Leaving Las Vegas 
directed by Mike Figgis.
Show More
Show More

One of the many things that separate the movies of Hollywood’s classic era from those of today is their indulgent attitude to alcohol and drunkenness. So many famous scenes from studio pictures made in the years between the coming of sound in 1929 and the mid-Fifties are chained in memory to the bar or the drinks cabinet that hard liquor and cigarettes seem integral to the medium, as essential as klieg lights and mascara. From Rick’s bar in Casablanca, to Margot Channing’s theatrical salon in All about Eve, to any Western saloon, booze is the magnifier for all that 30-foot-tall emoting.

As Alan Rudolph’s lugubrious 1995 biopic of Dorothy Parker, Mrs Parker and the Vicious Circle, illustrates, it was Prohibition that made boozing an essential act of transgression among the Hollywood crowd of the Twenties and Thirties, matching the literary hard drinking of the writers around Scott Fitzgerald and Hemingway. Actors were even encouraged in their cups by movie fans. According to the pioneer producer J. Stuart Blackton, ‘Prohibition ... brought about the unique situation of reminiscent and heartfelt applause from the audience whenever a man is seen to take a drink on screen.’ The quality of a Beverly Hills host’s illegal liquor was a mark of his sophistication, and by the time the Volstead Act of 1920 was revoked in 1933, the drinking habits of film-makers had become ingrained and were transferred to the screen with the inebriate glee that makes boozing seem a natural part of Hollywood’s prime.

But booze and the movies were not always such ‘natural’ companions. Lack of access to early cinema has effaced wider knowledge of the implacable enmity that once existed between the cinema exhibition and liquor trades. Kevin Brownlow’s study of movies of social conscience in the silent era, Behind the Mask of Innocence, records how the building of a new movie theatre usually meant the closure of several saloons. Moreover, the early film-makers were among the most vociferous supporters of Prohibition, making hundreds of temperance movies. Brownlow reckons that the ‘alcoholic genius’ D.W. Griffith ‘made 13 pictures against the evils of drink at Biograph’. Griffith’s hypocritical example is more typical of Hollywood than W.C. Fields’s ‘lust for alcohol’ in It’s the Old Army Game (1926) or Chaplin’s mockery of temperance in The Cure (1917).

Characteristically, the studio producers waited until after Prohibition before they risked depicting Hollywood’s own wild party. The paradigm of all movies about Hollywood is probably William Wellman’s 1937 melodrama A Star is Born, which has been remade twice as a musical and was itself based on George Cukor’s What Price Hollywood? of 1932. The basic story contrasts the inexorable rise to stardom of an unassuming waitress with the fall into alcoholism of a cynical veteran of the screen – a man who has seen, in the parlance of the time, the tarnish on the tinsel. The drunken anti-hero starts out as a gentle soul, whose sensitivity makes him open to the charms of an ordinary waitress but hopeless in the face of the relentless demands of the movie business. A paternal producer figure eventually has to let him go, triggering a suicidal binge. Although largely a creation of David O. Selznick, a producer with a predilection for sentimental narratives, What Price Hollywood? draws on the career and decline into alcoholism of the silent era director Lowell Sherman, who himself plays the dissipated drunkard Maximillian Cady. Cady and his successor, Norman Maine in A Star is Born, stand for many careers that foundered in drink and suicide.

Today’s Hollywood producers and executives make more literal use of watering holes. Deals are christened with Perrier and story-pitching film-makers are met with clear eyes, even if the listener’s antennae are tuned to what’s going on elsewhere in the room. The discreet stimulant of choice is cocaine, and public inebriation taboo. So it is in recent movies about Hollywood. Larry Levy, an executive in Robert Altman’s The Player (1992), tells his rival Griffin Mill that ‘AA meetings are where the best deals are happening.’ The film follows Mill’s wandering but pin-sharp attention as he listens to increasingly bizarre ‘high concept’ story pitches in various bars and restaurants. It’s a scene that must be familiar to the director Mike Figgis, who has made three feature movies in Hollywood: Internal Affairs, Liebestraum and Mr Jones, respectively a successful police thriller, a quirky psychological drama and a character study of a manic-depressive. It is a stretch to imagine him pitching his new movie, Leaving Las Vegas, in similar circumstances.

Leaving Las Vegas is about a failed screenwriter, Ben Sanderson, who decides to quit Hollywood and drink himself to death in the Nevada gambling city. The screenplay was adapted by Figgis from a novel of the same name by John O’Brien (who himself committed suicide shortly after Figgis had acquired the rights to film his book). Figgis signals his awareness of Hollywood’s current sweep-it-under-the-carpet attitude to alcohol in the deftly judged opening scene. Looking haggard, unshaven and wobbly, Ben Sanderson, played by Nicolas Cage, enters an exclusive Beverly Hills bar and approaches Peter Brackman, an agent he knows, to borrow a few dollars. Plainly worried about his reputation, Brackman gives Ben the money but adds: ‘I think it would be best if you didn’t contact me again.’ The reason Ben inspires such fear and hostility in his erstwhile friend is that Ben’s condition is so visible. What gives the scene an ironic edge is the certainty that, were he to read it, Brackman would feel similar emotions about Figgis’s screenplay. He would not want to make a movie about drunkenness, because booze amplifies human failure in public. (Figgis did not in fact raise significant Hollywood finance on Leaving Las Vegas.)

Modern Hollywood is in denial about booze. Hard drinking may still have a glimmer of the macho aura that surrounded it when the Hemingway-influenced generation of screenwriters filled the studio writers ‘buildings in the Thirties, but in Nineties blockbuster movies even policemen and criminals mostly drink off-screen. Action heroes played by Stallone, Schwarzenegger and their ilk never touch it. (Bruce Willis in Die Hard has hangovers because he loves the wife who left him, but we never see him getting drunk.) And in independent movies, there is a general preference for hard drugs. Only in films set in the past do you see any amount of drinking. There’s a lot of it in Carl Franklin’s Devil in a Blue Dress, which is set in the Forties, but aside from Cage in Leaving Las Vegas; the only other recent portrayals of drunks that come to mind are both by women in movies set in another era: Sharon Stone in Casino and Jennifer Jason Leigh in Mrs Parker.

It is all the more revealing, then, to see Cage’s face, puffy and grey with liver-abuse, in Leaving Las Vegas; to see him chugging from a bottle of Jack Daniels or staggering pop-eyed and shaking with need towards an empty refrigerator. This sort of thing hasn’t been seen in American mainstream cinema since Billy Wilder’s The Lost Weekend (1945), in which Ray Milland plays an alcoholic writer who conspires to send his girlfriend away so that he can go on a binge. Yet even Milland’s big moment, when he hauls his typewriter up Third Avenue to pawn it for more drink only to find all the pawnshops are closed for Yom Kippur, falls short of the intensity of Cage’s crawl towards a sodden death. Milland cannot quite sacrifice his movie-star vanity to the extent that Cage does.

Like Albert Finney’s British Consul in John Huston’s tedious version of Under the Volcano, Milland is haunted by the hallucinatory spectres of drink to the point of abject misery. But Cage’s Ben Sanderson is beyond agony or remorse, if not quite the concomitant self-pity. He wants out of life and not to bore anyone on the way. Weaving down the path to his doom with an unsteady sway of the hips, Cage reveals the charm of his character through his politeness to a prostitute, Sera (Elisabeth Shue), whom he accidentally meets and then befriends, and through his enjoyment of the banality of his situation. Boozing clichés – ‘I can’t remember if I drink because my wife left me or my wife left me because I drink’ – are shouted with the bitter relish of a writer who knows their true worth. Disapproving people are greeted with a gently mocking insincerity: ‘great ass!’, ‘outstanding, sir!’ In darker moments, Cage’s body heaves with need but he is spared serious delirium. The symbolic terrors and guilty flashbacks that haunt a drunk’s worst moments in The Lost Weekend, Under the Volcano, Powell and Pressburger’s wonderful The Small Back Room, and for that matter Dumbo, are left out in favour of an intimate, physical sense of disorder. Cage’s one transmutation of what he sees is when the neon sign of his dingy motel THE WHOLE YEAR INN becomes THE HOLE YOU’RE IN.

Yet despite so much that is uniquely uncompromising about his perfomance, Cage flirts with the sentimental tendency in movie drunks of the post-Prohibition era. Cukor said of Lowell Sherman in What Price Hollywood? that he had a ‘slightly odious quality’ that kept pathos at bay. There’s something slightly repellent about Cage, too, and he occasionally wears the doleful, little-boy-lost look that dominates Lowell’s and March’s performances – usually when Ben is forced to reflect on why he is drinking himself to death. And something about the folksy cadences of Cage’s caressing enunciation of the name Sera recalls James Stewart. Henry Coster’s 1950 movie Harvey features Stewart playing another of Hollywood’s charming, indulged drunks, Elwood, a harmless nobody with a ten-foot rabbit friend that nobody else can see. Elwood is as matter-of-fact about his rabbit as Ben is about his certain death.

Such links to the lovable drunks of Hollywood’s past only add to the power and poignancy of Leaving Las Vegas, paying off the debt that John O’Brien’s novel owes to Selznick’s paradigmatic narrative. O’Brien’s best contribution is to have junked the rags-to-riches story of the rising star for the subtlety of a woman character, Sera, who has convinced herself, in the teeth of her degradation, that she is in control of her life. Sera, too, is a new twist on a classic Hollywood archetype – the golden-hearted tart – but she also doubles as the drunk’s essential companion, his guardian angel (sera-phim). In the Selznick story, the angel becomes too compromised by earthly fame to save the drunk. Sera has only to acknowledge that Ben is not to be ‘saved’ at all. Nevertheless she does try temporarily to domesticate him, to remove him from the ‘hole he’s in’ to her apartment, but this is not an attempt to thwart his drinking, only a wish to re-assert her self-deluding sense of control.

The hole you’re in and the angel who minds it form the parameters of the traditional male drunk’s world. The bar can be any bar, anywhere, but home will be a simple room that nevertheless has a thousand places where a bottle can be concealed. The angel may tidy up and offer support, as Kathleen Byron does to David Farrar in The Small Back Room, telling him to ‘have a drink’ from the unopened bottle of Scotch which was 20-feet tall and toppling towards him just before she came in. More often though, she will have given up and drifted away, leaving only a photograph or two on a dusty shell as glue for the drunk’s fractured memory. That’s how it is for Maurice Ronet in Louis Malle’s Le Feu follet. His wife has sent him back from New York to Paris to dry out in a clinic. He is momentarily ‘cured’, but realises that he is already spiritually dead and moves like a ghost through a compromised world. Ben and Sera are also ghosts, detached from their city of choice having opted out of its cash-stripping action. But Ben is determined to avoid the sentimental traps of the drunkard’s den: his room is anonymous and new to him, he has burnt all his photographs, and he flaunts his trolley-load of famous brands. Sera is a welcome accident, come too late, a premonition of the bliss of for getfulness. They are, like Frankie and Johnny, heroes of a long, drunken ballad, and Figgis sets their few days together against a score of cut-up torch songs and exquisitely sad blues.

Many commentators attribute the commercial and critical success of Leaving Las Vegas in America to a yearning among mass cinema audiences for adult storytelling, an appetite for darker endings. But Leaving Las Vegas is an anomalous modern wonder for more reasons than its narrative courage. O’Brien’s story may initially have attracted Figgis because of its bitterness towards Holly wood. In Figgis’s hands though, and as a movie, it becomes much more than the forlorn love letter of a spurned writer. Leaving Las Vegas has far-reaching symbolic power because drinking yourself to death is Hollywood’s old way of opting out, and if you can depict such a death and yet restore missing human qualities to the medium, as Figgis does here, you are triumphing over more than Hollywood hypocrisy.

Send Letters To:

The Editor
London Review of Books,
28 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN


Please include name, address, and a telephone number.


Vol. 18 No. 7 · 4 April 1996

Nick James is far too kind to both Leaving Las Vegas and the novel on which it is based (LRB, 7 March). Watching the film, one knows that its novel-source must be terrible; and reading the novel, one knows that no decent film could ever be made from it. John O’Brien, the author of Leaving Las Vegas, has been treated sweetly by film critics such as your contributor because he was a young novelist who committed suicide. But O’Brien also committed his novel, and this too seems a shame.

Like the film, the novel is sentimental, fraudulent and preposterous. It wants to be truthful and ‘searing’ (a word whose use by film critics now means its exact opposite), but is in fact hazy and genteel. Like Mike Figgis’s film, it recycles old clichés: the prostitute, or fallen angel, who leads a chosen sinner towards apotheosis. People such as Nick James seem to have been conned by the film’s sad ending – in which Nicolas Cage has sex with Elisabeth Shue for the first time, and then dies of alcohol poisoning – into judging it a triumph over Hollywood’s upbeatness. But of course this ending is a haloed consummation: the sinner is led by the angel towards a point he has never reached before. Meanwhile, just in case we missed the point, Sting croons about ‘angel eyes’, and Cage wonders aloud if Shue is not an angel ‘sent to me from one of my drunken fantasies’.

Cage warns Shue, when he moves into her cosy apartment, that he will be difficult – that he will vomit, knock things over etc. In fact, the film protects us from real degradation, wrapping up the truth in cartoonishness and bombast. In this it exactly resembles O’Brien’s novel, which becomes more flailingly ‘literary’ the more it strives to tell the truth. Here are two quotes, both concerning Sera, the prostitute, who is standing on Las Vegas’s main boulevard:

Across the street – not yet over the shiver, nor to the goods – a dormant construction site, populated with adolescent towers, stands smugly, silently, and in dubious approval. It wears the green and blue hues of the night. It knows not whence it came. It will lend her the benefit of the night. It will accompany her on the long, hard, painful ride in a car filled with chums.

It is worth remembering that O’Brien is writing about a construction site in this passage. I will pass over the hilarious, St Trinian’s-like carload of ‘chums’. A page or two later:

And she is a good thing, good at this thing. Paying for and using her, there are always men available. The tricks turn to her, for she glistens with the appealing inaccessibility of the always introspective. They turn to the buyable quench – no lie, no promise in the panties – and she plays out the bargain with the competence of one consistently able to hit well the mark … Her tricks go away quietly, their burden of dissatisfaction lessened sufficiently to fulfil the terms of any implied agreement that may have been struck.

This world of sentimental cliché, in which prostitutes of ‘appealing inaccessibility’ relieve men of their ‘burden of dissatisfaction’, is copied by the film. This is a fantasy of the truth, not the truth, and its determination to glamorise unhappiness – Cage dies of alcoholism with only some stubble and eye-shade to show for it; Shue is a street-walker who dresses in Vivienne Westwood and lives in a book-lined condo apartment – exactly partakes of the Hollywood ‘hypocrisy’ which Nick James thinks it has overcome.

James Wood
Washington DC

Vol. 18 No. 8 · 18 April 1996

As James Wood has used my review of the movie Leaving Las Vegas to attack film critics in general (Letters, 4 April), I feel obliged to return the compliment and accuse him of a typically literary reading of the movie. His letter is mostly about the faults of John O’Brien’s novel, which I barely remarked on, and is otherwise casually riddled with unlikely expectations of Mike Figgis’s movie, something that one has come to expect from those whose usual study is the work of single authors. The movie ‘recycles old clichés’, he says, as if he doesn’t know that nearly all widely-seen movies, whether by Scorsese or Kieslowski, do that. It is a ‘fantasy of the truth, not the truth’, which sounds like a pretty good definition of all art (for me Godard is wrong: film is not the truth, not even at 24 frames per second). He complains that ‘Cage dies of alcoholism with only some stubble and eye shadow to show for it.’ This is a classic trope of those who want to dismiss cinema, to point up its artifice, as if cinema-goers were somehow unaware that there are movie stars on the screen wearing makeup.

Wood persists in trying to view Leaving Las Vegas as if it were shot in a style that connotes realist intentions – which clearly it does not. It is, instead, a work of genre, a melodrama in which clichés are there to be used and abused. Wood pays the movie a disservice by yoking it to the book, and arguing that ‘no decent film could ever be made of it.’ Cinema has a long and successful tradition of cannibalising pulp fiction. Figgis has made a questioning and evocative work out of O’Brien’s book. It may, like all film noir and much of French cinema, ‘glamorise unhappiness’, yet it conveys an intimate tragedy in a direct and accessible way. I am happy to be accused of being kind to it.

Nick James
London E2

send letters to

The Editor
London Review of Books
28 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN


Please include name, address and a telephone number

Read anywhere with the London Review of Books app, available now from the App Store for Apple devices, Google Play for Android devices and Amazon for your Kindle Fire.

Sign up to our newsletter

For highlights from the latest issue, our archive and the blog, as well as news, events and exclusive promotions.

Newsletter Preferences