposed, but at the same time stand the chance of turning over a rock somewhere in our collective consciousness to find something that is true and illuminating. Which leads to the questions: Does "Grass" take these risks? Yes. Do these risks pay off in "Grass"? My answer: A qualified "maybe". Whether "Grass" succeeds or not isn't as important to me as the fact that it takes those risks. That's really how I feel. And, maybe, that willingness to put things out "on the line" is a kind of success in itself. If you are a fan of edgy sonics and graphics and have an interest in U.S. anti-drug hysteria, take the time to watch this film. It'll teach you a *few* things you may not have known before. And its highlighting of the mounting national expense for the drug war (fiscal and social) *will* give you serious pause....
A War Documentary
'Grass' is a war documentary. From small beginnings, this war has escalated throughout the 20th century, costing billions of dollars, with no resolve in sight. This sociological piece favors one side, that of legalization, and an end to the war on drugs. 'Grass' raises questions that, whatever your feelings towards the drug, are due for some objective debate. The subject matter is exclusively Grass in America, with only occasional mention of other drugs or countries. Grass hurtles through a fascinating account of the social and political history of marijuana in the US. Important bills, social movements, and other events are documented in an appropriately mellow manner. The production is mostly stock footage with clever animations dispersed to signal a new law or time period. The soundtrack delivered the required music; 'One toke over the line', some Louis Armstrong and the Peter Tosh classic 'Legalize it'. While largely focusing on the socio/politics of marijuana there is also an effort to dispel many of the myths of user effects. Humorous interviews and 'informational video's' from all eras show attempts by lobby groups to portray pot as Satan in a plant. It is made clear that there is no evidence that the drug causes insanity, perversion, and homicidal behavior. Just what the drugs effects really are, the documentary admits, is almost entirely unknown. 'Grass' is not a pot adventure; it doesn't advocate use. The focus is a condemnation of American belief that throwing people in jail will change individuals private practices.