Pamela Romanowsky
The Adderall Diaries

Stephen Elliott, US author and activist born in 1971, seems to have declared that 'The Adderall Diaries', the 2015 film directed by Pamela Romanowsky and produced by James Franco, actually has very little in common with his personal stories and consequently with the contents of the eponymous work, which aimed to be something between a sort of biography and non-fiction, published in 2009 and which is still one of his most successful works today.

Unfortunately, because I would like to (but at the moment I don't even know if the book has ever been published in Italian), I haven't read the book, so I don't know whether what Elliott declared is true or not. It could be argued that, since it's a book written by him, no one could better express such a judgment and the related cinematic adaptation than the author himself. I'm okay with that and recognize its legitimacy regardless. It's just that I realize that for those who enjoy a work, the interpretation inevitably becomes a very sensitive moment and one that goes beyond the intentions and thoughts of the author themselves. Essentially, when we are confronted with something, we always make it our 'heritage'. Which can often, why not, not correspond to the reality of things or in any case to what was in the author's intentions. Apart from this, the substantial point, I believe, is that Elliott did not appreciate the film as a whole, meaning: he did not like it, and as far as I know, neither did the critics, particularly criticizing James Franco's performance and that of the entire cast of actors involved, generally considered underwhelming and lacking any particular flair.

I would indeed start from here in talking about this film. About the figure of James Franco, an actor, director, and producer who has undoubtedly become one of the most popular and hyperproductive figures in new American cinema at all levels. This inevitably places him at the center of chronicles and criticism with effects and comments proportional to the level of his ever-growing fame (American cinema always works like a machine) and as such, they are never balanced. However, considering that this film is essentially based on his performance (besides the fact that he financed it and, I don't know exactly how these mechanisms work, the director is practically one of his 'team'), it follows that we cannot judge it without directly bringing up his interpretation.

The main criticism directed at him is that James Franco has somehow become tiresome because he is always 'repetitive' in the various films and roles he has played. A statement which I personally do not share, because I actually consider Franco to be an eclectic and even brilliant actor in putting himself in the game in various situations, even ones radically different from each other. I do not find that he has a weak personality; on the contrary: if it is true that he cannot be considered what would be defined as a 'transformist' and that he is never excessive, overwhelming, and/or heartrending as might be, for example (I am citing the first two actors that come to mind belonging to his generation), the interpretations of Jude Law or Jared Leto, Franco has his own way of acting which is almost a pose, his own characteristic pose which perhaps can always be the same, but that allows him in some way to accumulate and internalize and then dose the different emotions that he knows how to wisely manage throughout the duration of each film.

However, I do not at all delve into other criticisms, like those directed at a great actor like Ed Harris, which I simply refuse to comment on. I think he is one of the most talented actors around and has practically nothing to prove. So, off the top of my head, I can’t recall any of his performances that are not convincing, nor any film he starred in that is worth dismissing (I obviously do not claim that they are all masterpieces, we are not talking about Henry Dean Stanton here). Clearly, I imagine this last statement of mine can easily be refuted with a quick internet search, but so be it.

The story of the film is or at least should have been that of the writer Stephen Elliott’s work. Since I am talking about the film, I will adhere, of course, to what is the version told by Franco and Pamela Romanowsky. 'The Adderall Diaries' is what we could call a biopic with dramatic content and some noir shades due to the rawness of some content and the aura of darkness that envelops the narrated events, particularly when dealing with the numerous flashbacks of the protagonist (who is then Franco in the role of Stephen Elliott himself). But it is also in some way a crime story; the story is essentially about a writer in a crisis of literary inspiration and in general regarding his entire existence due to unresolved issues concerning his past life. Unable to start writing again after finally landing an important contract, he almost incidentally begins to take an interest in what has been one of the most debated and publicized uxoricide cases in recent U.S. history, that of Nina Saranova Reiser. The thing gradually begins to involve him more and more, Stephen directly attends the various sessions in court of the trial of her husband Hans Reiser, listens to and documents all the statements and different phases, reconstructs the story, and takes a direct interest in the profile of the murderer, eventually going to prison to meet him directly.

His manager invites him to desist from what seems to her a useless 'literary' attempt, that of documenting in literary and non-fiction form the uxoricide of Nina Saranova and the trial of Hans Reiser, and invites him to get serious about writing, but Stephen at this point can no longer write and realizes that deep down he has never really managed to express himself. There are too many unresolved issues in his past life, and particularly a turbulent and violent relationship with his father that he never managed to resolve. After having serious problems as a young boy and ending up in reform school, he starts using drugs again, and his friends and girlfriend leave him to himself. He loses the contract with the publishing house and with reality due to the pain and anger that fill his memories when suddenly and unexpectedly his father (whom he had stated in previous literary works as deceased) tries to re-enter his life after years.

It is a film about a person, a young man who at one point lost himself and later, despite apparent success, never managed to find himself again, creating around and inside himself a kind of illusory and at the same time fragile reality, too fragile to last long. His past life is made up only of confused memories and always with negative content. At the center of it all is the event that has most burned him: what he considers his father's abandonment who, after his mother's death, remarried and, subsequently, unable to help Stephen, lost in his drug problems, ended up disappearing from his life.

Stephen wanted, by telling the story of Hans Reiser, a uxoricidal and father of two children, to be a sort of scandalous author and write something akin to Truman Capote's 'In Cold Blood,' but with the progress of the trial (in the end Reiser will confess his guilt and reveal the location of his wife's body in exchange for a reduced sentence) and the unfolding of events, it becomes clear instead that what Stephen wants to know is: why. Why did Hans Reiser kill his wife? And how can he consider this thing would have improved his children's lives? Consequently, why did his father abandon him and always treat him aggressively and violently? It is in this mirroring of such a dramatic event that paradoxically the author manages to regain the desire to start living again and gains a new, more real and complete vision of what his past and present have been and starts writing again with newfound impetus and with that 'credibility' and truth that he himself had always wanted to hide from himself and consequently from others.

It is a film that I think works. Far from calling it a masterpiece, I believe that in its genre it has several contents that can interest the viewer. The protagonist is definitely a typical borderline character, young and attractive and at the peak of his success, but before taking another step, he literally trips over himself and his difficult past. The process of self-recognition through others and what we can define as the 'misfortunes' of others is a theme certainly tackled many, many times, and in the history of cinema always current (off the top of my head, I would suggest watching 'The Woodsman' by Nicole Kassell and with an extraordinary Kevin Bacon, a film that is a real punch in the stomach), but which I still consider interesting. This whereas the real or alleged controversies that followed with the real Stephen Elliott (who is working on a film in response to that of James Franco, aptly titled 'After Adderall: What if James Franco made a movie about your life?') probably add even more spice to the story and interest the viewers (especially if you are among his readers) and somehow, why not, practically shuffle all the contents of the film once again.