Someone wrote ans asked me:

>>Why was there NO MENTION of Ian Stewart in Crossfire Hurricane? Stu was integral to the formation of the band like Brian right?

As much as Keith has heralded Stu w/ keeping The Stones together at times I felt the doc did Stu a disservice by no mention.<<

As I've not seent he film - only the first 5 mins - I don't know if he there or not. I read the review thread here and understand he's not mentioned - but is there any footage of him in the film.

My take on these kind of docs is - the person making the film is usually star stuck and only concentrates on the big stars etc - and wit old footage - they don't recognize or know any of the other people who appear in the film. Dressing room scenes and stuff like that..

So, If not mentioned, was Stu there anywhere?

As I said I saw about the first 5 mins and pretty sure I spotted Chrissie Shrimpton. Doubt if she would be mentioned as not a recognizable star etc..

If Stu is not in it, I presume he won't be getting his usual one-sixth of the deal..



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-11-18 20:21 by JamesPhelge00.

little footage,dont think any talk of him.

Stu was integral to the formation of the band like Brian right?

Wrong. He wasnt, not like Brian, Stu was only important to Keith in 2010 when he ran out of analogies in the ongoing dethroning of Brian in "Brian Jones, by Keith Richards".

Stu was a major factor to the Rolling Stones.
They respected him in a very special way.

..major oversight of the band and 'film-maker' if no mention of Stu...and Chrissie Shrimpton..WTF???...might as well throw Uschi Obermeier in as well...or Margaret Trudeau....

I just watched "Crossfire" and I must say that for an uninformed or new Stones fan it is very nice but little new is shared for longtime fans in the inclusion of any unseen footage...as someone else stated earlier there are a couple of nice audio outtakes pieces that are interesting.

Quote
Redhotcarpet
Stu was integral to the formation of the band like Brian right?

Wrong. He wasnt, not like Brian, Stu was only important to Keith in 2010 when he ran out of analogies in the ongoing dethroning of Brian in "Brian Jones, by Keith Richards".

I'll always remember keith telling brian "hey caulk, yer fired."

Someone in a different thread mentioned that Stu was shown acting as bouncer.

I noticed him trying to haul somebody offstage circa '65 and on the stage at Hyde Park but yeah, no mention.There were quite a few omissions though such as the years 1982 to 2012...

Yeah, no mention of Stu. Fleetingly one of the bouncers getting the band into a car in the beginning? Didn't have the "image" they wanted to project even looking back. Though he was a rock for them from what I understand.

It's remarkable that after 50 years, we have yet to see an historically comprehensive documentary on the Stones. Why? That weaving off the cuff badass image is the way they are, and the way they'd like to keep it. The messiness of their lives is flaunted but delving too deep into relationships and support systems...kind of goes against the grain. I recently saw docs on Jimi Hendrix and Dylan, where colleagues, friends and lovers were interviewed to shed light on their states of mind which was so illuminating. In the case of the Stones, I can see how they would not be willing to invite the scrutiny.

CR: With the Stones as producers it's an artistic product and promo tool. I think it was Mick Taylor who said in the beginning "I don't know if it will demystify anything but it will be fun and entertaining, which is what the band is."

Cause we all know the story is so huge, where do you start to demystify? Just to hear candid reflections on the violence, Brian's passing, addictions, dangers of the lifestyle posed to those in their circle. . .it's rough. Still, I'd love to see an epic documentary pulling all the themes together, difficult and fabulous and contradictory as they all are.

Stu, one day you will come to light. . .

Quote
scottkeef
I just watched "Crossfire" and I must say that for an uninformed or new Stones fan it is very nice but little new is shared for longtime fans in the inclusion of any unseen footage...as someone else stated earlier there are a couple of nice audio outtakes pieces that are interesting.

If you are right I can live without the film, but it is impressive how the Stones are abled to turn a collection of videos into an event.

Yeah that was a bit disappointing. Also MIA were Anita, Billy Preston and a few others. Strange that while Keith Ronnie and Charlie were executive producers Bill was only credited as a historical archivist or something. Seemed like Mick's movie to me, he was shown more adorable that the rest. peace

Right? We all know Mick and Keith are the driving force but to see and hear more of the band -- how about Bobby and Jim -- that is more rare and interesting, still not stealing the limelight from the glimmer, but enhancing the full on experience.

they don't care for stu they are still working for him,they don't care for bill wyman or mick taylor,they got fame and fortune.

Quote
Naturalust
Yeah that was a bit disappointing. Also MIA were Anita, Billy Preston and a few others. Strange that while Keith Ronnie and Charlie were executive producers Bill was only credited as a historical archivist or something. Seemed like Mick's movie to me, he was shown more adorable that the rest. peace

If you're not in the band anymore you can't be executive producer. Stones logic.

Quote
SundanceKid

Quote
Naturalust
Yeah that was a bit disappointing. Also MIA were Anita, Billy Preston and a few others. Strange that while Keith Ronnie and Charlie were executive producers Bill was only credited as a historical archivist or something. Seemed like Mick's movie to me, he was shown more adorable that the rest. peace

If you're not in the band anymore you can't be executive producer. Stones logic.

And I'll bet Charlie hasn't the first clue what an executive producer is or does. lol peace

Quote
JamesPhelge00
Someone wrote ans asked me:

>>Why was there NO MENTION of Ian Stewart in Crossfire Hurricane? Stu was integral to the formation of the band like Brian right?

As much as Keith has heralded Stu w/ keeping The Stones together at times I felt the doc did Stu a disservice by no mention.<<

As I've not seent he film - only the first 5 mins - I don't know if he there or not. I read the review thread here and understand he's not mentioned - but is there any footage of him in the film.

My take on these kind of docs is - the person making the film is usually star stuck and only concentrates on the big stars etc - and wit old footage - they don't recognize or know any of the other people who appear in the film. Dressing room scenes and stuff like that..

So, If not mentioned, was Stu there anywhere?

As I said I saw about the first 5 mins and pretty sure I spotted Chrissie Shrimpton. Doubt if she would be mentioned as not a recognizable star etc..

If Stu is not in it, I presume he won't be getting his usual one-sixth of the deal..

For some reason, Jimmy, the movie doesn't go back any earlier than 1964. It's as if the band didn't evolve but just exploded from nowhere as fully formed teen idols.

Stu doesnt get a single mention. He's seen fleetingly at a few points in the movie, but never discussed.

None of the wives or girlfriends even get a mention either.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-11-19 01:59 by Gazza.

Quote
blueyestoo
Yeah, no mention of Stu. Fleetingly one of the bouncers getting the band into a car in the beginning? Didn't have the "image" they wanted to project even looking back. Though he was a rock for them from what I understand.

It's remarkable that after 50 years, we have yet to see an historically comprehensive documentary on the Stones. Why? That weaving off the cuff badass image is the way they are, and the way they'd like to keep it. The messiness of their lives is flaunted but delving too deep into relationships and support systems...kind of goes against the grain. I recently saw docs on Jimi Hendrix and Dylan, where colleagues, friends and lovers were interviewed to shed light on their states of mind which was so illuminating. In the case of the Stones, I can see how they would not be willing to invite the scrutiny.

CR: With the Stones as producers it's an artistic product and promo tool. I think it was Mick Taylor who said in the beginning "I don't know if it will demystify anything but it will be fun and entertaining, which is what the band is."

Cause we all know the story is so huge, where do you start to demystify? Just to hear candid reflections on the violence, Brian's passing, addictions, dangers of the lifestyle posed to those in their circle. . .it's rough. Still, I'd love to see an epic documentary pulling all the themes together, difficult and fabulous and contradictory as they all are.

Stu, one day you will come to light. . .

hi blueyestoo -

So true. Mick, often to the credit and service of the band, tightly controls his and the band's story,
image, and personae.

In the same way that those moments I love most of Mick, as a singer and performer, are the very ones
that are most unguarded unrehearsed uncontrived (tho nothing, I suspect, re: Mick is almost ever
wholly any of those things), so too would be seeing/hearing his and the others' stories, flaws and all.

I don't know that we'll ever get a Rolling Stones' approved documentary of that flavor. But eventually,
in due course, there will be many documentaries about the Rolling Stones. Is it possible they simply
prohibit --or make cost prohibitive-- use of their moving images and music if they want to nix a docu about
themselves?It's certainly their prerogative to do so. And, in time, perhaps they'll consider that
multiple perspectives about them will only enhance their legacy.

btw...I know what you meant about the Stones feeling like older brothers. I usually say they're like my
older cousins

-swiss



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-11-19 09:09 by swiss.

Technically, Stu was not a member of the band, likewise wives and girlfriends. The film was obviously a sweeping overview intended for a general audience, like their concert set lists, rather than a soap opera style warts-and-all in-depth examination of every nook and cranny of their lives. If you've noticed how shallow general media interviews with The Stones tend to be these days, like at Somerset House on July 12, at the Crossfire Hurricane London and New York premieres, and most recently the Today show, then that's the target audience--people familiar with the general bullet points of their legend, those who can name no more than 10 Rolling Stones songs and who wouldn't necessarily know what albums they were originally on, but who would go to a concert because they've heard them all these years on oldies and classic rock radio. Hardcore fans of the type who post here on IORR and who know all the dirt are in the slim minority. It's like, why do an art-house type film when it's merely intended for general mainstream cinemas? They want to reach people, not bore them with too much detail. The goal is to entertain, rather than enlighten.

Quote
stonesnow
Technically, Stu was not a member of the band, likewise wives and girlfriends. The film was obviously a sweeping overview intended for a general audience, like their concert set lists, rather than a soap opera style warts-and-all in-depth examination of every nook and cranny of their lives. If you've noticed how shallow general media interviews with The Stones tend to be these days, like at Somerset House on July 12, at the Crossfire Hurricane London and New York premieres, and most recently the Today show, then that's the target audience--people familiar with the general bullet points of their legend, those who can name no more than 10 Rolling Stones songs and who wouldn't necessarily know what albums they were originally on, but who would go to a concert because they've heard them all these years on oldies and classic rock radio. Hardcore fans of the type who post here on IORR and who know all the dirt are in the slim minority. It's like, why do an art-house type film when it's merely intended for general mainstream cinemas? They want to reach people, not bore them with too much detail. The goal is to entertain, rather than enlighten.

I understand what you're saying but, Stu was a band member.

Quote
Edith Grove

Quote
stonesnow
Technically, Stu was not a member of the band, likewise wives and girlfriends. The film was obviously a sweeping overview intended for a general audience, like their concert set lists, rather than a soap opera style warts-and-all in-depth examination of every nook and cranny of their lives. If you've noticed how shallow general media interviews with The Stones tend to be these days, like at Somerset House on July 12, at the Crossfire Hurricane London and New York premieres, and most recently the Today show, then that's the target audience--people familiar with the general bullet points of their legend, those who can name no more than 10 Rolling Stones songs and who wouldn't necessarily know what albums they were originally on, but who would go to a concert because they've heard them all these years on oldies and classic rock radio. Hardcore fans of the type who post here on IORR and who know all the dirt are in the slim minority. It's like, why do an art-house type film when it's merely intended for general mainstream cinemas? They want to reach people, not bore them with too much detail. The goal is to entertain, rather than enlighten.

I understand what you're saying but, Stu was a band member.

Well, he played on some tracks over the years--when he felt like it. But to a general audience, he was not on the album covers. You and I know he was a sixth Stone, but try telling that to Matt Lauer and his mainstream audience who only know the bare framework of the legend. Stu was not a star. Even most people outside of IORR who know of the existence of Ian Stuart probably couldn't name one song on which he played and wouldn't know his piano playing when they heard it. The Stones intended this film to reach a Matt Lauer type audience, rather than the discerning scrutiny of an IORR audience. They were trying to sell movie tickets, rather than history books. Now, a Crossfire Hurricane book, on the other hand, would have been different, more extensive. Details and footnotes are for books, but movies have to move.

Quote
stonesnow
Technically, Stu was not a member of the band, likewise wives and girlfriends. The film was obviously a sweeping overview intended for a general audience, like their concert set lists, rather than a soap opera style warts-and-all in-depth examination of every nook and cranny of their lives. If you've noticed how shallow general media interviews with The Stones tend to be these days, like at Somerset House on July 12, at the Crossfire Hurricane London and New York premieres, and most recently the Today show, then that's the target audience--people familiar with the general bullet points of their legend, those who can name no more than 10 Rolling Stones songs and who wouldn't necessarily know what albums they were originally on, but who would go to a concert because they've heard them all these years on oldies and classic rock radio. Hardcore fans of the type who post here on IORR and who know all the dirt are in the slim minority. It's like, why do an art-house type film when it's merely intended for general mainstream cinemas? They want to reach people, not bore them with too much detail. The goal is to entertain, rather than enlighten.

Keith in particular has parroted how important Stu was. His autobiography being an example where he all but suggested that it was he, not Brian, who put the band together. The rest of the band have acknowledged his contribution as well to some degree.

Yet to the public at large, he's generally unknown. Surely if trying to reach a 'general audience' it makes sense to make more of them aware of what he meant to the rest of the band. Ignoring even his existence is akin to doing a documentary on the band and omitting any mention of Hyde Park or Altamont. A documentary is about educating people as well as entertaining them. If they were so concerned about merely pandering to people who know hardly anything about the band, then they could have easily just regurgitated the same stuff all of us have seen before and added no new footage. They didnt do that.

Previous officially endorsed documentaries (eg "25 x 5" ) certainly didn't ignore him. Yet this one does. It's too much to ask that he could have even got a couple of minutes worth in a two hour movie?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-11-19 04:12 by Gazza.

Stu WAS a member of the band in the beginning...

he's ben surgically removed for not fitting the current narrative, that's all - and it is a shame -

Quote
blueyestoo
Yeah, no mention of Stu. Fleetingly one of the bouncers getting the band into a car in the beginning? Didn't have the "image" they wanted to project even looking back. Though he was a rock for them from what I understand.

It's remarkable that after 50 years, we have yet to see an historically comprehensive documentary on the Stones. Why? That weaving off the cuff badass image is the way they are, and the way they'd like to keep it. The messiness of their lives is flaunted but delving too deep into relationships and support systems...kind of goes against the grain. I recently saw docs on Jimi Hendrix and Dylan, where colleagues, friends and lovers were interviewed to shed light on their states of mind which was so illuminating. In the case of the Stones, I can see how they would not be willing to invite the scrutiny.

CR: With the Stones as producers it's an artistic product and promo tool. I think it was Mick Taylor who said in the beginning "I don't know if it will demystify anything but it will be fun and entertaining, which is what the band is."

Cause we all know the story is so huge, where do you start to demystify? Just to hear candid reflections on the violence, Brian's passing, addictions, dangers of the lifestyle posed to those in their circle. . .it's rough. Still, I'd love to see an epic documentary pulling all the themes together, difficult and fabulous and contradictory as they all are.

Stu, one day you will come to light. . .

very well spoken

I think for several members of the Stones Stu is a very personal issue.
They did right by him and by his family. The book in his honor was a very personal tribute for many of the contributors.

Worthwhile books and documentaries take more time than the Stones have to give at this point. Or Stu would have been mentioned in this latest fairly quick project.
It was the music Stu cared about; he did not particularly want to be a "public" figure. He would have not been a fan of Internet websites.

I knew him well enough to say what I've said here.

he's not in Charlie Is My Darling much at all either..

why not..maybe he asked not to be, when it was filmed

Please ignor, I moved this comment.
How do I erase the post?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-11-19 20:20 by blueyestoo.

Hi Swiss!
Yes, I would not expect the Stones to be their own best biographers! The value of CH for us lies in how at this point in time they wish to portray themselves -- it's impressionistic -- leaving a definite mood, but still no really solid answers. Very artistic piece of propaganda!

Well seeing that the two heads couldn't be tossed (at least that's what it looks like barring medical or other emergencies) to show up to his tribute gig, it's no surprise that he isn't in the movie.