Said to be one of Bob Dylan's favourite photos of himself.
Rolling Thunder Revue: A Bob Dylan Story by Martin Scorsese. A Netflix film
Should historic footage be sacrosanct? Why should attempts at the abstract notion of accuracy or 'truth ' get in the way of a good story? Be aware: This documentary seeks to blur the lines with absolute fictions inserted alongside known, recognised 'facts'.
This possibly had more to do with the Rolling Thunder tour than many other factors.
The press release described this as an “Alchemic mix of fact and fantasy”. It will not help us get any closer to the abstract “truth” of an interesting tour for posterity and the recording of accuracy, if that aspiration even existed!
You can pick your reason why Bob Dylan wore white face painting for his 1975-6 Rolling Thunder Revue. He claimed it was because honesty lies behind a mask (thanks to Oscar Wilde for that concept). Others have asserted he was inverting blackface minstrelsy. I personally think it was an easy cover for all the white powder going up his nose on that tour, as his marriage disintegrated and true friends were few and far: Hence the need for a retinue of musical celebrities to deflect from the personal anxieties, including going on stage. It was at this point he tried to pull together all his older friends to see if he could travel, perhaps in order to find himself; the travelling troubadour musician, the man behind the mask. But that is pure speculation as the events themselves are clouded in mystery. Even the ambiguous ‘Rolling Thunder’, the very name, is steeped in myth. At the time the US were slowly moving out of Vietnam where they have unleashed one form of Rolling Thunder and scorched earth. Whilst (White) America’s heritage was being celebrated through its 200th anniversary, perhaps Dylan’s own celebration of Native American culture was pointed and relevant. (Rolling Thunder was a character Dylan was bound to have been aware of from Grateful Deads’ drummer Mickey Hart's 1972 album of the same name. See also the performance of the Ballad of Ira Hayes in the film itself). Or of course the more banal and simplistic noun, which Dylan claims inspired the name: the threatening sound of nature’s rumblings as lightning makes its way across open ground, as a storm passes. The travelling retinue of stars might offer some comfort and shelter from that storm.
For the content of this film or a basic narrative you can google IMDb or some other review site. But be sure to also investigate the ‘fictions’ inserted both in the visuals and the spoken word. With this in mind I found the whole film diffuse, convoluted and of course fictional. Not a linear narrative documentary aiming to get to the source of things. Without context or clarification of the fabrications this film creates and inserts fictional individuals into the story where none were needed. There is artistic licence (see Searching for Sugarman’s struggle with the truth,) and then there is fabrication to play with your audiences expectations. Billed transparently enough as a mix of fact and fiction this documentary is a look back at that tour – a tour which, interviewed for the documentary, Dylan says that he can remember ‘nothing’! Given the 40 year’s interval this is hardly surprising. But such absent mindedness is compounded by Dylan’s own past creations. He even has an early film called “Don't Look Back” and this is a phrase he has used at least twice in songs spanning 3 decades! Is he deliberately inverting or sending up any attempt to look back impartially?
This perhaps cleverly picks up where the Rolling Thunder tour itself left off. Both were recorded in the ‘post truth era? Nixon and Trump, impeachment but also fictions and corruption abound. Given the mix of myth making and factual film footage perhaps this is the perfect time to release this entertaining creation. With the increasing coverage of fake news and the perspectives to the abstract notion of truth the timing of this mix of both is fascinating. Why does the truth and accuracy matter? News or stories travel far enough and disseminate quicker and easier than our ability to ‘fact check’ them – if we ever did. This now passes into fabled “truth” after being shared digitally. To my simplistic eye though where No Direction Home (2005) and The Last Waltz (1978) appeared to try and get to some kind of truth (to quote Metallica) about Bob Dylan and were all the better for it this seems to add nothing new to past events.
Beyond contemporary relevance of the role of truth and reality, as a music fanatic and music historian I was left disappointed at the rewriting of history that wasn’t apparently for the better – the truth often makes a more interesting story - inserting fiction into fact makes it a mockery, but not quite a full frontal mockumentary. At least, armed with this information it helps to send up our perceptions of reality. But in this fake news and post truth era such fiction is not what the world needs. A satire on reality it may be, and achieving any real truth may be impossible (if it even exists), but the voracious consumption of cocaine on this tour is largely undisputed makes any form of truth hard enough! Ginsberg claimed he'd never seen so much drugs. This alone means that memory at the time was blurred enough. An artist has the right to play with these things especially if they are his own original creations with the joke being on the audience who absorb Dylan’s every move, but I just didn’t find this joke particularly funny. Ultimately the fictions detract from what were potentially fascinating realities.
The press release described this as an “Alchemic mix of fact and fantasy”. It will not help us get any closer to the abstract “truth” of an interesting tour for posterity and the recording of accuracy, if that aspiration even existed!
You can pick your reason why Bob Dylan wore white face painting for his 1975-6 Rolling Thunder Revue. He claimed it was because honesty lies behind a mask (thanks to Oscar Wilde for that concept). Others have asserted he was inverting blackface minstrelsy. I personally think it was an easy cover for all the white powder going up his nose on that tour, as his marriage disintegrated and true friends were few and far: Hence the need for a retinue of musical celebrities to deflect from the personal anxieties, including going on stage. It was at this point he tried to pull together all his older friends to see if he could travel, perhaps in order to find himself; the travelling troubadour musician, the man behind the mask. But that is pure speculation as the events themselves are clouded in mystery. Even the ambiguous ‘Rolling Thunder’, the very name, is steeped in myth. At the time the US were slowly moving out of Vietnam where they have unleashed one form of Rolling Thunder and scorched earth. Whilst (White) America’s heritage was being celebrated through its 200th anniversary, perhaps Dylan’s own celebration of Native American culture was pointed and relevant. (Rolling Thunder was a character Dylan was bound to have been aware of from Grateful Deads’ drummer Mickey Hart's 1972 album of the same name. See also the performance of the Ballad of Ira Hayes in the film itself). Or of course the more banal and simplistic noun, which Dylan claims inspired the name: the threatening sound of nature’s rumblings as lightning makes its way across open ground, as a storm passes. The travelling retinue of stars might offer some comfort and shelter from that storm.
For the content of this film or a basic narrative you can google IMDb or some other review site. But be sure to also investigate the ‘fictions’ inserted both in the visuals and the spoken word. With this in mind I found the whole film diffuse, convoluted and of course fictional. Not a linear narrative documentary aiming to get to the source of things. Without context or clarification of the fabrications this film creates and inserts fictional individuals into the story where none were needed. There is artistic licence (see Searching for Sugarman’s struggle with the truth,) and then there is fabrication to play with your audiences expectations. Billed transparently enough as a mix of fact and fiction this documentary is a look back at that tour – a tour which, interviewed for the documentary, Dylan says that he can remember ‘nothing’! Given the 40 year’s interval this is hardly surprising. But such absent mindedness is compounded by Dylan’s own past creations. He even has an early film called “Don't Look Back” and this is a phrase he has used at least twice in songs spanning 3 decades! Is he deliberately inverting or sending up any attempt to look back impartially?
This perhaps cleverly picks up where the Rolling Thunder tour itself left off. Both were recorded in the ‘post truth era? Nixon and Trump, impeachment but also fictions and corruption abound. Given the mix of myth making and factual film footage perhaps this is the perfect time to release this entertaining creation. With the increasing coverage of fake news and the perspectives to the abstract notion of truth the timing of this mix of both is fascinating. Why does the truth and accuracy matter? News or stories travel far enough and disseminate quicker and easier than our ability to ‘fact check’ them – if we ever did. This now passes into fabled “truth” after being shared digitally. To my simplistic eye though where No Direction Home (2005) and The Last Waltz (1978) appeared to try and get to some kind of truth (to quote Metallica) about Bob Dylan and were all the better for it this seems to add nothing new to past events.
Beyond contemporary relevance of the role of truth and reality, as a music fanatic and music historian I was left disappointed at the rewriting of history that wasn’t apparently for the better – the truth often makes a more interesting story - inserting fiction into fact makes it a mockery, but not quite a full frontal mockumentary. At least, armed with this information it helps to send up our perceptions of reality. But in this fake news and post truth era such fiction is not what the world needs. A satire on reality it may be, and achieving any real truth may be impossible (if it even exists), but the voracious consumption of cocaine on this tour is largely undisputed makes any form of truth hard enough! Ginsberg claimed he'd never seen so much drugs. This alone means that memory at the time was blurred enough. An artist has the right to play with these things especially if they are his own original creations with the joke being on the audience who absorb Dylan’s every move, but I just didn’t find this joke particularly funny. Ultimately the fictions detract from what were potentially fascinating realities.
'Chasing Trane. The John Coltrane Documentary' A documentary about the Saxophone legend John Coltrane
This is a touching biopic with the right balance of personal and professional in the form of John Coltrane's absorbing music. Because of his prodigious talent his work with Thelonious Monk, Miles Davis, Dizzy Gillespie, climaxing in his own quartet are all covered. The documentary features, albeit sometimes in passing, a disproportionate selection of classic Jazz albums that he contributed to. Miles Davis' 'A Kind of Blue' and John Coltrane's own 'A Love Supreme' and 'Blue Train' are just a few of the greatest albums ever recorded. Jazz is divisive – but these albums have the ability to move beyond the stifling confines of their genre and appeal to many. It is that legacy on vinyl that looms so large even today, along with the style that these albums and this era of Jazz convey Just think of the iconic black and white image of the saxophone player smoking a cigarette - the wisps of smoke rising parallel to the human torso - it's probably an image of Coltrane you are picturing.
But the power of these films is in the carefully intertwined personal with the music. In Chasing Trane, we are given glimpses of family album videos, we are told of the 2 marriages, and the 'true love' second relationship reminiscent of Johnny Cash's story. Curiously though we are only briefly shown the rollercoaster ride of Coltrane's drug taking. He was though insatiable in his music as in many parts of his life. This manifested itself in a fascination about the universal side of sound, a spiritual consciousness and abstracts of other worldly music. You really can hear Eastern meditations in Coltrane's Saxophone. Indeed even under the spoken word some of the music is powerful, absorbing and enthralling.
There are a wealth of talking heads from many walks of life including many extended family members, Dr Cornell West the famous if slightly eccentric philosopher, Wynton Marsalis strangely listed as venue manager (artistic Director of Jazz at the Lincoln Centre) rather than musician which i know him better as. We hear a lot from Carlos Santana as well as Wayne Shorter, Sonny Rollins, Kamasi Washington, Common (a hip-hop artist I have never heard of) and even former president Bill Clinton, All held together with the Voice over by Denzel Washington narrating Coltrane's written word, taken from album sleeve notes and interviews.
Despite some great moments the film is a bit hollow but a nice overview if you want a snapshot. - it assumes no knowledge of this man or Jazz more generally. It is not quite a coffee table book style film, it is not skilfully honed enough for that, offering only a brief overview without interrogation. That d when about the man himself it is genuinely interesting at points but then lurches tangentially into a fan lauding his final Japanese tour which is largely uninformative beyond the focus on Nagasaki and Coltrane's own sincere pacifism. This interlude certainly felt like it detracted from story. Beyond emphasising Coltrane's legacy, Japan's or world's largest collector were not directly relevant to the shows performed in Japan. Though Coltrane's legacy on both jazz and style was massive. He died too young at the tender age of 40 of liver cancer ...presumably influenced by lifestyle.
I'm largely apathetic to a lot of Jazz generally...and Coltrane skirts dangerously close to elevator music with his cover of ‘My Favorite Things’ - but I am fascinated by it, both the emotion conveyed and the style achieved. As with so many films, documentary and other biopics nowadays though this is a little too simplistic, it is also less about the beauty and art than it could be, but it does tell a fast story about a short lived life. A pleasant way to kill 90 minutes but not earth shattering.
Poly Styrene - I Am a Cliché
NEW Documentary Film: Poly Styrene - I Am a Cliché
Any new project featuring the wonderful, and often overlooked, Punk heroine Poly Styrene (aka Marian Elliot) is a great thing in my opinion. It is also timely that this film has been commissioned for a brilliant musician and artist Marian. At the same time as discussing the legacy of punk icon and alter ego Poly. Her contribution has been re-assessed in the 2020s more than ever before. It is certainly worthy that this documentary highlights her talent as a song writer and a poet. She was perceptive, full of insight and prescient on so many levels. The footage and voice overs from those that knew her are touching as well as educational and ultimately entertaining. This film is novel in that it also tries to avoid the cliche of talking heads - using voice overs including an actress performing some of Poly's written word and her daughter (Celeste) talking to camera. Many of the voices are female punks (Helen McCookbookery , Pauline Black) but also the usual rent-a-quote of Don Letts and more Punk commentators. Their input is interesting if only for asides such as the gem that Jonathan Ross's first ever gig was the Spex! But the consequence of a lack of talking heads beyond Celeste ends up in making Marian’s daughter the main and only real modern focus as the star and chief narrator of the film. Fortunately, Celeste appears honest and obviously sincere, but a consequence of this is it is easy to view the film as a mother/daughter narrative embedded within the Punk genre.
It has been years since I have watched the Arena documentary from the BBC (originally shown in 1979 but now freely available on YouTube) - but it does use some of the same footage - sparingly though, to my recollection - there is also new footage that I do not recall having seen before. It also includes in the narrative the probability of mis-diagnosis as Schizophrenia what was actually Bipolar Disorder which Marian suffered with. There is detailed discussion of her relationship with their manager Falcon Stuart as well. Though I must confess I was nervous – the book released in 2016 but in conjunction with this film was a huge disappointment. But don’t let that put you off an enjoyable 90 minutes of a celebration of an artist who often appears to be the most overlooked icon of the London punk era.
Hastings Pier (where the Sex Pistols performed in 1976) features like Brighton pier does in Nick Cave films! A pivotal location for Marian, Falcon and eventually Celeste. The footage and contents also acts as a good snapshot of 1970s racist fractious London. At the end of the previous decade Powell had made his infamous 'rivers of blood' speech and the stakes were increasing since Kelso Cochrane's murder. Elliot's music and poetry shows race is all pervading, it is for example no coincidence she wore salt and pepper on her home-made clothes, but in her early days she set herself up as an artist first and foremost. I loved most of music Poly Styrene and Marian Elliot produced and found it intelligent as well as entertaining. The music and its creation were not a revelation to me, but I learnt things like Marian's love of shopping (and broader consumption) potentially at odds with her identity set to song, but we are all hypocrites and society is about making choices when all aspirations are not always possible. It should come as no surprise though when
Celeste herself observes with a dry reality "creative people don't always make the best parents" and this is a story primarily about negotiating the mother/daughter relationship between Marion and Celeste, whilst at the same time exploring Marion’s Poly persona. When discussing the death of your mother its always going to be touching, whether on camera or not and this is no exception. Ultimately an informative and enjoyable film worth watching and far better than the book released in conjunction with the film!
Any new project featuring the wonderful, and often overlooked, Punk heroine Poly Styrene (aka Marian Elliot) is a great thing in my opinion. It is also timely that this film has been commissioned for a brilliant musician and artist Marian. At the same time as discussing the legacy of punk icon and alter ego Poly. Her contribution has been re-assessed in the 2020s more than ever before. It is certainly worthy that this documentary highlights her talent as a song writer and a poet. She was perceptive, full of insight and prescient on so many levels. The footage and voice overs from those that knew her are touching as well as educational and ultimately entertaining. This film is novel in that it also tries to avoid the cliche of talking heads - using voice overs including an actress performing some of Poly's written word and her daughter (Celeste) talking to camera. Many of the voices are female punks (Helen McCookbookery , Pauline Black) but also the usual rent-a-quote of Don Letts and more Punk commentators. Their input is interesting if only for asides such as the gem that Jonathan Ross's first ever gig was the Spex! But the consequence of a lack of talking heads beyond Celeste ends up in making Marian’s daughter the main and only real modern focus as the star and chief narrator of the film. Fortunately, Celeste appears honest and obviously sincere, but a consequence of this is it is easy to view the film as a mother/daughter narrative embedded within the Punk genre.
It has been years since I have watched the Arena documentary from the BBC (originally shown in 1979 but now freely available on YouTube) - but it does use some of the same footage - sparingly though, to my recollection - there is also new footage that I do not recall having seen before. It also includes in the narrative the probability of mis-diagnosis as Schizophrenia what was actually Bipolar Disorder which Marian suffered with. There is detailed discussion of her relationship with their manager Falcon Stuart as well. Though I must confess I was nervous – the book released in 2016 but in conjunction with this film was a huge disappointment. But don’t let that put you off an enjoyable 90 minutes of a celebration of an artist who often appears to be the most overlooked icon of the London punk era.
Hastings Pier (where the Sex Pistols performed in 1976) features like Brighton pier does in Nick Cave films! A pivotal location for Marian, Falcon and eventually Celeste. The footage and contents also acts as a good snapshot of 1970s racist fractious London. At the end of the previous decade Powell had made his infamous 'rivers of blood' speech and the stakes were increasing since Kelso Cochrane's murder. Elliot's music and poetry shows race is all pervading, it is for example no coincidence she wore salt and pepper on her home-made clothes, but in her early days she set herself up as an artist first and foremost. I loved most of music Poly Styrene and Marian Elliot produced and found it intelligent as well as entertaining. The music and its creation were not a revelation to me, but I learnt things like Marian's love of shopping (and broader consumption) potentially at odds with her identity set to song, but we are all hypocrites and society is about making choices when all aspirations are not always possible. It should come as no surprise though when
Celeste herself observes with a dry reality "creative people don't always make the best parents" and this is a story primarily about negotiating the mother/daughter relationship between Marion and Celeste, whilst at the same time exploring Marion’s Poly persona. When discussing the death of your mother its always going to be touching, whether on camera or not and this is no exception. Ultimately an informative and enjoyable film worth watching and far better than the book released in conjunction with the film!
The Rolling Stones Olé Olé Olé!: A Trip Across Latin America 2016 ‧ Documentary ‧ 1h 45m
The Rolling Stones Olé Olé Olé!: A Trip Across Latin America
2016 ‧ Documentary ‧ 1h 45m
Well - i can honestly say I was not expecting that. I wasn't even planning on reviewing this. I switched this on expecting some classic background music whilst I sat and read. After decades of Rolling Stones formula I was ready to have some phenomenal background music but got drawn into a relatively hard-hitting comment on South American economic hardships. A companion piece to the DVD 'Havana Moon', a stand-alone concert film of the Cuba event, I assumed this would be another formulaic collection of live songs from the band. My shackles were up before this was even released in 2016, fearing a double cash in using the lazy trope of 'live songs from around another continent' - that is actually far from the case. Thanks possibly to Director Paul Dugdale it went beyond the usual formula of The Rolling Stones live on stage, neatly packaged in another DVD. This is an unadulterated, unapologetically political statement, climaxing in the most political messages this mainstream band could make nowadays - playing in Cuba. As if that wasn't enough they are playing economically poor (culturally rich) Cuba for free. This film is well constructed, brilliantly executed, telling a story with a phenomenal soundtrack.
Starting without pomp this film begins very consciously in the slums and the perils of addiction: There is nothing subtle about this film. Prostitution, theatrics and life all to a Stones soundtrack. This was both entertaining and also not formulaic. It does still take the well worked formula of stones classic follow by stones classic live, but with added context and even non-performance footage during song. Some of their most political songs feature prominently. The best was a version of Midnight Rambler in Peru. No High Wire but Street Fighting Man and Sympathy for the Devil. The band have learnt well from Scorsese influences to ensure that they stay relevant. Here we got social commentary, hardships and poverty climaxing in a 150,000 people at a free gig that had ripples which involved the President of the United States and even the Pope. It doesn't get much more controversial in the Western world. The presence of the 'guitar' is so political and life affirming in Mexico. A between song link dwells on this importance
The Rolling Stones is a well oiled machine. They gave a well worked formula ... I gave up watching them live in 1990s although I am convinced a live Stones show should still be everyone's right of passage. Cigars, cars and women feature heavily in this glorious documentary - the best the Stones have managed in decades. They still have the ability to shock and surprise. This was still a Stones film - Women and cars and their objectification still feature heavily. Their music and audience still objectify and degrade women... boobs and hips especially. It plays on the Stones as an institution bigger than any state religion. The songs dont change much, why should they? The public want and need simplistic objectification and thats what the stones offer in droves. But they can also raise awareness and through that possibly even change. Change in the form of wealth need not be the answer and that is never presented as such though change in the form of a mutual love of great music.
As with everywhere in the world there are devoted fan base gangs or groups (Nick named Rolingas and Rollings) across South America. They are presented as the children of western 'freedoms' - itself problematic, but let’s address that elsewhere. These locals often remember the dictatorships of old, when just listening to rock n’ roll could land you in jail.
As is stated here The Rolling Stones were one of the first big bands to tour Latin America, and are seen rightly as pioneers of modern ‘freedoms’ – and this documentary, whilst celebrating that is also celebrating and highlighting a lot more besides. Educational and entertaining. A real coup by the band and its entourage.
Behind the Candelabra: the true story of Liberace
Whether we are watching the 'true' story of Liberace is up for debate. This is certainly one man's biography who was close to the flame, put to film. It is though firmly a celebration of Liberace's gay'ness - now largely undisputed - and his over the top flamboyance - itself on display before this film!
I for one knew very little of the man beyond the fact that he was an easy listening pianist who inspired Elton John and was sickeningly flamboyant on and off stage. I am none the wiser here but I was entertained by Michael Douglas (Liberace) and Matt Damon (Scott Thorsen)'s portrayal of Liberace and one of his string of young male lovers. The core facts seem largely undisputed but are mostly taken from Thorsen's warts and all memoir: Behind the Candelabra: My Life with Liberace in 1988 - after Liberace's death from Aid's related illness.
The film is a 2 hour indulgence and an exciting poignant reminder of the dangers of power and positions of influence. Liberace clearly exploited on and off stage for his own personal gratification - often financial but sometimes sexual. The film is entertaining but the people are all cracked actors. Brilliant performances by all the lead actors it is a fun indulgence beyond simply the 'gay ticket'.
Whether we are watching the 'true' story of Liberace is up for debate. This is certainly one man's biography who was close to the flame, put to film. It is though firmly a celebration of Liberace's gay'ness - now largely undisputed - and his over the top flamboyance - itself on display before this film!
I for one knew very little of the man beyond the fact that he was an easy listening pianist who inspired Elton John and was sickeningly flamboyant on and off stage. I am none the wiser here but I was entertained by Michael Douglas (Liberace) and Matt Damon (Scott Thorsen)'s portrayal of Liberace and one of his string of young male lovers. The core facts seem largely undisputed but are mostly taken from Thorsen's warts and all memoir: Behind the Candelabra: My Life with Liberace in 1988 - after Liberace's death from Aid's related illness.
The film is a 2 hour indulgence and an exciting poignant reminder of the dangers of power and positions of influence. Liberace clearly exploited on and off stage for his own personal gratification - often financial but sometimes sexual. The film is entertaining but the people are all cracked actors. Brilliant performances by all the lead actors it is a fun indulgence beyond simply the 'gay ticket'.
B.B. King: The Life of Riley (2012) - The untold true story of an African American orphan boy from the heart of the Mississippi Delta who rose to music stardom around the globe.
BB King was fortunate enough to have lived to be a legend in his own time (he passed away in 2015, 3 years after this film). This is the easily romanticised story of Riley B King of “Blues Boy” King as he later became more famous as. The documentary, with the film crew accompanying him on his tour bus, tracks the orphaned boy who finds fame as a musician returning to his old hamlet. A sympathetic telling of how a boy from the Mississippi Delta became the King of the Blues. The vibrations of his guitar strings, as well as distinct, are legendary and highlight his exceptional talent (a talent steeped in a work ethic). This film is an unashamed homage and celebration. A pleasant programme but a pedestrian retelling on film of this blues man. It is entertaining and informative but doesn’t interrogate the hero. King was a clever, hard-working performer who sometimes managed literally 365 gigs a year: A work ethic which was of course greatly lauded in American society, but work aside he was also a talented guitarist with a gospel resonance in his voice. This film offers a good overview – but does not interrogate or in any way critical of the great man. It has the usual array of blues talking heads who doff their cap to the king. Perhaps rightly so – but this is not an analysis of his skills or his flaws, merely a celebration of a king.
BB King was fortunate enough to have lived to be a legend in his own time (he passed away in 2015, 3 years after this film). This is the easily romanticised story of Riley B King of “Blues Boy” King as he later became more famous as. The documentary, with the film crew accompanying him on his tour bus, tracks the orphaned boy who finds fame as a musician returning to his old hamlet. A sympathetic telling of how a boy from the Mississippi Delta became the King of the Blues. The vibrations of his guitar strings, as well as distinct, are legendary and highlight his exceptional talent (a talent steeped in a work ethic). This film is an unashamed homage and celebration. A pleasant programme but a pedestrian retelling on film of this blues man. It is entertaining and informative but doesn’t interrogate the hero. King was a clever, hard-working performer who sometimes managed literally 365 gigs a year: A work ethic which was of course greatly lauded in American society, but work aside he was also a talented guitarist with a gospel resonance in his voice. This film offers a good overview – but does not interrogate or in any way critical of the great man. It has the usual array of blues talking heads who doff their cap to the king. Perhaps rightly so – but this is not an analysis of his skills or his flaws, merely a celebration of a king.
Charles Mingus: Triumph of the Underdog 1998
Charles Mingus: Triumph of the Underdog 1998 • Documentary/Music genre • 1h 18m
Taking inspiration from his own autobiography, Beneath the Underdog (1971), this 1998 documentary by Don McGlynn is a celebration of a Jazz Stalwart. Most fans will have already seen this 25-year-old+ programme, but it is a good background filler for those with even a passing interest in the virtuoso musician and band leader. A hero of performance – he was a prolific song writer and a vocal celebrator of his own varied ethnicity (Chinese, British, German, as well as African-American) which he waved with pride in the face of mainstream conservative America. The film, like Mingus’s own life, touches on classifications of race – so important to emerging Jazz and its identity. Though regardless of race or identity Mingus possessed a prodigious talent, possibly genius, which may go some way to justifying his famous temper (which is mentioned but not really interrogated)! The main premise of the film is to establish Mingus as a composer over and above a ‘mere’ songwriter. The evidence certainly points to supporting the case. For Jazz this is slightly easier than many other genres.
There are an interesting collection of knowledgeable jazz-based talking heads giving their largely praiseworthy opinions of the jazz master composer and performer. The vast majority had first hand contact with the master, including the appearance of a youthful Trumpeter Wynton Marsalis (before he appeared in every jazz documentary going!), as well as a number of former band members. He challenged his various bands and individuals to greater musical heights. Despite this they all speak with revered reverence not of genius but the hard-working eclectic music lover.
The tragedies of economic insecurity, mental health and fragility are mentioned only in passing. It also climaxes with a reworking and new performance of his famous musical flop ‘Epitaph’. Was it ahead of its time? Too Avant Garde? Ultimately, I think it was just overkill of wanting to put too much in. Sometimes less is more. That is not true of this documentary, it gets the balance just about right for wanting to know about the man behind the music.
Taking inspiration from his own autobiography, Beneath the Underdog (1971), this 1998 documentary by Don McGlynn is a celebration of a Jazz Stalwart. Most fans will have already seen this 25-year-old+ programme, but it is a good background filler for those with even a passing interest in the virtuoso musician and band leader. A hero of performance – he was a prolific song writer and a vocal celebrator of his own varied ethnicity (Chinese, British, German, as well as African-American) which he waved with pride in the face of mainstream conservative America. The film, like Mingus’s own life, touches on classifications of race – so important to emerging Jazz and its identity. Though regardless of race or identity Mingus possessed a prodigious talent, possibly genius, which may go some way to justifying his famous temper (which is mentioned but not really interrogated)! The main premise of the film is to establish Mingus as a composer over and above a ‘mere’ songwriter. The evidence certainly points to supporting the case. For Jazz this is slightly easier than many other genres.
There are an interesting collection of knowledgeable jazz-based talking heads giving their largely praiseworthy opinions of the jazz master composer and performer. The vast majority had first hand contact with the master, including the appearance of a youthful Trumpeter Wynton Marsalis (before he appeared in every jazz documentary going!), as well as a number of former band members. He challenged his various bands and individuals to greater musical heights. Despite this they all speak with revered reverence not of genius but the hard-working eclectic music lover.
The tragedies of economic insecurity, mental health and fragility are mentioned only in passing. It also climaxes with a reworking and new performance of his famous musical flop ‘Epitaph’. Was it ahead of its time? Too Avant Garde? Ultimately, I think it was just overkill of wanting to put too much in. Sometimes less is more. That is not true of this documentary, it gets the balance just about right for wanting to know about the man behind the music.
ZZ Top: That Little Ol' Band from Texas
2019 ‧ Music/Documentary ‧ 1h 31m
Using the well worked thesis of Texas as a separate country, this is a simple documentary that unashamedly wears its Texan heart proudly on its sleeve. A lot like the subject band themselves. ZZ Top were formed in the late 1960s as more a Psyche Rock band (heavily influenced by cult legends the 13th Floor Elevators). They pointedly never claimed to be Blues. That said Texas Blues runs under the radar, but is pointedly never mentioned, for first 10 minutes: For the band it was so steeped in their heritage though that they could not help but show it.
Billy Gibbons , Dusty Hill and of course (you couldn't make it up) the one without the beard, Frank Beard are a trio who stuck together for 6 decades (possibly 7.. watch this space) before becoming an American institution. This documentary despite being filmed and released in the 21st century though stops at the commercial success that was 1983’s Eliminator. By this point their cartoon beards and image timed well for MTV (‘Gimme All Your Lovin'’ and ‘Legs’). Despite their hallowed status today though, in the early 70s they were still little-known southern blues interpreters injecting rock and roll into their good time live set, hence the film's title. Their first big break came when they were asked to support The Rolling Stones in Hawaii in 1973. This coverage in no small way facilitated the now infamous 1976-77 WorldWide Texas Tour, which included a veritable menagerie of animals and consciously Texas imagery on tour. An opus of a rock and roll circus which led to a 2 year hiatus - during which time Punk and its rebellion exploded onto the scene. Upon their return this gave the band more license to experiment and evolve. The result was Eliminator and a heavy rock, dare I say metal, band, they are today. They are certainly in the echelons of heavy metal which they are able to straddle alongside hard blues to this day.
This is a pleasant celebration of the band up to a point - it certainly doesn't interrogate their ethic or sound and it firmly stops on its laurels at 1983. It certainly had more potential to be a documentary about escape from poverty (as Frank and Rusty reference). Instead it simplistically concludes that they are a Blues bar band who got lucky, a bit like George Thorogood. That is slightly disingenuous given the quality self-penned albums they have produced. They never lost sight of their roots despite being experimental but their music is so much more than covered - that aside this is certainly a good start.
2019 ‧ Music/Documentary ‧ 1h 31m
Using the well worked thesis of Texas as a separate country, this is a simple documentary that unashamedly wears its Texan heart proudly on its sleeve. A lot like the subject band themselves. ZZ Top were formed in the late 1960s as more a Psyche Rock band (heavily influenced by cult legends the 13th Floor Elevators). They pointedly never claimed to be Blues. That said Texas Blues runs under the radar, but is pointedly never mentioned, for first 10 minutes: For the band it was so steeped in their heritage though that they could not help but show it.
Billy Gibbons , Dusty Hill and of course (you couldn't make it up) the one without the beard, Frank Beard are a trio who stuck together for 6 decades (possibly 7.. watch this space) before becoming an American institution. This documentary despite being filmed and released in the 21st century though stops at the commercial success that was 1983’s Eliminator. By this point their cartoon beards and image timed well for MTV (‘Gimme All Your Lovin'’ and ‘Legs’). Despite their hallowed status today though, in the early 70s they were still little-known southern blues interpreters injecting rock and roll into their good time live set, hence the film's title. Their first big break came when they were asked to support The Rolling Stones in Hawaii in 1973. This coverage in no small way facilitated the now infamous 1976-77 WorldWide Texas Tour, which included a veritable menagerie of animals and consciously Texas imagery on tour. An opus of a rock and roll circus which led to a 2 year hiatus - during which time Punk and its rebellion exploded onto the scene. Upon their return this gave the band more license to experiment and evolve. The result was Eliminator and a heavy rock, dare I say metal, band, they are today. They are certainly in the echelons of heavy metal which they are able to straddle alongside hard blues to this day.
This is a pleasant celebration of the band up to a point - it certainly doesn't interrogate their ethic or sound and it firmly stops on its laurels at 1983. It certainly had more potential to be a documentary about escape from poverty (as Frank and Rusty reference). Instead it simplistically concludes that they are a Blues bar band who got lucky, a bit like George Thorogood. That is slightly disingenuous given the quality self-penned albums they have produced. They never lost sight of their roots despite being experimental but their music is so much more than covered - that aside this is certainly a good start.
Nick Cave: One more time with feeling.
Two years after his semi fictional biopic ‘20000 days on Earth’ Nick Cave returns with a far darker, inward looking story of loss and life. This time exploring a real tragedy which, as well as having far more substance, is far bleaker. ‘20000 days on Earth’ depicted an outward looking Nick Cave driving his car along the Brighton coast with an assortment of guests as passengers, often literally looking out to sea. Two years later and again the camera crew are present for the recording of a new album - but this time he is the passenger and the view is turned inwards, towards the land: consciously introspective. During the interim Nick Cave has lost his son in a cliff fall. The powerlessness is palpable not just as a metaphor but as a very real loss. His emphasis on language and words become pointless and hollow. Behind each discussion, his son Arthur's death lurks in the background, and, just as in any great work of art, it plays a bigger and bigger role as the film progresses to conclusion (though if you are looking for resolution you are unlikely to find it in this film).
This film is grand, enthralling and appealing. We the viewer are invested in it. Yes, on some level it is a fairly typical music biography, following as it does the trajectory of the making of an album. But, there are also thought-provoking philosophical questions being asked: how can one measure time and its passing; how can one reflect on something as impermanent as human relationships; what does consciousness entail? This film suggests bitterly that time is a trickster and that language is a false construct that does not change anything - as the past cannot be altered - but that music can give us glimpses into rich inner worlds of imagination. Time and its evolution (or perhaps even evolution itself) loom large. The anthro[po]cene plays on the impermanence of this role. Human consciousness is writ large in the subtext. He feels critical... but does it all matter? Not really. Can any of the events in the past be changed? Not really - except in the imagination. Perhaps imagination is the key to rationalising it all.
Philosophising aside we still have the well worked formula of pop music being about boy meets girl. Cave’s wife, Susie, an elusive muse in the first film is a tragically real character in this one. Though the female sexual muse is still critical in this film, she is now the bereft mother as well. An unwanted evolution. Just as in the original film, a lot of props are given centre stage. In the first film it was rings (or jewellery perhaps - I can't quite remember). In this film there are a plethora of keyboards. A selection of iconic instruments, but all very detached from the individual (in contrast to jewellery). We see the camera lovingly linger on the late 20th centuries most iconic synthesizers (Korg) and electric Piano (Wurlitzer) but it is the super extended grand piano which literally takes centre stage. I personally was just waiting for the Moog to make a guest appearance!
Nick Cave is a performance artist and this is his performance, but the storyline is much more visceral. That does not stop this documentary feeling at points like one long collection of music videos to promote the new album. The phrase ‘One More Time With Feeling’ and its many variations has a long history in popular culture including Frank Sinatra and Bon Jovi to Buffy the Vampire Slayer but this time there is no doubt that the inflection is slightly more emotional. That said this film is still on commercial release and adhere to the set formula set by its predecessor - recording an album, must do a film. Even with the emotional subtext you cant escape the reality that this is merely an extended music video. However unlike the first film the art detracts in a small way to the tragedy of events that lead up to it and the characters are devastatingly real.
For a dark, emotional voyage, climb aboard.
Two years after his semi fictional biopic ‘20000 days on Earth’ Nick Cave returns with a far darker, inward looking story of loss and life. This time exploring a real tragedy which, as well as having far more substance, is far bleaker. ‘20000 days on Earth’ depicted an outward looking Nick Cave driving his car along the Brighton coast with an assortment of guests as passengers, often literally looking out to sea. Two years later and again the camera crew are present for the recording of a new album - but this time he is the passenger and the view is turned inwards, towards the land: consciously introspective. During the interim Nick Cave has lost his son in a cliff fall. The powerlessness is palpable not just as a metaphor but as a very real loss. His emphasis on language and words become pointless and hollow. Behind each discussion, his son Arthur's death lurks in the background, and, just as in any great work of art, it plays a bigger and bigger role as the film progresses to conclusion (though if you are looking for resolution you are unlikely to find it in this film).
This film is grand, enthralling and appealing. We the viewer are invested in it. Yes, on some level it is a fairly typical music biography, following as it does the trajectory of the making of an album. But, there are also thought-provoking philosophical questions being asked: how can one measure time and its passing; how can one reflect on something as impermanent as human relationships; what does consciousness entail? This film suggests bitterly that time is a trickster and that language is a false construct that does not change anything - as the past cannot be altered - but that music can give us glimpses into rich inner worlds of imagination. Time and its evolution (or perhaps even evolution itself) loom large. The anthro[po]cene plays on the impermanence of this role. Human consciousness is writ large in the subtext. He feels critical... but does it all matter? Not really. Can any of the events in the past be changed? Not really - except in the imagination. Perhaps imagination is the key to rationalising it all.
Philosophising aside we still have the well worked formula of pop music being about boy meets girl. Cave’s wife, Susie, an elusive muse in the first film is a tragically real character in this one. Though the female sexual muse is still critical in this film, she is now the bereft mother as well. An unwanted evolution. Just as in the original film, a lot of props are given centre stage. In the first film it was rings (or jewellery perhaps - I can't quite remember). In this film there are a plethora of keyboards. A selection of iconic instruments, but all very detached from the individual (in contrast to jewellery). We see the camera lovingly linger on the late 20th centuries most iconic synthesizers (Korg) and electric Piano (Wurlitzer) but it is the super extended grand piano which literally takes centre stage. I personally was just waiting for the Moog to make a guest appearance!
Nick Cave is a performance artist and this is his performance, but the storyline is much more visceral. That does not stop this documentary feeling at points like one long collection of music videos to promote the new album. The phrase ‘One More Time With Feeling’ and its many variations has a long history in popular culture including Frank Sinatra and Bon Jovi to Buffy the Vampire Slayer but this time there is no doubt that the inflection is slightly more emotional. That said this film is still on commercial release and adhere to the set formula set by its predecessor - recording an album, must do a film. Even with the emotional subtext you cant escape the reality that this is merely an extended music video. However unlike the first film the art detracts in a small way to the tragedy of events that lead up to it and the characters are devastatingly real.
For a dark, emotional voyage, climb aboard.
|
Nick Cave – 20,000 days on Earth.
The tagline for this semi fictional film (biopic?) is “ Writer and musician Nick Cave marks his 20,000th day on the planet Earth”. If the title is meant to be taken literally then it is notionally set over a 24 hour period of Nick Cave at 54. In fact by the time I got round to watching this he was already well into his 60s (63). But there is no real pretence of it being an actual day – he, and we, move from Brighton to France to Melbourne and back again before the film climaxes at the Sydney Opera House with a live performance, then ends full circle back at Brighton. Facts aside (we are, after all, in a post truth world) all the sites we visit within the film have influenced the character(s?) of Nick Cave. Indeed by implication he “May be a hundred different things, Within the measure of a day”. Using his car as a constant metaphor for the journey of life and the guests who travel with him, from the famous - Kylie Minogue and Ray Winston to band members past and present, Warren Ellis and Blixa Bargeld. He also covers in depth the trope of the celebrity psychoanalyst (Darian Leader) with questions of sex and childhood, but it also covers less obvious explorations, like the art of performance as well as the power of song more broadly, religion and the journey that is life. This film, potentially about a man or an identity in crisis, with the amorphous lucidity of memory foregrounded - from reviewing his own archives, to remembering his long-dead father, the crisis of identity is fascinating – we see a man obsessed with slaying the dragon. Captivating it is and you are invested throughout. Memory and time act as key subject matter in this film. Cave even states [my] songs are very much about people - these people prop up the songs….with the memory of that person -... I have a huge interest in the memory of that person - the mythologised edited memory of that person …. “ And it is his own memory and journey that he is trying to navigate in song as well as in film. The story encompasses a few strands - like life cannot come together at the end beyond the live fruition of the things at our disposal. The title captures a nice nod to the power of the sea and previous literary art as one is obliquely reminded of Jules Vernes pioneering French classic ‘Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Seas: A World Tour Underwater’ and the submarine’s ruthless leader Captain Nemo. Indeed the sea features heavily in the visuals of this - Warren Ellis is shown living in view of the white cliffs of Dover - although he was resident in Paris at the time! (I am not a huge Bad Seeds fan, this does not negate the possibility of a second home in Kent!) Though those with the knowledge of hindsight know that tragically within a year of finishing the film Brighton lost its feeling of home when one of Cave’s son would be dead, making Brighton and its memories oppressive and inhabitable. The method of compressing this story into 24 hours gives Cave the aura of pompousness, it also implies an album is recorded in the morning and performed that night in the grandest of venues!! But minor issues aside, I for one was caught up in the story of identity, time and self awareness. There are some great threads throughout the story, Cave’s own dark hair and pale skin feature heavily. His, and man’s libido are never far from the surface, with the striking juxtaposition of icons of the Virgin Mary alongside images of Page 3 models creating an obscure beauty: on the whole as a work of art I was drawn in and enjoyed it. Despite not being a fan of his music next on the radar is the slightly more harrowing One More Time With Feeling. |
|
Bob Dylan: No Direction Home. Martin Scorsese
I was particularly excited about watching this documentary above and beyond many others on Dylan or anyone else. It is consistently praised and held up as the best there is and whilst it is good, there are others out there more entertaining and less reverential to their muse or main subject. Having watched most Dylan documentaries over the years this is in a similar vein to the Rolling Stones Shine A Light documentary Scorsese did some years later. It adds nothing new for anyone beyond a fair weather passing fan. That said - It does have 2 masterful and very important saving graces which redeem it. These are the exclusive, to date largely unseen footage, all of which is interesting and a pleasant surprise but even the items that had been available on bootleg video are also higher resolution and better quality than that which i had seen to date - showing how much access and influence Scorsese has. Secondly and critically the most interesting aspect of this documentary and worth the price of the ticket alone is the recent interview with the man himself - an aged and considered Dylan. He is, or at least comes across as reflective, eloquent, considered and possibly even honest! Unusually he is not cryptic, he is considered and seems to be answering history face on. This could though be a new Odyssean face which offers excellently executed false truths. This is of course the man who has spent so much of his career laying false trails and telling downright lies about himself, that perhaps even he doesnt know the truth anymore. But it doesnt seem to be the case - especially when compared to his vague but amusing autobiography Chronicle. This apparently honest Dylan is a nice contrast to the collected press conferences within the documentary which are a nice curiosity, highlighting how clever Dylan was and is in being reflective in interview style or reaction to interview questions. .. turning their absurdity of the weaker and more irrelevant questions onto the questioner. He did this well in the less heavily edited “Dont Look Back” documentary released at the time (c1967).
I certainly don’t agree with the implied high art of this documentary when Phil Gallo declares this is “ creating an eloquent companion piece to Dylan’s recent autobiography “Chronicles Vol. 1.””. Chronicles was far cleverer in its construction and far more comical - but then it could also afford to be.
One pleasant aside as well - despite re-evaluation of late (See for example unfairly! Llewyn Davis) Dave Van Ronk comes across very well – balanced, informative and one of the key talking heads in the first half (he disappears when no longer in the Dylan circle). Similarly Greil Marcus and spritely minded septuagenarian (as he was then) Izzy Young come across as sharp and add extra commentary often mockingly of Dylans traits - not least his early penchant for stealing other people’s records! But it is Bob Dylan’s recent interview that is most informative, tempting to see in its entirety. There is however one caveat to even that - as Bob Dylan gets older he seems to delve more into the Classical world – here he is no different to many people - but early in this documentary there is one vignette may be quite telling - as he seems to explore the Odysseus myth. He states himself constantly in search of and for returning home, but in the process of course Odysseus needed to wear repeated disguises, perhaps this is just another, better perfected on in front of the media again (see also his Nobel Prize speak as well as Richard Thomas’ Why Dylan Matters).
The list of production companies shows how much effort was put into sourcing some of the footage and invested in making this a success for Scorsese US PBS and in the UK the BBC. Also the length - as a compliment is not tiring or exhaustive - despite running at nearly 4 hours long although presented as a piece of theatre it is divided into two parts (or 2 sides of an LP - which can be watched separately or consecutively as a part of the greater composition without detracting from the story and narratives. And perhaps at this point it is important to point out A career retrospective this is most certainly not - No Direction Home deals only with the early part of Dylan's career, from his home-town roots (Hibbing) and ending in 1966 with the advent of the rock and roll butterfly emerging from a folk cocoon.
I was particularly excited about watching this documentary above and beyond many others on Dylan or anyone else. It is consistently praised and held up as the best there is and whilst it is good, there are others out there more entertaining and less reverential to their muse or main subject. Having watched most Dylan documentaries over the years this is in a similar vein to the Rolling Stones Shine A Light documentary Scorsese did some years later. It adds nothing new for anyone beyond a fair weather passing fan. That said - It does have 2 masterful and very important saving graces which redeem it. These are the exclusive, to date largely unseen footage, all of which is interesting and a pleasant surprise but even the items that had been available on bootleg video are also higher resolution and better quality than that which i had seen to date - showing how much access and influence Scorsese has. Secondly and critically the most interesting aspect of this documentary and worth the price of the ticket alone is the recent interview with the man himself - an aged and considered Dylan. He is, or at least comes across as reflective, eloquent, considered and possibly even honest! Unusually he is not cryptic, he is considered and seems to be answering history face on. This could though be a new Odyssean face which offers excellently executed false truths. This is of course the man who has spent so much of his career laying false trails and telling downright lies about himself, that perhaps even he doesnt know the truth anymore. But it doesnt seem to be the case - especially when compared to his vague but amusing autobiography Chronicle. This apparently honest Dylan is a nice contrast to the collected press conferences within the documentary which are a nice curiosity, highlighting how clever Dylan was and is in being reflective in interview style or reaction to interview questions. .. turning their absurdity of the weaker and more irrelevant questions onto the questioner. He did this well in the less heavily edited “Dont Look Back” documentary released at the time (c1967).
I certainly don’t agree with the implied high art of this documentary when Phil Gallo declares this is “ creating an eloquent companion piece to Dylan’s recent autobiography “Chronicles Vol. 1.””. Chronicles was far cleverer in its construction and far more comical - but then it could also afford to be.
One pleasant aside as well - despite re-evaluation of late (See for example unfairly! Llewyn Davis) Dave Van Ronk comes across very well – balanced, informative and one of the key talking heads in the first half (he disappears when no longer in the Dylan circle). Similarly Greil Marcus and spritely minded septuagenarian (as he was then) Izzy Young come across as sharp and add extra commentary often mockingly of Dylans traits - not least his early penchant for stealing other people’s records! But it is Bob Dylan’s recent interview that is most informative, tempting to see in its entirety. There is however one caveat to even that - as Bob Dylan gets older he seems to delve more into the Classical world – here he is no different to many people - but early in this documentary there is one vignette may be quite telling - as he seems to explore the Odysseus myth. He states himself constantly in search of and for returning home, but in the process of course Odysseus needed to wear repeated disguises, perhaps this is just another, better perfected on in front of the media again (see also his Nobel Prize speak as well as Richard Thomas’ Why Dylan Matters).
The list of production companies shows how much effort was put into sourcing some of the footage and invested in making this a success for Scorsese US PBS and in the UK the BBC. Also the length - as a compliment is not tiring or exhaustive - despite running at nearly 4 hours long although presented as a piece of theatre it is divided into two parts (or 2 sides of an LP - which can be watched separately or consecutively as a part of the greater composition without detracting from the story and narratives. And perhaps at this point it is important to point out A career retrospective this is most certainly not - No Direction Home deals only with the early part of Dylan's career, from his home-town roots (Hibbing) and ending in 1966 with the advent of the rock and roll butterfly emerging from a folk cocoon.
Jeff Beck: Still on the Run BBC Documentary 2018
This is an interesting but hardly enthralling documentary about the guitar genius Jeff Beck. Beck himself has had an interesting non conformist career as a ‘pop’ musician, inspiring deep devotion from his diverse but loyal fan base. Following the same path as apparently ‘every’ British school boy born in the mid-1940s he started out listening to the imported American Blues and spent some time as a talented purveyor of that in the Yardbirds. In conjunction with this came a fascination with American cars as well. This manifested itself in the documentary in some simple but eye catching graphics as well as classic car footage. Unlike many of his contemporaries, Beck was always seeking something more in the music as well, constantly craving a greater breadth than the traditional rhythm and blues his contemporaries stuck with. He diversified through the decades into heavy rock more than most - even acknowledging the merits of heavy metal - and into the experimental side of jazz where he slipped off many listener’s radar, and yet others followed more intently.
The documentary itself was lacking in lively narrative and consequently suffered from too many omissions - some things can hurt more much more than cars and girls. They didn’t touch on his work with Roger Waters or Amused to Death which many argue hold as some of his best work, and failed to fully capture how notoriously temperamental he could be at points throughout his career. Instead, as to be expected perhaps, the film climaxed in his most recent album Loud Hailer with the relatively unheard of Bones. This leaves the whole film feeling less like a quality retrospective and more an extended advert for that release.
This is an interesting but hardly enthralling documentary about the guitar genius Jeff Beck. Beck himself has had an interesting non conformist career as a ‘pop’ musician, inspiring deep devotion from his diverse but loyal fan base. Following the same path as apparently ‘every’ British school boy born in the mid-1940s he started out listening to the imported American Blues and spent some time as a talented purveyor of that in the Yardbirds. In conjunction with this came a fascination with American cars as well. This manifested itself in the documentary in some simple but eye catching graphics as well as classic car footage. Unlike many of his contemporaries, Beck was always seeking something more in the music as well, constantly craving a greater breadth than the traditional rhythm and blues his contemporaries stuck with. He diversified through the decades into heavy rock more than most - even acknowledging the merits of heavy metal - and into the experimental side of jazz where he slipped off many listener’s radar, and yet others followed more intently.
The documentary itself was lacking in lively narrative and consequently suffered from too many omissions - some things can hurt more much more than cars and girls. They didn’t touch on his work with Roger Waters or Amused to Death which many argue hold as some of his best work, and failed to fully capture how notoriously temperamental he could be at points throughout his career. Instead, as to be expected perhaps, the film climaxed in his most recent album Loud Hailer with the relatively unheard of Bones. This leaves the whole film feeling less like a quality retrospective and more an extended advert for that release.
Let the Fury Have the Hour. A Clash/Punk Documentary. 2012 1h 40 min doc
Although notionally a music documentary, this film is in fact more of a history lesson or social commentary about the changing nature of politics and life in the 1980s, it just so happens that all the talking heads are musicians. It is, I believe, a spin off film of a book of the same name. The title, Let Fury Have the Hour, is taken from The Clash’s “Clampdown”, a song on their 1979 masterpiece London Calling, but despite the band's strong military themes and images, the film captures the frustration and feelings of powerlessness many felt at the direction the English speaking world lurched towards during this decade. Though the slow descent into far right politics and capitalist greed dictating policies may have begun long before that - see for example Garnett 2008 for a narrative on the events themselves, from the successful coup d'état in Chile in 1973 and the appointment of Margaret Thatcher’s long time friend Augusto Pinochet as leader.
The film itself is interesting in part because it does highlight a number of artists who clearly think in detail about their art and seek to comment on the bigger picture. It is fortunate that most of those who feel the desire to comment are also considered and eloquent (clearly some more than others). They include Billy Bragg, Tom Morello (Rage against the Machine), Wayne Kramer (MC5/Gang War) and Chuck D.(Public Enemy). How many of these artists were as clear in their criticisms or articulate enough to voice them at the actual time is open to interpretation - for example, during the period Wayne Kramer’s Gang War was in a downward spiral playing with ‘Chinese Rocks’ alongside Johnny Thunders, whilst Chuck D was famously at war with the entire (white) establishment and I would have liked to have heard his comments on the dichotomy of Public Enemy and female representations during this era.
Trying to chronicle how a generation of artists, thinkers, and activists used their creativity as a response to the reactionary politics that came to define our culture in the 1980s is a difficult task, though this film loosely succeeds. It is not as sharp or concise as it could be. Editing some of the talking down or better contextual linking would have helped tighten the narrative. What is lacking most though is the presence of a strong director on this film. Antonino D’Ambrosio fails to hold this together either as a narrative or ultimately show why we should care today (but we should). Other than imparting how a lost cause slipped through certain musician’s hands in the 1980s this does little beyond recording for posterity a time and desire undermined with the elections of Reagan and Thatcher. Ultimately the left ‘lost’ when the Berlin Wall came down and Western rhetoric started talking of a victory of ‘capitalism over communism’, with no allowance for a happy hybrid. The Right’s natural inclination towards personal wealth meant it was able to shore up its position. It may have been a hollow victory, but one that rabid capitalism took to its heart and exploited for every last usable resource. This story does not have a happy ending; time will tell if documentaries like this help to bring the consensus back round before it is too late.
Although notionally a music documentary, this film is in fact more of a history lesson or social commentary about the changing nature of politics and life in the 1980s, it just so happens that all the talking heads are musicians. It is, I believe, a spin off film of a book of the same name. The title, Let Fury Have the Hour, is taken from The Clash’s “Clampdown”, a song on their 1979 masterpiece London Calling, but despite the band's strong military themes and images, the film captures the frustration and feelings of powerlessness many felt at the direction the English speaking world lurched towards during this decade. Though the slow descent into far right politics and capitalist greed dictating policies may have begun long before that - see for example Garnett 2008 for a narrative on the events themselves, from the successful coup d'état in Chile in 1973 and the appointment of Margaret Thatcher’s long time friend Augusto Pinochet as leader.
The film itself is interesting in part because it does highlight a number of artists who clearly think in detail about their art and seek to comment on the bigger picture. It is fortunate that most of those who feel the desire to comment are also considered and eloquent (clearly some more than others). They include Billy Bragg, Tom Morello (Rage against the Machine), Wayne Kramer (MC5/Gang War) and Chuck D.(Public Enemy). How many of these artists were as clear in their criticisms or articulate enough to voice them at the actual time is open to interpretation - for example, during the period Wayne Kramer’s Gang War was in a downward spiral playing with ‘Chinese Rocks’ alongside Johnny Thunders, whilst Chuck D was famously at war with the entire (white) establishment and I would have liked to have heard his comments on the dichotomy of Public Enemy and female representations during this era.
Trying to chronicle how a generation of artists, thinkers, and activists used their creativity as a response to the reactionary politics that came to define our culture in the 1980s is a difficult task, though this film loosely succeeds. It is not as sharp or concise as it could be. Editing some of the talking down or better contextual linking would have helped tighten the narrative. What is lacking most though is the presence of a strong director on this film. Antonino D’Ambrosio fails to hold this together either as a narrative or ultimately show why we should care today (but we should). Other than imparting how a lost cause slipped through certain musician’s hands in the 1980s this does little beyond recording for posterity a time and desire undermined with the elections of Reagan and Thatcher. Ultimately the left ‘lost’ when the Berlin Wall came down and Western rhetoric started talking of a victory of ‘capitalism over communism’, with no allowance for a happy hybrid. The Right’s natural inclination towards personal wealth meant it was able to shore up its position. It may have been a hollow victory, but one that rabid capitalism took to its heart and exploited for every last usable resource. This story does not have a happy ending; time will tell if documentaries like this help to bring the consensus back round before it is too late.
Sinatra Documentary - All or Nothing at All.
The film was released to celebrate 100th year of Sinatra’s birth (2015 - I am hardly up to date!). I finally watched it in 2018. Prior to that I have watched and read a lot about Ol’ Blue Eyes. I am in thrall of his charisma, his stage presence and his voice. Boy - what a voice. This 2-part TV documentary, made by HBO, had the very rare skill of striking the right balance between song, performance, chronology and history. It gave a well-rounded portrayal of both the man and his success. But it also didn’t hold back in acknowledging his foibles, failings and frustrations. All compressed within just 4 hours of documentary. I knew all of the events and ‘facts’ around this documentary - but it managed to present it in a style that didnt feel like it was rehashing old well known narratives. Alex Gibney is a talented Director. He manages to ensure all the talking heads, new and old, add extra dynamics to an otherwise well-known story.
When dealing with cultural icons and established figures of the 20th century especially the facts are often well known - and so to add a new life to them is difficult. This documentary was well-framed and structured around the songs Sinatra himself chose for his 1971 Farewell concert (of course in true show business style …. He was back). It is clear from those featured, even if some items discussed were sensitive, that this documentary was made with the blessing of the Sinatra estate and features family members as well as those well connected and influential at the time are involved in giving their often considered and insightful comments. The talking heads are not dry or sycophantic. Indeed, Sinatra was one of them; this included long self-narration from a couple of Sinatra’s later life interviews. Sinatra had his foibles beyond just his peccadilloes. Everyone knows about his infamous taste in women and his brushes with the Mafia. Much wasn’t answered directly here - and never can be - but it dealt with nonetheless.
One slight criticism though - whilst the music featured heavily it could have featured even more. There was much given over to Sinatra’s ladies and politics - at the expense of say some of the first ever concept albums or the way Sinatra sought out and facilitated the genius of those who worked with him - especially Sam Cahn and Nelson Riddle as well as a very young Quincy Jones. Overall though a great representation of a great, if somewhat colourful, man.
The film was released to celebrate 100th year of Sinatra’s birth (2015 - I am hardly up to date!). I finally watched it in 2018. Prior to that I have watched and read a lot about Ol’ Blue Eyes. I am in thrall of his charisma, his stage presence and his voice. Boy - what a voice. This 2-part TV documentary, made by HBO, had the very rare skill of striking the right balance between song, performance, chronology and history. It gave a well-rounded portrayal of both the man and his success. But it also didn’t hold back in acknowledging his foibles, failings and frustrations. All compressed within just 4 hours of documentary. I knew all of the events and ‘facts’ around this documentary - but it managed to present it in a style that didnt feel like it was rehashing old well known narratives. Alex Gibney is a talented Director. He manages to ensure all the talking heads, new and old, add extra dynamics to an otherwise well-known story.
When dealing with cultural icons and established figures of the 20th century especially the facts are often well known - and so to add a new life to them is difficult. This documentary was well-framed and structured around the songs Sinatra himself chose for his 1971 Farewell concert (of course in true show business style …. He was back). It is clear from those featured, even if some items discussed were sensitive, that this documentary was made with the blessing of the Sinatra estate and features family members as well as those well connected and influential at the time are involved in giving their often considered and insightful comments. The talking heads are not dry or sycophantic. Indeed, Sinatra was one of them; this included long self-narration from a couple of Sinatra’s later life interviews. Sinatra had his foibles beyond just his peccadilloes. Everyone knows about his infamous taste in women and his brushes with the Mafia. Much wasn’t answered directly here - and never can be - but it dealt with nonetheless.
One slight criticism though - whilst the music featured heavily it could have featured even more. There was much given over to Sinatra’s ladies and politics - at the expense of say some of the first ever concept albums or the way Sinatra sought out and facilitated the genius of those who worked with him - especially Sam Cahn and Nelson Riddle as well as a very young Quincy Jones. Overall though a great representation of a great, if somewhat colourful, man.
Harry Smiths Heaven and Earth Magic.
I watched this solely because about a decade prior to the making of this film Harry Smith was responsible for putting together one of the most influential collections of music ever recorded. The Anthology of American recordings - now housed in the Smithsonian and re-released by them in 1997. (Its original release was 1952). I therefore watched this strange film to add context to the man and his myth. (And even from the outset his identity was a myth).
This one hour film is both weird and strangely involving. Strikingly similar in style and contents to Monty Python’s imagery some 10 years later this is curious but also what we might now call avant garde and indulgent as well as outlandish. It has to be said though, ultimately there is no obvious theme or narrative through the images so it leaves the entire visual feeling largely pointless. It is however a weird way to spend an hour - probably even weirder, and possibly even pleasurable, were i to enjoy it with a doobie (jay/toke etc), which i didnt have the good fortune!
I watched this solely because about a decade prior to the making of this film Harry Smith was responsible for putting together one of the most influential collections of music ever recorded. The Anthology of American recordings - now housed in the Smithsonian and re-released by them in 1997. (Its original release was 1952). I therefore watched this strange film to add context to the man and his myth. (And even from the outset his identity was a myth).
This one hour film is both weird and strangely involving. Strikingly similar in style and contents to Monty Python’s imagery some 10 years later this is curious but also what we might now call avant garde and indulgent as well as outlandish. It has to be said though, ultimately there is no obvious theme or narrative through the images so it leaves the entire visual feeling largely pointless. It is however a weird way to spend an hour - probably even weirder, and possibly even pleasurable, were i to enjoy it with a doobie (jay/toke etc), which i didnt have the good fortune!
WARNING - Hagiography !
Tom Petty: Runnin’ Down a Dream. Peter Bogdanovich 2007
Before this documentary I knew very little about Tom Petty. The sum total of my knowledge, beyond a few big singles and a greatest hits, was that he was a good ol’ Florida boy and had somehow fallen in with a lot of older, and I thought more talented, musicians during the 1980s. This 4-hour opus gave me a far more detailed picture, crammed as it was with information and details, and left me in little doubt that I needed to do more digging. The film certainly kindled that interest and I would advise anyone with even a passing interest in him to tune in. It is easily accessible but also nicely structured to mean that the 4 hours dont have to be done over one sitting - we (myself and my wife who before the film was not a fan either) watched this over 2 nights. But compliments to the presentation and construction we were keen to get back to it and never bored. Petty himself comes across as likeable, charismatic, hardworking and honest in his recollections. His interviews hold the film together but he is not, and was not, alone: the Heartbreakers and related entourage (Stevie Nicks amongst them) and all the relevant well selected talking heads add something to this enthralling film.
Again less a review and more another homage!
Tom Petty: Runnin’ Down a Dream. Peter Bogdanovich 2007
Before this documentary I knew very little about Tom Petty. The sum total of my knowledge, beyond a few big singles and a greatest hits, was that he was a good ol’ Florida boy and had somehow fallen in with a lot of older, and I thought more talented, musicians during the 1980s. This 4-hour opus gave me a far more detailed picture, crammed as it was with information and details, and left me in little doubt that I needed to do more digging. The film certainly kindled that interest and I would advise anyone with even a passing interest in him to tune in. It is easily accessible but also nicely structured to mean that the 4 hours dont have to be done over one sitting - we (myself and my wife who before the film was not a fan either) watched this over 2 nights. But compliments to the presentation and construction we were keen to get back to it and never bored. Petty himself comes across as likeable, charismatic, hardworking and honest in his recollections. His interviews hold the film together but he is not, and was not, alone: the Heartbreakers and related entourage (Stevie Nicks amongst them) and all the relevant well selected talking heads add something to this enthralling film.
Again less a review and more another homage!
Tom Petty ...... Take a Bow!
Winston Watson. An unassuming legend
Bob Dylan’s Never Ending Tour Diaries: Drummer Winston Watson’s Incredible Journey. Written and Directed by Joel Gibert. 2009
Here is a surprise gem. And something i stumbled across on youtube only because it followed the fifth or sixth consecutive thing I had been watching on the eminent Mr Bob Dylan. The magnitude and even gravitas of some of them could get a bit heavy (‘give the anarchist a cigarette’). But this 90 minute documentary was more than light relief it was the zenith of watching, striking the right balance between light hearted and the heaviness of Mr Dylan’s apparent public solemnity. What makes this documentary though is not necessarily the content or the main subject but the conveyor: Winston Watson joined Bob Dylan’s band in 1992 and left in 1996. His presentation and manner here is as a thoughtful, considered, perceptive and funny but above all eloquent individual. From a narrative point of view he proves, crucially, to be an entertaining historian. No dry narrative here. In fact had there been a dry narrative the cheap indie production would have failed immediately. Instead i sat attentive for the full programme and ended up wanting more when it was over. You don't necessarily need an interest in Dylan's late touring, nor even in Dylan himself, as Watson's contagious enthusiasm is for music in general. Watson presents himself as an Everyman astounded by his good luck to be able to meet and play with some of the most famous and best musicians in the industry.
Following a loose chronology Watson narrates his years with the famous singer featured alongside his own footage from a Video 8 Camera. Watson presents a warm collection of fond reminiscences and anecdotes from the various tours (or his part of the never ending tour). But this is not big budget - the soundtrack to the images throughout most of it is from the directors tribute band ‘Highway 61’ not Dylans own versions.
Based upon my albeit limited knowledge of Dylan’s touring entourage it really is hard to imagine another Dylan band member coming forward to offer and execute such frank, self-deprecating and humourous story of his time in the machine that spat him out, but they do help explain why Dylan kept this heavy rock drummer around him for 5 years and over 400 gigs. Make no mistake Watson makes this. Truly if you even have a passing interest in the machinations of the Never Ending tour or Dylan the man, watch this and enjoy.
Here is a surprise gem. And something i stumbled across on youtube only because it followed the fifth or sixth consecutive thing I had been watching on the eminent Mr Bob Dylan. The magnitude and even gravitas of some of them could get a bit heavy (‘give the anarchist a cigarette’). But this 90 minute documentary was more than light relief it was the zenith of watching, striking the right balance between light hearted and the heaviness of Mr Dylan’s apparent public solemnity. What makes this documentary though is not necessarily the content or the main subject but the conveyor: Winston Watson joined Bob Dylan’s band in 1992 and left in 1996. His presentation and manner here is as a thoughtful, considered, perceptive and funny but above all eloquent individual. From a narrative point of view he proves, crucially, to be an entertaining historian. No dry narrative here. In fact had there been a dry narrative the cheap indie production would have failed immediately. Instead i sat attentive for the full programme and ended up wanting more when it was over. You don't necessarily need an interest in Dylan's late touring, nor even in Dylan himself, as Watson's contagious enthusiasm is for music in general. Watson presents himself as an Everyman astounded by his good luck to be able to meet and play with some of the most famous and best musicians in the industry.
Following a loose chronology Watson narrates his years with the famous singer featured alongside his own footage from a Video 8 Camera. Watson presents a warm collection of fond reminiscences and anecdotes from the various tours (or his part of the never ending tour). But this is not big budget - the soundtrack to the images throughout most of it is from the directors tribute band ‘Highway 61’ not Dylans own versions.
Based upon my albeit limited knowledge of Dylan’s touring entourage it really is hard to imagine another Dylan band member coming forward to offer and execute such frank, self-deprecating and humourous story of his time in the machine that spat him out, but they do help explain why Dylan kept this heavy rock drummer around him for 5 years and over 400 gigs. Make no mistake Watson makes this. Truly if you even have a passing interest in the machinations of the Never Ending tour or Dylan the man, watch this and enjoy.
Scream for me Sarajevo 2 hours 2016
Bosnian actor turned director Tarik Hodzic’s first feature length film offering a musical perspective on the siege of Sarajevo. Still the longest siege of a capital city in modern times. Given the location this is a hard hitting documentary of relatively recent events in war torn Europe. Some return to site 20 years later, but judging from the more recent footage it is amazing, even in 2016, how pock marked Sarajevo still is. What it lacked initially was a bit more context which would have made the start of the film a bit less confusing. I had forgotten the nuance of the conflict - the three way clash of cultures - pointedly not explored in the film. Perhaps more broadly that didn’t matter. Instead it made the point that it was kids who just wanted to make music. It does not address, beyond cursory mention, the politics or ethnicity of the genocide that is going on around them focusing instead on a few music crazy, band forming, metal heads trapped in the city. Despite that omission this is an interesting film. Mainly subtitled from (presumably) Croat and Bosnian this is a story that is always building to the arrival, on site and on screen, of Bruce Dickinson - then between Iron Maiden (replaced by Blaze Bayley) and trying to launch a solo career. His influence and presence spreads through the whole film; in many ways making it entertaining, well-constructed and professionally executed. This gave fascinating glimpse at lot of things. War torn Sarajevo people. War and perhaps western man’s inclinations. But for duration of the gig people lost themselves in the music. A worthy and enjoyable film.
Bosnian actor turned director Tarik Hodzic’s first feature length film offering a musical perspective on the siege of Sarajevo. Still the longest siege of a capital city in modern times. Given the location this is a hard hitting documentary of relatively recent events in war torn Europe. Some return to site 20 years later, but judging from the more recent footage it is amazing, even in 2016, how pock marked Sarajevo still is. What it lacked initially was a bit more context which would have made the start of the film a bit less confusing. I had forgotten the nuance of the conflict - the three way clash of cultures - pointedly not explored in the film. Perhaps more broadly that didn’t matter. Instead it made the point that it was kids who just wanted to make music. It does not address, beyond cursory mention, the politics or ethnicity of the genocide that is going on around them focusing instead on a few music crazy, band forming, metal heads trapped in the city. Despite that omission this is an interesting film. Mainly subtitled from (presumably) Croat and Bosnian this is a story that is always building to the arrival, on site and on screen, of Bruce Dickinson - then between Iron Maiden (replaced by Blaze Bayley) and trying to launch a solo career. His influence and presence spreads through the whole film; in many ways making it entertaining, well-constructed and professionally executed. This gave fascinating glimpse at lot of things. War torn Sarajevo people. War and perhaps western man’s inclinations. But for duration of the gig people lost themselves in the music. A worthy and enjoyable film.
Eat the Document 52 minute documentary. D. A. Pennebaker, Recorded 1966, Never released
Eat the Document is a documentary of Bob Dylan's 1966 tour of the United Kingdom with the Hawks (who later more famously because The Band). This was the famous ‘over amplified second half’ tour - dubbed by some fans interviewed here as “a bloody disgrace” and “traitorous” (presumably to folk), or best of all “crawling through the bloody gutter”. This tour was to become infamous for the now legendary ‘Judas’ cry at the Manchester Free Trade Hall. (Possibly cried by Keith Butler who is also interviewed in this documentary). Ultimately though it was Dylan and not the fans who was right when he observed “I know that the music is real, more real than the boos.” Again not a little ironic given Dylan’s own penchant for falsehoods.
This film is a very strange, staccato documentary, reputedly edited by Dylan himself, and for the last 2 decades of 20th Century much sought after by bootleg collectors. Whoever put this together the results make for an hour of footage valuable at the very least from a historical and musical point of view, even if it is hard to follow from an artistic point of view. Musically this is a goldmine for Dylan fans both for on stage and behind the scenes performance footage largely unavailable elsewhere. The most interesting of these is the country lilt ‘What Kind Of Friend Is This’. There is also some great video of a session between Johnny Cash and Dylan but a surreal moment with John Lennon and Dylan in the back of a car behaving like naughty school boys for the camera. Judging from the frame selections the documentary’s aim is to give the viewer an impression of the frenetic energy of touring with a band both live on stage and off it. Therefore, we, the viewer, are in constant flux. We have a stream of hand held footage in or of cars, trains and people being ushers or in transition or motion. The real message Dylan may have been trying to convey. Interweaving live onstage performances, with behind the scenes and then moments of freedom away from the venue this footage aimed to create an image of Dylan and his entourage as cool both in attitude and performance. With this in mind the editing actually works well, although ‘hurry up and wait’ is the feeling given from the collage of tracks and events, sometimes even during the songs themselves.
Seldom addressed elsewhere in discussion of this film is the interest fact that the footage is not confined to Britain (or England as US publications erroneously state, perhaps confusing it with Dont Look Back). There are also some brief moments featuring Danish (or possibly Swedish) footage - where a jovial, if somewhat sexist, Robbie Robertson, still with Aussie Dollars left in his pocket from the last leg of the tour, attempts to buy a random person’s girlfriend.
The film (or the bootleg version I saw) opened and closed with reputed drug taking and incoherent conversation (Robbie Robertson and Dylan opening, John Lennon and Dylan closing). Fun to do, not always fun to watch. But in between the main focus in the music. It is though easy to see why the final cut was rejected by the TV company as inaccessible to a ‘mainstream’ audience. It is not as coherent as Dont Look Back, recorded the year before (1965) and released the year after (1967). This film instead is a compelling view front and backstage of a vibrant era and what critics largely call the defining period of his career (Renza, Marcus, McCarron and many more).
I do not need a strong narrative to enjoy watching musicians perform - and at points this is just that - a performance of music and goofing for the camera. If you enjoyed Dont Look Back, then follow it up with watching this somewhere online, but to see its inheritor or logical absurd successor then just watch This is Spinal Tap.
Eat the Document is a documentary of Bob Dylan's 1966 tour of the United Kingdom with the Hawks (who later more famously because The Band). This was the famous ‘over amplified second half’ tour - dubbed by some fans interviewed here as “a bloody disgrace” and “traitorous” (presumably to folk), or best of all “crawling through the bloody gutter”. This tour was to become infamous for the now legendary ‘Judas’ cry at the Manchester Free Trade Hall. (Possibly cried by Keith Butler who is also interviewed in this documentary). Ultimately though it was Dylan and not the fans who was right when he observed “I know that the music is real, more real than the boos.” Again not a little ironic given Dylan’s own penchant for falsehoods.
This film is a very strange, staccato documentary, reputedly edited by Dylan himself, and for the last 2 decades of 20th Century much sought after by bootleg collectors. Whoever put this together the results make for an hour of footage valuable at the very least from a historical and musical point of view, even if it is hard to follow from an artistic point of view. Musically this is a goldmine for Dylan fans both for on stage and behind the scenes performance footage largely unavailable elsewhere. The most interesting of these is the country lilt ‘What Kind Of Friend Is This’. There is also some great video of a session between Johnny Cash and Dylan but a surreal moment with John Lennon and Dylan in the back of a car behaving like naughty school boys for the camera. Judging from the frame selections the documentary’s aim is to give the viewer an impression of the frenetic energy of touring with a band both live on stage and off it. Therefore, we, the viewer, are in constant flux. We have a stream of hand held footage in or of cars, trains and people being ushers or in transition or motion. The real message Dylan may have been trying to convey. Interweaving live onstage performances, with behind the scenes and then moments of freedom away from the venue this footage aimed to create an image of Dylan and his entourage as cool both in attitude and performance. With this in mind the editing actually works well, although ‘hurry up and wait’ is the feeling given from the collage of tracks and events, sometimes even during the songs themselves.
Seldom addressed elsewhere in discussion of this film is the interest fact that the footage is not confined to Britain (or England as US publications erroneously state, perhaps confusing it with Dont Look Back). There are also some brief moments featuring Danish (or possibly Swedish) footage - where a jovial, if somewhat sexist, Robbie Robertson, still with Aussie Dollars left in his pocket from the last leg of the tour, attempts to buy a random person’s girlfriend.
The film (or the bootleg version I saw) opened and closed with reputed drug taking and incoherent conversation (Robbie Robertson and Dylan opening, John Lennon and Dylan closing). Fun to do, not always fun to watch. But in between the main focus in the music. It is though easy to see why the final cut was rejected by the TV company as inaccessible to a ‘mainstream’ audience. It is not as coherent as Dont Look Back, recorded the year before (1965) and released the year after (1967). This film instead is a compelling view front and backstage of a vibrant era and what critics largely call the defining period of his career (Renza, Marcus, McCarron and many more).
I do not need a strong narrative to enjoy watching musicians perform - and at points this is just that - a performance of music and goofing for the camera. If you enjoyed Dont Look Back, then follow it up with watching this somewhere online, but to see its inheritor or logical absurd successor then just watch This is Spinal Tap.
Keith Richards: Under the Influence A Netflix film
W H Auden once remarked “Young people, who are still uncertain of their identity, often try on a succession of masks in the hope of finding the one which suits them — the one, in fact, which is not a mask.” ("One of the Family” Forewords and Afterwords.)
Keith Richards is in many ways the epitome of the nihilism of rebellion and youth culture and possibly, in a Peter Pan fashion, has been stuck with his same mask that took shape in the late '60s and has proved hard to remove. But of late (since perhaps the mid 90s) he appears to have grown increasingly comfortable in that mask. This exciting documentary touches on, but doesn't tackle it full on, this elder statesman of Rocks shift from ‘permanently beautifully waste’ to grandfather of Rock, instead focusing on his more mellowed sage-like perspective on all that has gone before in the short time Rock and Rock has been on the planet . Although confessional in places, it seems to me that increasingly everything Keith touches is a little bit sincere, a little bit contrived but always a lot interesting. Although some see him as being vacuous, a bit crap and ultimately irrelevant nowadays, I see him as a clever and entertaining person both above and beneath the mask. A man who is now even comfortable, at points, to be a conscious parody of himself. He even seems increasingly happy with that - and it is this generally contented disposition that comes across in this documentary. Perhaps Richards has even settled into his mask and is more comfortable in himself consequently - living up to Wilde’s 19th century premise that “Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.” (The Critic as Artist).
He is perhaps even more aware of this now - declaring at one point that some things are “an image man, image like a ball and chain, not like a shadow” - but conversely he never seems to stub out that mythical Marlboro cigarette. Tom Waits makes a great point: he is putting out a persona but a marketed image as a type of armour, to develop as a human being as well as the marketed image is “much safer than putting your own ass out there! - you can’t buy a persona you can make it up or be it”!
The overall documentary reveals few new things. There is little left unsaid or unearthed about most members of the greatest rock’n’roll band in the world. But what it presents it does well up to a point - it is not perfect. Chronologically it jumps around (85-89 break up jumps back to the Muddy Waters Checkerboard gig 1981), but it is a useful vehicle for Keith's new solo album. And that explains why the famous Chuck Berry fracas and other personal set-backs are only briefly touched on and not addressed critically - the focus being on the man and his art in the studio and on the stage. However, somewhat alarmingly the documentary has a finality about it memorable of Liam Clancy's Yellow Bittern and the self titled Lemmy - both made only shortly before their deaths - though let’s hope this is not the case!
W H Auden once remarked “Young people, who are still uncertain of their identity, often try on a succession of masks in the hope of finding the one which suits them — the one, in fact, which is not a mask.” ("One of the Family” Forewords and Afterwords.)
Keith Richards is in many ways the epitome of the nihilism of rebellion and youth culture and possibly, in a Peter Pan fashion, has been stuck with his same mask that took shape in the late '60s and has proved hard to remove. But of late (since perhaps the mid 90s) he appears to have grown increasingly comfortable in that mask. This exciting documentary touches on, but doesn't tackle it full on, this elder statesman of Rocks shift from ‘permanently beautifully waste’ to grandfather of Rock, instead focusing on his more mellowed sage-like perspective on all that has gone before in the short time Rock and Rock has been on the planet . Although confessional in places, it seems to me that increasingly everything Keith touches is a little bit sincere, a little bit contrived but always a lot interesting. Although some see him as being vacuous, a bit crap and ultimately irrelevant nowadays, I see him as a clever and entertaining person both above and beneath the mask. A man who is now even comfortable, at points, to be a conscious parody of himself. He even seems increasingly happy with that - and it is this generally contented disposition that comes across in this documentary. Perhaps Richards has even settled into his mask and is more comfortable in himself consequently - living up to Wilde’s 19th century premise that “Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.” (The Critic as Artist).
He is perhaps even more aware of this now - declaring at one point that some things are “an image man, image like a ball and chain, not like a shadow” - but conversely he never seems to stub out that mythical Marlboro cigarette. Tom Waits makes a great point: he is putting out a persona but a marketed image as a type of armour, to develop as a human being as well as the marketed image is “much safer than putting your own ass out there! - you can’t buy a persona you can make it up or be it”!
The overall documentary reveals few new things. There is little left unsaid or unearthed about most members of the greatest rock’n’roll band in the world. But what it presents it does well up to a point - it is not perfect. Chronologically it jumps around (85-89 break up jumps back to the Muddy Waters Checkerboard gig 1981), but it is a useful vehicle for Keith's new solo album. And that explains why the famous Chuck Berry fracas and other personal set-backs are only briefly touched on and not addressed critically - the focus being on the man and his art in the studio and on the stage. However, somewhat alarmingly the documentary has a finality about it memorable of Liam Clancy's Yellow Bittern and the self titled Lemmy - both made only shortly before their deaths - though let’s hope this is not the case!
This motley crue were a mile a minute from about 1985 to about 1992 .... what went wrong?
Guns and Roses - the Most Dangerous Band in the World.
It is hard to believe that these ageing rockers are back on the road today. The 'most dangerous band in the world' seem to have lost their menace (and perhaps relevance), but they really did offer something dynamic and provocative from their creation up to the end of 'Use your Illusion' era. This mediocre documentary sets out to offer a taste of this in some alternative Alice in Wonderland style (was Alice in Wonderland not alternative enough?). But this vehicle for the story just comes across as weird and largely pointless - Guns n’ Roses were surreal enough without the added confusion! As an avid GnR fan this documentary added only 2 or 3 new things and no revelations. It also involved largely insignificant contributors beyond the critical Marc Canter. So instead we are given archive footage and interviews. The real gems from my point of view though were the unseen footage - LA Forum 91 , and the other LA clubs. Now that was mouth watering for begging the question … what else is out there? (And owned by Canter!)
The film claimed it had “ been painstakingly compiled from a host of exclusive, never-before-heard interviews, and the early footage of Guns fan and friend Marc Canter” The likes of the drummer, Steven Adler, was almost pitiful in his loosely reformed junkie status; Vicky Hamilton – former manager - was too busy revelling in recording for posterity how crazy they were. Canter was a real highlight as eloquent, considered balanced and knowledgeable and his footage was inspiring and not seen before.
But overall it was the White Rabbit of Jefferson Aeroplane. Inspired again by Alice in Wonderland that was critique of the pros and cons of drugs. But unfortunately all critical and analytical abilities are lost or at least weakened when taking too many drugs and you seldom realise it. Despite hoping for a cosmic experience this documentary didn't really explore the band and got lost down a rabbit hole. All in all your time would be better spent watching their Live at the Ritz.
It is hard to believe that these ageing rockers are back on the road today. The 'most dangerous band in the world' seem to have lost their menace (and perhaps relevance), but they really did offer something dynamic and provocative from their creation up to the end of 'Use your Illusion' era. This mediocre documentary sets out to offer a taste of this in some alternative Alice in Wonderland style (was Alice in Wonderland not alternative enough?). But this vehicle for the story just comes across as weird and largely pointless - Guns n’ Roses were surreal enough without the added confusion! As an avid GnR fan this documentary added only 2 or 3 new things and no revelations. It also involved largely insignificant contributors beyond the critical Marc Canter. So instead we are given archive footage and interviews. The real gems from my point of view though were the unseen footage - LA Forum 91 , and the other LA clubs. Now that was mouth watering for begging the question … what else is out there? (And owned by Canter!)
The film claimed it had “ been painstakingly compiled from a host of exclusive, never-before-heard interviews, and the early footage of Guns fan and friend Marc Canter” The likes of the drummer, Steven Adler, was almost pitiful in his loosely reformed junkie status; Vicky Hamilton – former manager - was too busy revelling in recording for posterity how crazy they were. Canter was a real highlight as eloquent, considered balanced and knowledgeable and his footage was inspiring and not seen before.
But overall it was the White Rabbit of Jefferson Aeroplane. Inspired again by Alice in Wonderland that was critique of the pros and cons of drugs. But unfortunately all critical and analytical abilities are lost or at least weakened when taking too many drugs and you seldom realise it. Despite hoping for a cosmic experience this documentary didn't really explore the band and got lost down a rabbit hole. All in all your time would be better spent watching their Live at the Ritz.
They really were exciting .... once upon a time.
Mona et Moi
This is nothing more than a Johnny Thunders vehicle. The premise is simple - a failed rock band in France and this could work, but unfortunately this film is poorly executed and the characters are poorly explored. The overall dirge is one of a love and lust story mired in the haze of drugs. Drug abuse on celluloid tends to be far more interesting when implied but this is not a subtle film, and weaker for it. It seems to have been made as a homage to Johnny's public drug use. It features a disproportionate number of shots of him which, other than artistic, seem to have nothing to do with the narrative. Overall it merely serves as a vehicle for the Thunders worship of nihilism. This was a cult that was beginning to build around the pitiful junkie, not the great emotional musician that he had been up to c.1985. Jagger and Richards got it right in 1974 when they asked if it would be enough “If I could stick a knife in my heart, Suicide right on stage” - with Johnny the crowd wanted to see that needle.
That said his screen time is perhaps worth watching for Thunders fan, just not for a film buff (I would guess!). Jerry Nolan also guests and the airport arrival scene is worth a watch - at points you get absorbed with the characters but it is difficult especially in the knowledge that the once great Johnny is dying before our eyes. Do yourself a favour and watch the Dolls at the Musikladen or the Old Grey Whistle Test instead.
This is nothing more than a Johnny Thunders vehicle. The premise is simple - a failed rock band in France and this could work, but unfortunately this film is poorly executed and the characters are poorly explored. The overall dirge is one of a love and lust story mired in the haze of drugs. Drug abuse on celluloid tends to be far more interesting when implied but this is not a subtle film, and weaker for it. It seems to have been made as a homage to Johnny's public drug use. It features a disproportionate number of shots of him which, other than artistic, seem to have nothing to do with the narrative. Overall it merely serves as a vehicle for the Thunders worship of nihilism. This was a cult that was beginning to build around the pitiful junkie, not the great emotional musician that he had been up to c.1985. Jagger and Richards got it right in 1974 when they asked if it would be enough “If I could stick a knife in my heart, Suicide right on stage” - with Johnny the crowd wanted to see that needle.
That said his screen time is perhaps worth watching for Thunders fan, just not for a film buff (I would guess!). Jerry Nolan also guests and the airport arrival scene is worth a watch - at points you get absorbed with the characters but it is difficult especially in the knowledge that the once great Johnny is dying before our eyes. Do yourself a favour and watch the Dolls at the Musikladen or the Old Grey Whistle Test instead.
Glen Campbell ‘I’ll be Me’ (Warning - Spoiler Alert - in some ways this review includes a spoiler that detracts from the effect)
Charting one man’s decline into full blown alzheimer's this is a moving, emotional biopic. It includes lots of famous talking heads from Country and Rock including the Red Hot Chilli Peppers, Bruce Springsteen and many more, all of whom, it becomes clear later have watched a loved one battle alzheimer's. Making their talk even more poignant.
But at the same time this film is also political - it is a condemnation of private health care in States. Glen Campbell could afford to decline in relative luxury and at a greatly slowed pace over years - other, poorer Americans do not share that luxury.
But ultimately this film is also the story of one man. The magnificent musician that was Glen Campbell. Even in dementia Campbell comes across as an absolute gentleman and the consummate professional who may have held on that little bit longer thanks to the magic of music. A great musician and performer and all round nice guy and that should never be forgotten.
Dont Look Back D. A. Pennebaker, 1967
D. A. Pennebaker’s 1967 film largely invented the rockumentary format and is consistently credited with being one of the most important and seminal music films ever made. It also helped to create the perennial image of Bob Dylan in the iconic Ray Bans (in England!? The sun never shines!). But then capturing the iconic in the apparently mundane is something Pennebaker does well, be it Hendrix’s guitar burning at Monterey or the politicing of War Rooms 3 decades later. The footage of this film though covers Bob Dylan’s 1965 tour of England (not Britain or the UK as sometimes stated - that is Eat the Document). It creates a mythology or implied ‘access all areas’ footage, despite the fact that Dylan only ever appears to let his guard down when he is performing. The rest of the time he is quite literally performing, be it for the camera or for the array of entourage and hangers-on in front of him.
The most interesting aspect of this film though is the interviews with print journalists that Dylan gives. To the modern viewer he comes across at various points as intelligent but also a snotty smart alec. Taken together across the whole documentary these interviews show Dylan’s interview technique as a nice arc - as he becomes more exhausted on the tour or more exasperated with the questions of the various journalists. “You dont ask the Beatles those questions do you?” he bemoans at one point. At others he is pointedly childish. Even when he does have important points he makes obliquely by sending them up or inverting their often mundane questions. Ultimately this is a good overview of an interesting year, possibly even era, and the man, who whether he wanted to or not, spearheaded it.
This film was recently (1998) selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being “culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant”
D. A. Pennebaker’s 1967 film largely invented the rockumentary format and is consistently credited with being one of the most important and seminal music films ever made. It also helped to create the perennial image of Bob Dylan in the iconic Ray Bans (in England!? The sun never shines!). But then capturing the iconic in the apparently mundane is something Pennebaker does well, be it Hendrix’s guitar burning at Monterey or the politicing of War Rooms 3 decades later. The footage of this film though covers Bob Dylan’s 1965 tour of England (not Britain or the UK as sometimes stated - that is Eat the Document). It creates a mythology or implied ‘access all areas’ footage, despite the fact that Dylan only ever appears to let his guard down when he is performing. The rest of the time he is quite literally performing, be it for the camera or for the array of entourage and hangers-on in front of him.
The most interesting aspect of this film though is the interviews with print journalists that Dylan gives. To the modern viewer he comes across at various points as intelligent but also a snotty smart alec. Taken together across the whole documentary these interviews show Dylan’s interview technique as a nice arc - as he becomes more exhausted on the tour or more exasperated with the questions of the various journalists. “You dont ask the Beatles those questions do you?” he bemoans at one point. At others he is pointedly childish. Even when he does have important points he makes obliquely by sending them up or inverting their often mundane questions. Ultimately this is a good overview of an interesting year, possibly even era, and the man, who whether he wanted to or not, spearheaded it.
This film was recently (1998) selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being “culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant”
|
LOOKING FOR JOHNNY "The legend of Johnny Thunders" (2014)
This film starts as a pretty basic biopic and documentary on the man and the myth. And it is great to see people reminisce about the flawed genius that was Johnny Thunders. Neither over the top lauding, nor over critical of his drug dependency there is sufficient critique injected to offer some balance: acknowledging that he himself wasn't afraid to play the pitiful character to his advantage. It also acknowledged how he could be self-absorbed but he made music like few others. Unfortunately though, after 100 minutes it doesn't ever really get beyond that. This is a simple biopic and little will come as a surprise or revelation for most fans. There is a spate of these of recent years - Marley (2012) being the most obvious, where to even the fair weather fan most of the information will not come either as surprise or in any way new. The story itself though is an interesting one. The New York Dolls were one of the first real proto punks. Once they split Johnny, already a junkie, descended on a one way spiral which he tried to buck a few times – but ultimately failed. Either because of his own frailties or the persona he had created with fans. This film contains a lot of speculation including Nina Antonia speculating the reason Johnny left London was visa issues, however that said she is without a doubt the world authority and so getting her was a real coup – and perhaps without her this documentary couldn't have happened. There are also a few anecdotes I had not heard (Dylan wished he'd written 'You Cant Put Your Arms Around A Memory'?). The one amazing plus to this film is the sheer array of key characters interviewed for the documentary. Some I had never heard talk about him, but knew their paths had crossed. Peter Perrett for example. However even this in effect highlighted just how big an omission David Johansen was. The Jagger to Thunders Richards. Overall a real disappointment, very little new and ultimately adds nothing to the life and legacy of Johnny Thunders. Yes - it stresses the drugs that were a big part of the flaw and a big part of the mystical appeal of the rock star. The film did not shy away or romanticise the drugs that ruined Thunders life – instead choosing to nod towards his genius song writing ability despite the insecurities. For anything more than an easy overview on the man pick up Nina Antonia’s book In Cold Blood instead. Underwhelming. |
Born to lose - The last Rock N Roll movie. Johnny Thunders
1999 90 mins
This film is not for the faint hearted. By way of context it is directed by the same man who made “Gringo: Story of a Junkie” (Lech Kowalski) and despite the interesting premise (potentially being about The life and great music of one man) they are almost identical and the music almost incidental. This film is instead built around the tragic death of Johnny Thunders in New Orleans, which in all likelihood was him succumbing to the latter stages of leukemia. But be under no illusion - this film is also all about Drugs. ‘Stilted, depressing and pitiful’ are words that could be used to describe both the later years of the main focus johnny thunders and the cast of people interviewed here. There are some lamentable characters interviewed and yet it really is a brilliant programme that desensationalises drug taking as the wasted characters recount pointless anecdotes about taking drugs with Thunders. In order for this film to work some of the characters need more context or description as to who they are - and why they are being interviewed either on street corners, darkened rooms or prisons!
There is however some brilliant live footage of Dolls and Heartbreakers and solo some of which i hadnt seem before, as well as some touching family home footage of Johnny Genzale growing up, before he became the celebrity Junkie Johnny Thunders. My main caveat would be ‘For Thunders fans only’. And if interested in his life, rather than the caricature he became and his death. This film does well to highlight what a tragedy and waste of life this was - whilst also showing the inescapable surroundings Thunders and many others find themselves in through luck, circumstance, situation and weakness.
1999 90 mins
This film is not for the faint hearted. By way of context it is directed by the same man who made “Gringo: Story of a Junkie” (Lech Kowalski) and despite the interesting premise (potentially being about The life and great music of one man) they are almost identical and the music almost incidental. This film is instead built around the tragic death of Johnny Thunders in New Orleans, which in all likelihood was him succumbing to the latter stages of leukemia. But be under no illusion - this film is also all about Drugs. ‘Stilted, depressing and pitiful’ are words that could be used to describe both the later years of the main focus johnny thunders and the cast of people interviewed here. There are some lamentable characters interviewed and yet it really is a brilliant programme that desensationalises drug taking as the wasted characters recount pointless anecdotes about taking drugs with Thunders. In order for this film to work some of the characters need more context or description as to who they are - and why they are being interviewed either on street corners, darkened rooms or prisons!
There is however some brilliant live footage of Dolls and Heartbreakers and solo some of which i hadnt seem before, as well as some touching family home footage of Johnny Genzale growing up, before he became the celebrity Junkie Johnny Thunders. My main caveat would be ‘For Thunders fans only’. And if interested in his life, rather than the caricature he became and his death. This film does well to highlight what a tragedy and waste of life this was - whilst also showing the inescapable surroundings Thunders and many others find themselves in through luck, circumstance, situation and weakness.
Marley (2012)
Although i have been excited about watching this for some time, mainly because I am a fan of the man and his music., I know nothing about the director Kevin MacDonald (though I now know he did directed The Last King Of Scotland as well!). I know to expect an interesting story about Bob Marley - I wasn't expecting a portrayal with major new revelations, but I think I was expecting or hoping for more than this pretty standard documentary. There are ultimately no revelations, no alternative angles just a simple presentation of the man by those around him, charting as it does Marley's birth through to his wickedly early death. The Ronseal of documentaries - nothing new, no new perspective, but what it did it did well. This is a great way to spend 2 hours for younger viewers, - or those who know nothing about the man. And - that said there are some positives for those who have more than a passing interest. There are some unseen tour photos, the best of which capture the fact that Bob Marley was a happyindividual (or at least smiled a lot!)
The documentary also includes some illuminating reminiscent from the Wailers and the entourage. The most colourful being Dudley Sibley and the most considered Neville Garrick.
Ultimately, and rightly, what is most interesting about this documentary is it is about the music. This documentary does that justice - never recycling songs, although some of the photographs were not 100% in chronological order which was a shame.
There are is also a quirky thing about the copy DVD I had at least - the subtitling doesn't appear to be consistent, sometimes appearing for Jamaican Patois other times for plain English all of which was relatively easy to work out!
This documentary is a simple representation and ticks all the boxes well - well produced, well presented and includes everyone who should feature on a Marley documentary - so well worth a view if you want to know about the man.
Although i have been excited about watching this for some time, mainly because I am a fan of the man and his music., I know nothing about the director Kevin MacDonald (though I now know he did directed The Last King Of Scotland as well!). I know to expect an interesting story about Bob Marley - I wasn't expecting a portrayal with major new revelations, but I think I was expecting or hoping for more than this pretty standard documentary. There are ultimately no revelations, no alternative angles just a simple presentation of the man by those around him, charting as it does Marley's birth through to his wickedly early death. The Ronseal of documentaries - nothing new, no new perspective, but what it did it did well. This is a great way to spend 2 hours for younger viewers, - or those who know nothing about the man. And - that said there are some positives for those who have more than a passing interest. There are some unseen tour photos, the best of which capture the fact that Bob Marley was a happyindividual (or at least smiled a lot!)
The documentary also includes some illuminating reminiscent from the Wailers and the entourage. The most colourful being Dudley Sibley and the most considered Neville Garrick.
Ultimately, and rightly, what is most interesting about this documentary is it is about the music. This documentary does that justice - never recycling songs, although some of the photographs were not 100% in chronological order which was a shame.
There are is also a quirky thing about the copy DVD I had at least - the subtitling doesn't appear to be consistent, sometimes appearing for Jamaican Patois other times for plain English all of which was relatively easy to work out!
This documentary is a simple representation and ticks all the boxes well - well produced, well presented and includes everyone who should feature on a Marley documentary - so well worth a view if you want to know about the man.
|
|
|
EAST END Babylon (2012)
The website for this documentary declares that there were three ways out of the East End: football, boxing and Rock ‘n’ Roll. The Cockney Rejects chose all three. This film from the outset had all the hallmarks of being terrible: a. A light- weight, slow moving documentary about a mid- table band (at best). A very ominous start with a dull background of London after the war, presumably to give the international viewers some basis and context for what was to follow, did not bode well. The unremitting focus on the poverty of the Geggus (the main members of the Cockney Rejects) family rings a bit hollow - a family with a video camera in the late 60s early 70s were hardly poor? However after initial fears this actually proved a good and informative programme exploration of and about the band - and crucially it managed to convey the information in an entertaining fashion. Yes, it skirted a fine line towards glorifying the rife football hooliganism of the 1980s, but managed to just avoid that. It could also have been more detailed on unsavory neo nazis who erroneously latched onto the band. And certainly until watching this documentary I was still of the superficial opinion that this band and the genre still courted that following - though i stand corrected. The band themselves, though, certainly captured the imagination of working class punks all over the country.
Although their detour into rock metal was not addressed in detail, I would have appreciated more details on this aspect of the band’s genesis.
Overall within the documentary there was, whilst never express regret, certainly a sense of disappointment that the band were to always be synonymous with West Ham football, and the consequently violent clashes involved with such a team at the time.
The reminiscing was interesting most of all in a historical perspective as to how areas had changed. Especially as the band now seem to live thousands of miles away – and had escaped when they could! But a curious structure of the film not addressed was also why the band were never interviewed together so I left this not knowing much more about the band now but enjoying some tracks
The website for this documentary declares that there were three ways out of the East End: football, boxing and Rock ‘n’ Roll. The Cockney Rejects chose all three. This film from the outset had all the hallmarks of being terrible: a. A light- weight, slow moving documentary about a mid- table band (at best). A very ominous start with a dull background of London after the war, presumably to give the international viewers some basis and context for what was to follow, did not bode well. The unremitting focus on the poverty of the Geggus (the main members of the Cockney Rejects) family rings a bit hollow - a family with a video camera in the late 60s early 70s were hardly poor? However after initial fears this actually proved a good and informative programme exploration of and about the band - and crucially it managed to convey the information in an entertaining fashion. Yes, it skirted a fine line towards glorifying the rife football hooliganism of the 1980s, but managed to just avoid that. It could also have been more detailed on unsavory neo nazis who erroneously latched onto the band. And certainly until watching this documentary I was still of the superficial opinion that this band and the genre still courted that following - though i stand corrected. The band themselves, though, certainly captured the imagination of working class punks all over the country.
Although their detour into rock metal was not addressed in detail, I would have appreciated more details on this aspect of the band’s genesis.
Overall within the documentary there was, whilst never express regret, certainly a sense of disappointment that the band were to always be synonymous with West Ham football, and the consequently violent clashes involved with such a team at the time.
The reminiscing was interesting most of all in a historical perspective as to how areas had changed. Especially as the band now seem to live thousands of miles away – and had escaped when they could! But a curious structure of the film not addressed was also why the band were never interviewed together so I left this not knowing much more about the band now but enjoying some tracks
Mission to Lars - Documentary (2012)
This is a nicely structured documentary following 2 two well intentioned siblings as they bring their third sibling Tom Spicer (with Fragile X Syndrome) across the US on a road trip. But this road trip had a definite purpose: following the last few dates of Metallica’s 'The Full Arsenal Tour' of America who were portrayed as Toms favourite band.
With some predictable ups and downs, tantrums, disappointments and comedy Spinal Tap moments this captured a lot in its aim and execution. This is not a work of greatness - but a good and interesting film. In some ways quaintly British, but if it were Hollywood it would have been slightly better constructed to manipulate your emotions (think Searching For Sugarman). Perhaps the real fault of the film was that the sincerity and truth got in the way of a potentially riveting story. The Director/Editor have a lot to learn to manipulate the viewers emotions. Though perhaps that wasn’t the point. They wanted to show their brother and the music fan in an impartial light, (though I assume at other points some selective editing took place!)
Overall a fun film sympathetically shot in which the main protagonists and the band come across as nice people!
This is a nicely structured documentary following 2 two well intentioned siblings as they bring their third sibling Tom Spicer (with Fragile X Syndrome) across the US on a road trip. But this road trip had a definite purpose: following the last few dates of Metallica’s 'The Full Arsenal Tour' of America who were portrayed as Toms favourite band.
With some predictable ups and downs, tantrums, disappointments and comedy Spinal Tap moments this captured a lot in its aim and execution. This is not a work of greatness - but a good and interesting film. In some ways quaintly British, but if it were Hollywood it would have been slightly better constructed to manipulate your emotions (think Searching For Sugarman). Perhaps the real fault of the film was that the sincerity and truth got in the way of a potentially riveting story. The Director/Editor have a lot to learn to manipulate the viewers emotions. Though perhaps that wasn’t the point. They wanted to show their brother and the music fan in an impartial light, (though I assume at other points some selective editing took place!)
Overall a fun film sympathetically shot in which the main protagonists and the band come across as nice people!
|
|
|
|
The Nomi Song (2004)
Finally, - some ten years after its release I got to watch this documentary (though I have owned it since shortly after its release!!) And as keen as I was, - this was a real disappointment. The questions, and ultimately the answers posed and offered in this documentary added little to what should be a fascinating story. It failed to address the sincerity or background to Nomi’s song selection and more specifically cover versions. And whilst Nomi’s almost perfect androgyny was addressed what was omitted were the controversy of specifically gay lyrics of in some of the tracks like You Don’t Own Me - being the most obvious example. Remember, this is in the same decade as engineers refused to work with jimmy Somerville. But to balance the criticism this does act as a good superficial overview - and included a lot of additional footage that I had never seen before. But often the interviews felt (and indeed were) superfluous, and, critically, the main characters outside of Klaus himself just simply weren’t that eloquent, or even articulate. The unfortunate succession of “you know’s” and “basically” left me feeling frustrated with the talking heads. There were also a lot Of "you Know... ", when we patently didnt. I cannot fault the sincerity of either those involved or of the genius subject, but there was very little analysis and it included nothing particularly revelatory. Yet again I came away wanting to know more about the man and the music and less about his rather egotistical coterie. , but this wasnt the vehicle with which to do it. |
Death: A Band called ...... (2013)
There is clearly a genre of film emerging where the storyline has to follow a pattern of 'unknown band' rediscovered thanks to the powers of the [ever-growing] internet. With Anvil (2008) and Searching for Sugarman (2012) setting the bar there is a high standard expected. For the documentary, in some ways, unfortunately, the music doesn't matter. As this film highlighted this is often the fanaticism that is of interest for record collectors - it is the rarity that is the appeal not the merit of the contents. Perhaps this is not dissimilar to wine collecting. You don't actually drink the wine you buy!*
The one thing all the rockumentaries have in common is a valid and heart warming story to tell. Death is no exception. However this film was a little too constructed. Like Anvil - does every failed musician work as a janitor at a school? And it felt at points like it was just cruising on the zeitgeist, and little more than cruising. Through no fault of the band or their music the final cut just doesn't carry your emotions as cleverly as Sugarman. Like many others of the genre though this could have been a riveting 60 minute documentary and would have dragged slightly less. Overall it may have been well produced but it just didn't have the killer seal that again for example Sugarman was able to produce.
Not without some validity this was heavily focused on the deceased brother (David) of the band. And the two remaining band members (and brothers) would clearly be happy with that. What comes across is the touching story of a tightly knit family who's band might have been cult heroes of 70's proto-punk had circumstance been different. Did the colour of their skin or their mutual intransigence about the name of the band negate any chance of success? Well it seems that with some sincerity the next generation are picking up the mantel in part thanks to internet and an elusive 7" single.
As for the music - well the film has whetted my appetite to hear more at least. The brothers seemed from first listen to be a great pioneering proto punk trio (think fellow Detroiters MC5 and the big apples New York Dolls ) . Whilst their new music will never recapture the album they are still in the studio as of now giving it a go. I hope to hear more.
* Editorial confession - I do not collect wine. I drink it. I do however collect records but i am a 'low end user' - it would appear some high end collectors merit the value and illusiveness of the tune as opposed to the contents ... just listen to some Mellow Candle for gods sake!!
There is clearly a genre of film emerging where the storyline has to follow a pattern of 'unknown band' rediscovered thanks to the powers of the [ever-growing] internet. With Anvil (2008) and Searching for Sugarman (2012) setting the bar there is a high standard expected. For the documentary, in some ways, unfortunately, the music doesn't matter. As this film highlighted this is often the fanaticism that is of interest for record collectors - it is the rarity that is the appeal not the merit of the contents. Perhaps this is not dissimilar to wine collecting. You don't actually drink the wine you buy!*
The one thing all the rockumentaries have in common is a valid and heart warming story to tell. Death is no exception. However this film was a little too constructed. Like Anvil - does every failed musician work as a janitor at a school? And it felt at points like it was just cruising on the zeitgeist, and little more than cruising. Through no fault of the band or their music the final cut just doesn't carry your emotions as cleverly as Sugarman. Like many others of the genre though this could have been a riveting 60 minute documentary and would have dragged slightly less. Overall it may have been well produced but it just didn't have the killer seal that again for example Sugarman was able to produce.
Not without some validity this was heavily focused on the deceased brother (David) of the band. And the two remaining band members (and brothers) would clearly be happy with that. What comes across is the touching story of a tightly knit family who's band might have been cult heroes of 70's proto-punk had circumstance been different. Did the colour of their skin or their mutual intransigence about the name of the band negate any chance of success? Well it seems that with some sincerity the next generation are picking up the mantel in part thanks to internet and an elusive 7" single.
As for the music - well the film has whetted my appetite to hear more at least. The brothers seemed from first listen to be a great pioneering proto punk trio (think fellow Detroiters MC5 and the big apples New York Dolls ) . Whilst their new music will never recapture the album they are still in the studio as of now giving it a go. I hope to hear more.
* Editorial confession - I do not collect wine. I drink it. I do however collect records but i am a 'low end user' - it would appear some high end collectors merit the value and illusiveness of the tune as opposed to the contents ... just listen to some Mellow Candle for gods sake!!
|
|
|
Chet Baker - Let's Get Lost a Bruce Weber Film
Released in 1988 - but recently reissued on DVD 2008.
Being a film about a beautiful but flawed man this Bruce Weber film needed to be sympathetic but artistically shot - and it most certainly was. It was however also wonderfully frank if a little simplistic and (like Bakers voice) shouldn't be so emotive … but is. There is a real beauty to the black and white footage and the film is as fragile also pitiful as its main character.
Artistic yes, but also a little bit contrived. Beautiful if a little over preened people from both decades (50s and 80s). By the time this film was made (a year before his death) Baker is a Wizzened haggard 50 something. Seldom have the lyrics "He says his body's too old for working I say his body's too young to look like (t)his" is relevant. The film covers and criticizes him demons but doesn't explore the reasons for them, perhaps a flaw, but like Baker, as a work of art it succeeds where others have failed.
Bula Quo (2013)
I feel ill. I have wasted 2 hours of my life and i will not get it back. Well 90 minutes - but i feel it reduced my life expectancy as well. I have just sat through the most innocuous, lazy, contrived vehicle for a band. I have seen enough Elvis films to know vehicles for musicians, I have sat through AbbA Musicals, Proclaimers Films and even Daniel Johnston homages, but i have never felt so bored. Rossi and Parfit at least keep their sense of humour - but if anyone paid to see this at the cinema I would hope that the Quo will be refunding their tickets. With the innuendo of the Carry on films and the patronising xenophobia of the band members - all to a backdrop of beautiful but clichéd Fiji. At least it is redeemed by being so over whelmingly self deprecating as to almost be charming. It was like watching a made for television light day time comedy. No thought given and no thought required to view.
Racist - maybe. Boring - definitely.
George Harrison: Living in a material world (2011)
This is a touching film, which succeeds most on a personal level. It achieves the gritty realism of losing someone - it is more incidental that that someone was also one of the greatest musical geniuses of the 20th century. Perhaps where this film fails the most over the long story is feeling the need to give too much of Beatles back drop and story the Beatles time has been over done from every perspective. However it is well divided into 2 chapters and second chapter the story gets a breath of fresh air with new (or at least less studied) and interesting observations about 'the third Beatle' who really should have played less of a background role to Lennon and McCartney.
There is no denying that at points the story is a bit slow boring but the intriguing nature of the split personality of george harrison comes across from many of the subjects and the warmth with which he was held is clear.
Not a lot else to say – you really should watch it to form an opinion on one of the icons of 20th Century music.
This is a touching film, which succeeds most on a personal level. It achieves the gritty realism of losing someone - it is more incidental that that someone was also one of the greatest musical geniuses of the 20th century. Perhaps where this film fails the most over the long story is feeling the need to give too much of Beatles back drop and story the Beatles time has been over done from every perspective. However it is well divided into 2 chapters and second chapter the story gets a breath of fresh air with new (or at least less studied) and interesting observations about 'the third Beatle' who really should have played less of a background role to Lennon and McCartney.
There is no denying that at points the story is a bit slow boring but the intriguing nature of the split personality of george harrison comes across from many of the subjects and the warmth with which he was held is clear.
Not a lot else to say – you really should watch it to form an opinion on one of the icons of 20th Century music.
When Bob Met Harvey (2010)
The factual events surrounding this film are well known - It's 1984, Bob Geldof and Midge Ure persuade not just a wealth but almost the entire western wealth of pop and rock musicians to drop some of their egos, come together and record a record breaking single to aid the misery of starving, famine ridden Ethiopians. Bob goes to Ethiopia and, obviously shaken by the sheer scale of the famine, returns determined to stage a truly global rock concert simultaneously broadcast across the world. With performances in the UK and the US the following summer. That much is true. However I don't know where i stand on this short film. It is undoutably entertaining, if a little rough shod. It must be remembered that all the main people are still alive and all come across as heroic. Whilst as with all these 'real' stories - as it acknowledges itself at the outset, this is only based upon actual events and uses some artistic license.
The climax of this film as with the actual events is the spectacle of live Aid - so this film is arguably aimed at those in their late 40s and fifties who lived through this (although not sure I agree with that -think about this point as wwi films etc aren't aimed atthose who live thru it) timing as well as for their historical perspecitve are also aimed at those in there late 40s and 50s. This film will take some viewers nostalgically down memory lane, whilst at the same time drawing attention to the continued global inequalities. Holding aspects of nostalgia for the bands but also the pivotal role this played in perhaps saving millions in Ethopia. With this is in mind there is sincerity.
“If we’re going to work together you have to learn to be a realist,” states Harvey Goldsmith (concert mogul)maybe put in brackets the actor who plays him - think its something harte - at this point you could mention the large Irish cast. at one point .... “No I don’t" whether or not this actually took place, Bob Geldof certainly proved genius in bringning in Bruce Springsteen - nearly destroying the whole event and getting both Coke and Pepsi on the same bill. Tension between Geldof and Goldsmith worked well (though some disagree and i can see why) ,hard-headed rock promoter Harvey Goldsmith who provides a realistic anchor to Bob's idealistic wish-list of performers.are you talking about in reality here or within the depiction in the film? It is Geldof's directness and at points downright rudeness that makes this film and ultaimtely the actual events so amazing.
Whilst the story is based upon actual events 'inpired by' might be a better description - did the film for example really need a fictional emotional climax? One was (to the best of my knowledge) created around maccas 'Let It Be' performance and a power failure. In the scale of things whilst touching, it was not needed but works well emotionally
|
|
|
|
Irish Film Premiere - Charlie Is My Darlin
Irish Film Premiere - Charlie Is My Darlin
The Rolling Stones The Irish Premier of this film was in some ways a relatively understated event. However there was a chance for some local celebrations with the emergence of exclusive Stones photos that had sat unseen for nearly 50 years. Ultimately this is a great piece of history - filmed in 1965 on the second stones tour of Republic of Ireland (they had played Belfast more often) this official revamp is long overdue. This new 65 minute special has certainly received some brilliant touch ups to the old celuloid film and the live set has been overdubbed superbly. The only grip is that this release is still some 30 years after the 50 minute version was widely available on bootleg. Although this time, with money and right backing, at least the audio portions are back in sync! It is just a shame that there are mistakes in continuity (Dublin footage whilst the story is in Belfast) although they are probably Andrew Loog Oldhams 'fault' or contruct. But faults with the subtitiles are surely ABKCOs. The subtitles for the irish brogue are not always accurate which seems a little bit sloppy. Chronologically the tour takes us from London by air to Dublin and then Belfast and back again. In touching it up we are reminded what a cracking, intimate portrayal of a band on tour. The hysteria which boils over into rioting and the fans whos screams and tears are palpable. Exhilarating both in its view of the band live but also perhaps more importantly showing the composition of tracks as well (Sittin On A Fence). The film says a lot about the band and the public - not least how in 1965 there was clearly a lot of nose picking! |
Demediocre isn't a word is it? D' pleasant then.
Delovely (Film)
In many ways this has the making of a cheap American made-for-TV B movie, though it clearly isn't. A fun, if somewhat pleasant film to watch, Delovely is perhaps not just the title, but also the most appropriate review of this easy on the eye film. The great cast of actors and musicians including some surprisingly strong performances bolsters this otherwise un-exciting film. Cinematically as well it has some saving graces - being a well presented and entertaining - but, unlike Porter's back-catalogue, it lacks the subtle nuance and ability to leave a lasting impression on the audience. The story is well constructed with the genius that is Cole Porter (Kevin Kline) looking back on his life as a musical. A great premise but after the initial neat set up it moves into focusing on his relationship with his wife Linda Thomas (Ashley Judd). This unconventional, but apparently sincere, love affair with his wife is at best sweet, failing to do justice to or capture the intricacies of a fascinating and multi-faceted life. Whilst also guilty of sometimes shoehorning in some of Porters best and most well known tracks to carry the story along. Here however it does excel. It is perhaps most surprising that a musical highlight of the film is former X-Factor contestant Lemar who puts in the best vocal performance of the show with a truly breath taking and near show stopping performance of What is This Thing Called Love. Closely followed by the overly camped Elvis Costello rendition of Let's Misbehave.
Overall a great bit of flair and a good film, but not a classic! Perhaps the best way to approach this is as a poor vehicle for some classic songs.
Frustrating Historical accuracy note - in trying to portray Porter as a liberal in a not very permissive society the intergration of black and white actors works, but is factually incorrect - whilst this may work in the imagined underground cabaret scenes, it does not unfortunately work on the stage of his more succesful numbers.
In many ways this has the making of a cheap American made-for-TV B movie, though it clearly isn't. A fun, if somewhat pleasant film to watch, Delovely is perhaps not just the title, but also the most appropriate review of this easy on the eye film. The great cast of actors and musicians including some surprisingly strong performances bolsters this otherwise un-exciting film. Cinematically as well it has some saving graces - being a well presented and entertaining - but, unlike Porter's back-catalogue, it lacks the subtle nuance and ability to leave a lasting impression on the audience. The story is well constructed with the genius that is Cole Porter (Kevin Kline) looking back on his life as a musical. A great premise but after the initial neat set up it moves into focusing on his relationship with his wife Linda Thomas (Ashley Judd). This unconventional, but apparently sincere, love affair with his wife is at best sweet, failing to do justice to or capture the intricacies of a fascinating and multi-faceted life. Whilst also guilty of sometimes shoehorning in some of Porters best and most well known tracks to carry the story along. Here however it does excel. It is perhaps most surprising that a musical highlight of the film is former X-Factor contestant Lemar who puts in the best vocal performance of the show with a truly breath taking and near show stopping performance of What is This Thing Called Love. Closely followed by the overly camped Elvis Costello rendition of Let's Misbehave.
Overall a great bit of flair and a good film, but not a classic! Perhaps the best way to approach this is as a poor vehicle for some classic songs.
Frustrating Historical accuracy note - in trying to portray Porter as a liberal in a not very permissive society the intergration of black and white actors works, but is factually incorrect - whilst this may work in the imagined underground cabaret scenes, it does not unfortunately work on the stage of his more succesful numbers.
Sweet Little Story, soured only by the facts.
Searching For Sugar Man
Swedish-British documentary film
Director: Malik Bendjelloul
For a couple of years there was no getting away from this film. Not that I tried to avoid it - especially after seeing the man himself put in a storming live performance in Vicar Street, Dublin last year. However, this is not really a factual, analytical documentary it is more a feel good movie. As this it succeeds and carries you along with a sweet story of later life success (in this instance meaning artistic recognition and presumably financial success).
The viewer is putty in the director’s hands, as genius editing and a well-structured build-up to the emotional and career crescendo ensure that you willingly allow your sympathies and emotions to be gently manipulated. Although this is based on a true story it is not a biopic. The level of success reached by Rodriguez at the end of the film may be unprecedented for him but not completely in isolation, if it was we would have seen Rodriguez's successful tours of Australia in 1979 and 1981, but to dwell on that is to miss the point. The film works. It is 90 minutes of entertainment based loosely on a nice, sincere and genuinely talented guy's story. Hell - enjoy the film - I certainly did and it brought a tear to my eye. Don’t let the absolute truth get in the way of a fantastic story.
In fairness you could argue this is only focusing on a redemption in South Africa - his successes elsewhere are ultimately irrelevant but credit should go to the writers / creators of this edited story for making it an emotional journey, as well as the undisputed great performer and song writer Sixto Rodriguez. Also not covered in sufficient detail, but more than enough for the film, is where all that money from sales of albums in South Africa went. There is muck thrown, but very little investigation here.
As a complete aside - and a comment possibly on either a mistake here or a change in the English language (but i don’t mean to be pedantic) - throughout this film everyone talks about bootleg albums making their way over the South Africa. I think they should have been referred to as counterfeit copies rather than bootlegs: two quite different entities. Bootlegs are live and studio recordings not planned for release, whilst counterfeits are illegally reproduced albums that are sold on? Answers on a postcard to.....
But the film itself is worth tracking down and watching regardless of what you think of the man’s music (if indeed you even know it – I didn’t until very recently). Be entertained – but don’t be fooled!
Terrible recycled footage plus this really is not the 'story of the Stones' from their earliest incarnation as a blues band - which it purported to be - instead it is a snapshot of the late 60s through the prism of the eye of one storm, the Stones. Potentially interesting, ultimately boring.
The Rolling Stones: Crossfire Hurricane Director: Brett Morgen
The Rolling Stones: Crossfire Hurricane
Director: Brett Morgen
This is a disparate disjointed and ultimately disappointing film. We open with nearly all surviving band members reminiscing about the band in (presumably) 2012. Then we move to Madison Square Gardens in '72 - just as the band released one of their defining albums - Exile on Main Street. Other interpretations of the band have focused at Altamont as the real turning point, some more at the Blues clubs in West London in 1962. A novel approach may have been starting at the first gig that a band had ever grossed a million dollars - on their '78 tour of North America - or when everything changed through an external factor - the death of John Lennon. Within a year the pompous overblown shows of the early 80s culminated in Keith battering a fan with a guitar (Hampton '81). By that point the band members were well on the way to being 'bloated' rock stars and indulging in all the excesses that came with that. All this film does - released in theory to 'celebrate' their 50th anniversary - is succeed in highlighting how little progress has been made by the Stones since their artistic successes of the late 60s and early 70s.
But the film itself starts (after the '72 intro) during the early 60s with so much unexplored promise. Granted the 1963 - 1965 section did include some rarely seen photos - but it ultimately relied heavily on the Charlie is my Darling Documentary footage - which is unfortunate because this became legally available for the first time in the same year (2012) (see also Ladies and Gentlemen, Cocksuckers etc!). Later on this documentary is guilty of relying on “Gimme Shelter,” by the Maysles brothers’. Once the film moves onto the late 60s however the footage becomes a barrage of the more standard usual dull recycled photos. And often - because of use of older footage as well there is at points poor sound quality.
The presentation is also divided into two 'halves' for television. Part one puzzlingly encompasses 1965 - 1969, with little reference to the early 60s. A consequence of this is that it leaves 'part 2' to cram in 1970 to 2012. Except that it doesn't. Instead Part 2 dwells on the late 60's and onto the early 70s before not even deigning to take a whistle-stop tour of the rest of the 50 years of the band!! There is almost no footage from Hampton '81 through to Shine a Light. Surely this omission is criminal. Later better singles such as High Wire and Love Is Strong are casually forgotten and only glimpses of the beast that a Rolling Stones tour became post 1980 are shown.
It is almost as if 1975's Ron Wood joining the band is seen as the culmination of the story. Does Bill Wyman's departure not merit analysis - especially if you are showing Darryl Jones the 'replacement' bassist in footage? A curious move not least as the band are now officially a four piece and may have got cold feet in appointing a black American as a full time member of the band? So many more interesting questions.
The surviving members of the band, listed as producers, also contributed to the story with their own commentary and their own agendas! And yet there is no recognition given to Bill's contribution to Satisfaction, or to anything beyond a very formulaic Glimmer Twins overview.
Overall a very simplistic, easy and ultimately lazy presentation.
Though I have seen on some posters that this is also called Crossfire Hurricance:The Rise of the Stones - so perhaps we should forgive the 'creation story' and 'continuation story' omissions!!
Director: Brett Morgen
This is a disparate disjointed and ultimately disappointing film. We open with nearly all surviving band members reminiscing about the band in (presumably) 2012. Then we move to Madison Square Gardens in '72 - just as the band released one of their defining albums - Exile on Main Street. Other interpretations of the band have focused at Altamont as the real turning point, some more at the Blues clubs in West London in 1962. A novel approach may have been starting at the first gig that a band had ever grossed a million dollars - on their '78 tour of North America - or when everything changed through an external factor - the death of John Lennon. Within a year the pompous overblown shows of the early 80s culminated in Keith battering a fan with a guitar (Hampton '81). By that point the band members were well on the way to being 'bloated' rock stars and indulging in all the excesses that came with that. All this film does - released in theory to 'celebrate' their 50th anniversary - is succeed in highlighting how little progress has been made by the Stones since their artistic successes of the late 60s and early 70s.
But the film itself starts (after the '72 intro) during the early 60s with so much unexplored promise. Granted the 1963 - 1965 section did include some rarely seen photos - but it ultimately relied heavily on the Charlie is my Darling Documentary footage - which is unfortunate because this became legally available for the first time in the same year (2012) (see also Ladies and Gentlemen, Cocksuckers etc!). Later on this documentary is guilty of relying on “Gimme Shelter,” by the Maysles brothers’. Once the film moves onto the late 60s however the footage becomes a barrage of the more standard usual dull recycled photos. And often - because of use of older footage as well there is at points poor sound quality.
The presentation is also divided into two 'halves' for television. Part one puzzlingly encompasses 1965 - 1969, with little reference to the early 60s. A consequence of this is that it leaves 'part 2' to cram in 1970 to 2012. Except that it doesn't. Instead Part 2 dwells on the late 60's and onto the early 70s before not even deigning to take a whistle-stop tour of the rest of the 50 years of the band!! There is almost no footage from Hampton '81 through to Shine a Light. Surely this omission is criminal. Later better singles such as High Wire and Love Is Strong are casually forgotten and only glimpses of the beast that a Rolling Stones tour became post 1980 are shown.
It is almost as if 1975's Ron Wood joining the band is seen as the culmination of the story. Does Bill Wyman's departure not merit analysis - especially if you are showing Darryl Jones the 'replacement' bassist in footage? A curious move not least as the band are now officially a four piece and may have got cold feet in appointing a black American as a full time member of the band? So many more interesting questions.
The surviving members of the band, listed as producers, also contributed to the story with their own commentary and their own agendas! And yet there is no recognition given to Bill's contribution to Satisfaction, or to anything beyond a very formulaic Glimmer Twins overview.
Overall a very simplistic, easy and ultimately lazy presentation.
Though I have seen on some posters that this is also called Crossfire Hurricance:The Rise of the Stones - so perhaps we should forgive the 'creation story' and 'continuation story' omissions!!
Most things, Most places, Some of the time.
Everything Everywhere All The Time
Dir: Pierre-Allain Giraud
The Bedroom Community story - not the story of a band on tour - but really a whole label!
"Usually when things have the word 'community' then it's like doomed vegan coffee shops!" Declares Nico Muhly early on in this alternative film of a snapshot of life in a very different, progressive, record label. Pierre-Allain Giraud essentially filmed and captured the intimacies of a band on tour, although even the filming at points is a community affair as the camera is passed around where other labels may pass around groupies and drugs. Seamlessly edited and understated in its presentation, at points the narrative bounces along telling the story of a tour that nearly never happened (think the Sex Pistols 1976 - but instead of city council involvment think ash clouds!) Flitting between grainy and crystal clear for no obvious reason, the cinematography offers perhaps the digital version of the liberties Phil Spector took with music to create his 'wall of sound'.
This virtual community gathering under the 'bedroom' banner is an avant garde convergence of artists. Icelandic mastermind Valgeir Sigurosson, folky (and increasingly Nick Drakian) Sam Amidon, the classical Nico Muhly and the coarse Ben Frost delivering the noise aethetic. In this documentary we are given an intimate glance into their studio and the musical constructions they create as well as their personalities and the effect this has on their overall soundscapes. The emotional wallpaper that makes up this journey, as with all wallpaper, is an acquired taste and is an artistic presentation that at points just tries too hard.
Dir: Pierre-Allain Giraud
The Bedroom Community story - not the story of a band on tour - but really a whole label!
"Usually when things have the word 'community' then it's like doomed vegan coffee shops!" Declares Nico Muhly early on in this alternative film of a snapshot of life in a very different, progressive, record label. Pierre-Allain Giraud essentially filmed and captured the intimacies of a band on tour, although even the filming at points is a community affair as the camera is passed around where other labels may pass around groupies and drugs. Seamlessly edited and understated in its presentation, at points the narrative bounces along telling the story of a tour that nearly never happened (think the Sex Pistols 1976 - but instead of city council involvment think ash clouds!) Flitting between grainy and crystal clear for no obvious reason, the cinematography offers perhaps the digital version of the liberties Phil Spector took with music to create his 'wall of sound'.
This virtual community gathering under the 'bedroom' banner is an avant garde convergence of artists. Icelandic mastermind Valgeir Sigurosson, folky (and increasingly Nick Drakian) Sam Amidon, the classical Nico Muhly and the coarse Ben Frost delivering the noise aethetic. In this documentary we are given an intimate glance into their studio and the musical constructions they create as well as their personalities and the effect this has on their overall soundscapes. The emotional wallpaper that makes up this journey, as with all wallpaper, is an acquired taste and is an artistic presentation that at points just tries too hard.
He Do Da Police in Different voices
The Police – (Stewart Copland) Everyone Stares 'The Police Inside Out'
on DVD in September 2006 (But now 'generally' available for download!)
This short film (75 minutes) is a videography of life on the road. There is no denying that it does capture one aspect of that: just how boring being a professional touring band can be. Stewart Copeland used material he shot himself with a Super-8 camera over a 4 years period - from 1978 to 1982. And therein lies part of the problem. The band predated the Super-8 – so the first important months of the band’s genesis are instead presented in a slideshow of photos, not a riveting start and it could have been a lot sharper presented. Moving from stills to the moving pictures section in the style used could have looked colourful and glamourous in the late 70s, but now looks clichéd and a little bit staid.
The film follows the band as they try to find success in America and return to bigger fame in Europe. The mobbing fans at the European shows (especially Birmingham) is exciting and you start to feel absorbed into their world. There are fascinating glimpses into the psyche of a touring band, but ultimately less a story more an overview - and overall a bit bland. It gets going, but very slowly. What may have helped is some other members or even critics adding commentary because Stewart Copland in his recent voiceover adds very little. It being home movies it is perhaps easy to slate – I have sat through parents going – “and there is us by the swimming pool, in Florida, there is us by the space centre in epcot” …… Yet, perhaps unfairly (?!), I was hoping for something a bit more riveting, challenging and entertaining from Police footage – after all they were the biggest band on the planet when this video was being recorded.
The one advantage is that it is not painful – being fast moving enough not to dwell on any time period long enough to stall.
For obsessive fans of the Police it is also a fascinating glimpse behind the scenes – but in a very clinical way. I was not looking for warts and all stories of sex, drugs and rock ‘n’ roll, but this is so dictated by Copland’s footage (either limited or badly selected and voiceover) that no one’s personalities come through. More of ‘he do the police in different voices’ and less of authoritarian control please!
That said there are some great glimpses of things like photo shots that became album covers and consequently bigger pieces of history.
Although they split in 1986 the real climax here is 1982 and making it in the US (rather than a few states).
A well chosen soundtrack of classic Police throughout – sometimes wittily inserted at appropriate moments. Otherwise ultimately nowadays everybody has one – but this is a boring home movie
Its art house style is interesting, but not challenging – for what it is worth I enjoyed the time I spent on Andy Summer’s book more: One Train Later: A memoir.
on DVD in September 2006 (But now 'generally' available for download!)
This short film (75 minutes) is a videography of life on the road. There is no denying that it does capture one aspect of that: just how boring being a professional touring band can be. Stewart Copeland used material he shot himself with a Super-8 camera over a 4 years period - from 1978 to 1982. And therein lies part of the problem. The band predated the Super-8 – so the first important months of the band’s genesis are instead presented in a slideshow of photos, not a riveting start and it could have been a lot sharper presented. Moving from stills to the moving pictures section in the style used could have looked colourful and glamourous in the late 70s, but now looks clichéd and a little bit staid.
The film follows the band as they try to find success in America and return to bigger fame in Europe. The mobbing fans at the European shows (especially Birmingham) is exciting and you start to feel absorbed into their world. There are fascinating glimpses into the psyche of a touring band, but ultimately less a story more an overview - and overall a bit bland. It gets going, but very slowly. What may have helped is some other members or even critics adding commentary because Stewart Copland in his recent voiceover adds very little. It being home movies it is perhaps easy to slate – I have sat through parents going – “and there is us by the swimming pool, in Florida, there is us by the space centre in epcot” …… Yet, perhaps unfairly (?!), I was hoping for something a bit more riveting, challenging and entertaining from Police footage – after all they were the biggest band on the planet when this video was being recorded.
The one advantage is that it is not painful – being fast moving enough not to dwell on any time period long enough to stall.
For obsessive fans of the Police it is also a fascinating glimpse behind the scenes – but in a very clinical way. I was not looking for warts and all stories of sex, drugs and rock ‘n’ roll, but this is so dictated by Copland’s footage (either limited or badly selected and voiceover) that no one’s personalities come through. More of ‘he do the police in different voices’ and less of authoritarian control please!
That said there are some great glimpses of things like photo shots that became album covers and consequently bigger pieces of history.
Although they split in 1986 the real climax here is 1982 and making it in the US (rather than a few states).
A well chosen soundtrack of classic Police throughout – sometimes wittily inserted at appropriate moments. Otherwise ultimately nowadays everybody has one – but this is a boring home movie
Its art house style is interesting, but not challenging – for what it is worth I enjoyed the time I spent on Andy Summer’s book more: One Train Later: A memoir.
Anvil: When Lips met Robb; A sentimental, touching, heart warming story of hope; oh – and a music biopic I suppose.
Anvil: The Anvil Story
81 mins
2008
DVD
When Lips met Robb; A sentimental, touching, heart warming story of hope; oh – and a music biopic I suppose.
Rest assured – for those of you put off watching this because you assumed it is a hybrid between Metallica’ s Some Kind Of Monster and Rob Reiner’s This is Spinal Tap – this documentary is neither of those. Whilst the loosest subject in this biopic is the band, this has little to do with the band themselves or their music and is more a human story of devotion to one cause. There is a sheer love which that instils in the two main characters (and they are characters!) who lead the band. This is a sentimental, touching, heart warming story of hope. You can hate metal (it doesn’t feature) as this documentary uncovers the story of 2 guys (lead singer, Lips) and drummer (Robb Reiner – no relation to the genius director!).
Anvil are a band who formed back in the mid 70’s in college and reached their artistic and popular height in the mid 80s (Super Rock festival in 1984 is taken as the point in the film), but have continued largely unabated ever since. Filmed over an 18 month period (2005 – 2007) this film shows a fractious band, on the edge of splitting or possibly on the edge of reason! It is this frankness and love of their (part time) jobs, plus the support of their devoted extended families which is so compelling. Though ultimately it is about the relationship between Robb and Lipps rather than anything else. Two ‘brothers’ who, despite the odds, hold onto their enthusiasm and love for each other’s music and mayhem. Interviews with ‘equivalent’ rock stars and their homage add’s an extra dynamic, but is not essential, they include Slash, Tom Araya, and Lars Ulrich.
81 mins
2008
DVD
When Lips met Robb; A sentimental, touching, heart warming story of hope; oh – and a music biopic I suppose.
Rest assured – for those of you put off watching this because you assumed it is a hybrid between Metallica’ s Some Kind Of Monster and Rob Reiner’s This is Spinal Tap – this documentary is neither of those. Whilst the loosest subject in this biopic is the band, this has little to do with the band themselves or their music and is more a human story of devotion to one cause. There is a sheer love which that instils in the two main characters (and they are characters!) who lead the band. This is a sentimental, touching, heart warming story of hope. You can hate metal (it doesn’t feature) as this documentary uncovers the story of 2 guys (lead singer, Lips) and drummer (Robb Reiner – no relation to the genius director!).
Anvil are a band who formed back in the mid 70’s in college and reached their artistic and popular height in the mid 80s (Super Rock festival in 1984 is taken as the point in the film), but have continued largely unabated ever since. Filmed over an 18 month period (2005 – 2007) this film shows a fractious band, on the edge of splitting or possibly on the edge of reason! It is this frankness and love of their (part time) jobs, plus the support of their devoted extended families which is so compelling. Though ultimately it is about the relationship between Robb and Lipps rather than anything else. Two ‘brothers’ who, despite the odds, hold onto their enthusiasm and love for each other’s music and mayhem. Interviews with ‘equivalent’ rock stars and their homage add’s an extra dynamic, but is not essential, they include Slash, Tom Araya, and Lars Ulrich.
The Devil and Daniel Johnston: A documentary about the man, his music ……. and his many demons.
The Devil and Daniel Johnston
2006
110 mins
A documentary about the man, his music ……. and his many demons.
This documentary starts from the premise that you really have to like Daniel Johnston either as a person or more generally as a musician. However, from my point of view his music is the emperor’s new clothes – no essential quality, rhythm or melody to it, and sung with a nasal, grating vulnerability. He is clearly committed to finding success as an artist, but others seem to be misguided in how good the end result it. In this movie he is portrayed as cool even though his lyrics are the height of simple not simplistic.
Are the people who faun over him sympathetic, sycophantic or simple? I just don’t know. Some of his own frankness at points reminds me of Kris Kristofferson or Lee Hazelwood – but without the added benefit of intelligent, aware delivery. But that is for the viewer and listener to decide themselves. As a DVD and an overall view of DJ’s career this is an excellent place to start. it is far better as a complete story than most music documentaries. Like so many other ‘music documentaries on the surface, it is also a gripping human drama. Johnston’s parents, who are maligned at the beginning, turn out to be the real stars of the story and the real sufferers behind the myth of genius that Johnston has been wrapped in – either by himself or others. Doubly so because Johnston surely reached the peak of his career with Kurt Cobain wearing his t shirt and subsequently the making of this homage? But he is still as of this moment producing music. Not good in my opinion, neither is his live set. But that said – everyone should watch this to form their own opinion of the man, his music and his cult status.
2006
110 mins
A documentary about the man, his music ……. and his many demons.
This documentary starts from the premise that you really have to like Daniel Johnston either as a person or more generally as a musician. However, from my point of view his music is the emperor’s new clothes – no essential quality, rhythm or melody to it, and sung with a nasal, grating vulnerability. He is clearly committed to finding success as an artist, but others seem to be misguided in how good the end result it. In this movie he is portrayed as cool even though his lyrics are the height of simple not simplistic.
Are the people who faun over him sympathetic, sycophantic or simple? I just don’t know. Some of his own frankness at points reminds me of Kris Kristofferson or Lee Hazelwood – but without the added benefit of intelligent, aware delivery. But that is for the viewer and listener to decide themselves. As a DVD and an overall view of DJ’s career this is an excellent place to start. it is far better as a complete story than most music documentaries. Like so many other ‘music documentaries on the surface, it is also a gripping human drama. Johnston’s parents, who are maligned at the beginning, turn out to be the real stars of the story and the real sufferers behind the myth of genius that Johnston has been wrapped in – either by himself or others. Doubly so because Johnston surely reached the peak of his career with Kurt Cobain wearing his t shirt and subsequently the making of this homage? But he is still as of this moment producing music. Not good in my opinion, neither is his live set. But that said – everyone should watch this to form their own opinion of the man, his music and his cult status.
A Mighty Wind: Pardon me! This is folk; no wind instruments were harmed in the making of this mockumentary.
A Mighty Wind
93mins
2003
DVD
Pardon me! This is folk; no wind instruments were harmed in the making of this mockumentary.
This film tells the fictitious story of a folk reunion concert prompted by death of a mythical 60s promoter, Irving Steinbloom. Done in documentary style it is set up as an out and out mocking comedy, but as is often the case there is a warmth and homage in the material as well. Overall it is ok, and yes amusing though the Jewish humour, it is a bit over the top, and labours the point about the entertainment industry.
It is not a classic or as sharp as (say) This is Spinal Tap – the out and out classic of the music mockumentary genre. Taking 3 bands, one of whom has stayed ‘together’ in the loosest sense, one of whom was the classic young lovers (now gone their separate ways) and the two authors of the film who play in a trio that had one ‘hit’.
The overall joke – about mockery of folk could have been milked for a lot more. Like most music documentaries the music is of course periphery – but also the genre that is the (part) subject of the film is not exploited to its full capacity. Folk, like heavy metal, is easy to caricature in part because it is at the fringe of popular entertainment and also because it is, like Rap, an acquired taste as well as uses parody and humour in equal measure. Humourous, sweet, but certainly not sharp or groundbreaking.
93mins
2003
DVD
Pardon me! This is folk; no wind instruments were harmed in the making of this mockumentary.
This film tells the fictitious story of a folk reunion concert prompted by death of a mythical 60s promoter, Irving Steinbloom. Done in documentary style it is set up as an out and out mocking comedy, but as is often the case there is a warmth and homage in the material as well. Overall it is ok, and yes amusing though the Jewish humour, it is a bit over the top, and labours the point about the entertainment industry.
It is not a classic or as sharp as (say) This is Spinal Tap – the out and out classic of the music mockumentary genre. Taking 3 bands, one of whom has stayed ‘together’ in the loosest sense, one of whom was the classic young lovers (now gone their separate ways) and the two authors of the film who play in a trio that had one ‘hit’.
The overall joke – about mockery of folk could have been milked for a lot more. Like most music documentaries the music is of course periphery – but also the genre that is the (part) subject of the film is not exploited to its full capacity. Folk, like heavy metal, is easy to caricature in part because it is at the fringe of popular entertainment and also because it is, like Rap, an acquired taste as well as uses parody and humour in equal measure. Humourous, sweet, but certainly not sharp or groundbreaking.
