Quote
Eleanor Rigby

Quote
71Tele

Quote
tornnfrayed
Some of the people here giving CS Blues the thumbs down just don't get it IMHO. The movie is a masterpiece, a work of art by one of the 20th century's most famed photographers. It is not just about the Stones but about life in America in 1972. If you watch it as that it is brilliant. If you just watch it to see the Stones well, then, you are kind of missing the point.

There is nothing to "get". Except for the inspired musical numbers and some of the backstage stuff with the actual Rolling Stones. it's a load of pretentious home movie shite. It's not even real cinema verite, it's people performing sordid empty acts for the camera. These people are not interesting. They are pathetic. Certainly not worth filming. The editing is crap too. That undressing of that woman on the plane is whatever the opposite of erotic is. And scenes of stupid junkies shooting smack? Give me a break. It's hardly "life in America", it's a bunch of bored hangers-on living in a bubble of entitlement desperately and pathetically trying to get off. This movie manages to make sex and drugs boring, and tries to do the same with rock & roll (fortunately the Stones in '72 are too good for that). Masterpiece? More like masturbation.

yep..and it's still boring no matter which way you look at it...

I just hate to see sloppiness, laziness, and pretention masquerade as "art". Robert Frank, for all his talents, should have stuck to photography. Mick Jagger was very wise to not let this be released and to allow a legend to grow about it instead.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
tornnfrayed
Some of the people here giving CS Blues the thumbs down just don't get it IMHO. The movie is a masterpiece, a work of art by one of the 20th century's most famed photographers. It is not just about the Stones but about life in America in 1972. If you watch it as that it is brilliant. If you just watch it to see the Stones well, then, you are kind of missing the point.

There is nothing to "get". Except for the inspired musical numbers and some of the backstage stuff with the actual Rolling Stones. it's a load of pretentious home movie shite. It's not even real cinema verite, it's people performing sordid empty acts for the camera. These people are not interesting. They are pathetic. Certainly not worth filming. The editing is crap too. That undressing of that woman on the plane is whatever the opposite of erotic is. And scenes of stupid junkies shooting smack? Give me a break. It's hardly "life in America", it's a bunch of bored hangers-on living in a bubble of entitlement desperately and pathetically trying to get off. This movie manages to make sex and drugs boring, and tries to do the same with rock & roll (fortunately the Stones in '72 are too good for that). Masterpiece? More like masturbation.

i agree.
juxtapose it with gimme shelter.
one is professionally filmed and edited.
the other is voyeuristic exploitation done shabbily and with little technical skill.

"this movie manages to make sex and drugs boring, and tries to do the same with rock & roll"
Hey that's a great description of what this film's intentions are...
The final nail on the 1960's "free sex and free drugs" coffin?

In the 70's drugs got harder (H replaced LSD) and "free" sex became the pornography industry... both held by the Mafia! ("Deep Throat" was a Mob thing).

T71 you may not like the film but you say great things about it!

Quote
71Tele

Quote
tornnfrayed
Some of the people here giving CS Blues the thumbs down just don't get it IMHO. The movie is a masterpiece, a work of art by one of the 20th century's most famed photographers. It is not just about the Stones but about life in America in 1972. If you watch it as that it is brilliant. If you just watch it to see the Stones well, then, you are kind of missing the point.

There is nothing to "get". Except for the inspired musical numbers and some of the backstage stuff with the actual Rolling Stones. it's a load of pretentious home movie shite. It's not even real cinema verite, it's people performing sordid empty acts for the camera. These people are not interesting. They are pathetic. Certainly not worth filming. The editing is crap too. That undressing of that woman on the plane is whatever the opposite of erotic is. And scenes of stupid junkies shooting smack? Give me a break. It's hardly "life in America", it's a bunch of bored hangers-on living in a bubble of entitlement desperately and pathetically trying to get off. This movie manages to make sex and drugs boring, and tries to do the same with rock & roll (fortunately the Stones in '72 are too good for that). Masterpiece? More like masturbation.

I'm sorry but many serious film critics regard the film as a masterpiece and Jagger himself regards it as a "damn good film." It is a wonderful film about America in the early 70s and about the Stones at that time. I don't know when you grew up but it sounds like you are just looking at the movie with modern day sensibilites and can neither understand nor appreciate the film itself or the era it comes from. Your review of CS Blues here is kind of like what we would get if we asked someone who reads only Stephen King to review a Saul Bellow novel.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-28 14:31 by tornnfrayed.

Quote
tornnfrayed
I'm sorry but many serious film critics regard the film as a masterpiece and Jagger himself regards it as a "damn good film."

Yet you provide no specific evidence of this fact. And Jagger saying its a "damn good film" is about the same as him saying Dirty Work is a "damn good album". He was in it so of course he's not going to badmouth it. He feels most of the stuff he's done is pretty good even though a lot of it is crap.

Sorry, but there's no evidence pointing to this film being anything more than a crappy home movie that because of the Stones was released to the public.

Quote
tornnfrayed
Your review of CS Blues here is kind of like what we would get if we asked someone who reads only Stephen King to review a Saul Bellow novel.

hey in 1959 some people thought RF's pix were crap cos they were technically unsharp and humanely depressing.
CSB is technically unsharp and humanely depressing too btw...

And imo GS was a gentle harmless clean film revolving around an out-of-the-ordinary tragic event, CSB is a monster of a film revolving around... nothing in particular, aka life on the road.
That "nothing in particular" vibe makes it even more ugly than GS in a way...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-28 17:41 by dcba.

Quote
tornnfrayed

Quote
71Tele

Quote
tornnfrayed
Some of the people here giving CS Blues the thumbs down just don't get it IMHO. The movie is a masterpiece, a work of art by one of the 20th century's most famed photographers. It is not just about the Stones but about life in America in 1972. If you watch it as that it is brilliant. If you just watch it to see the Stones well, then, you are kind of missing the point.

There is nothing to "get". Except for the inspired musical numbers and some of the backstage stuff with the actual Rolling Stones. it's a load of pretentious home movie shite. It's not even real cinema verite, it's people performing sordid empty acts for the camera. These people are not interesting. They are pathetic. Certainly not worth filming. The editing is crap too. That undressing of that woman on the plane is whatever the opposite of erotic is. And scenes of stupid junkies shooting smack? Give me a break. It's hardly "life in America", it's a bunch of bored hangers-on living in a bubble of entitlement desperately and pathetically trying to get off. This movie manages to make sex and drugs boring, and tries to do the same with rock & roll (fortunately the Stones in '72 are too good for that). Masterpiece? More like masturbation.

I'm sorry but many serious film critics regard the film as a masterpiece and Jagger himself regards it as a "damn good film." It is a wonderful film about America in the early 70s and about the Stones at that time. I don't know when you grew up but it sounds like you are just looking at the movie with modern day sensibilites and can neither understand nor appreciate the film itself or the era it comes from. Your review of CS Blues here is kind of like what we would get if we asked someone who reads only Stephen King to review a Saul Bellow novel.

No, your assumptions about what I am looking for are completely off. You just should accept that I think it's a pretentious, amateurishly-made film that is badly shot, badly edited, and didn't deserve to be released. I also don't see how in any way it's about "America" in 1972 (save the bits with election scenes on televisions in the background). Instead of projecting assumptions on me about what sensibilities I expected or when I grew up (with zero knowledge of those things) why not just accept that I am possibly a pretty well-informed film viewer and intelligent person who happens to think this film is a piece of crap. The same type of "serious film critics" who thought this was a masterpiece also probably thought the same about Renaldo and Clara, another piece of self-indulgent narcissism committed to film. And your literary analogy (again, knowing nothing of what I read) is rubbish. It's simple: I don't care for bad filmmaking passing itself off as Art, any more than bad painting, bad writing, or bad music. Sometimes shite is just shite - even if involving the Rolling Stones.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-06-28 18:00 by 71Tele.

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
tornnfrayed
I'm sorry but many serious film critics regard the film as a masterpiece and Jagger himself regards it as a "damn good film."

Yet you provide no specific evidence of this fact. And Jagger saying its a "damn good film" is about the same as him saying Dirty Work is a "damn good album". He was in it so of course he's not going to badmouth it. He feels most of the stuff he's done is pretty good even though a lot of it is crap.

Sorry, but there's no evidence pointing to this film being anything more than a crappy home movie that because of the Stones was released to the public.

Except it wasn't released to the public.

Jagger held it back. That says it all.

However, I know it is considered quite good in art circles.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Jagger held it back. That says it all.

However, I know it is considered quite good in art circles.

So are some of Robert Altman's lesser films and many other things. "Art" is in the eye of the beholder, of course.

I know...

I think CS Blues has about 20 minutes of great shit.
When they put out L&G they should have just added CS Blues on there for free.
Does Robert Frank have any more "Live" footage?
Nico says 4 full shows were filmed for L&G. I say just give us all the film.
Like 4 flicks... 4 1972 shows!

Quote
Keef1966
I think CS Blues has about 20 minutes of great shit.
When they put out L&G they should have just added CS Blues on there for free.
Does Robert Frank have any more "Live" footage?
Nico says 4 full shows were filmed for L&G. I say just give us all the film.
Like 4 flicks... 4 1972 shows!

I'm all for that! Give it to someone who can edit and we would have another great '72 concert film, maybe mix in some backstage footage. Great archival project, potentially. Does Frank own the footage or is it in limbo?

I say let someone beside's a "artist" re edit it. I agree with 71tele. However I think they should have just gave it for free with L&G. Like a crappy B side.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
tornnfrayed

Quote
71Tele

Quote
tornnfrayed
Some of the people here giving CS Blues the thumbs down just don't get it IMHO. The movie is a masterpiece, a work of art by one of the 20th century's most famed photographers. It is not just about the Stones but about life in America in 1972. If you watch it as that it is brilliant. If you just watch it to see the Stones well, then, you are kind of missing the point.

There is nothing to "get". Except for the inspired musical numbers and some of the backstage stuff with the actual Rolling Stones. it's a load of pretentious home movie shite. It's not even real cinema verite, it's people performing sordid empty acts for the camera. These people are not interesting. They are pathetic. Certainly not worth filming. The editing is crap too. That undressing of that woman on the plane is whatever the opposite of erotic is. And scenes of stupid junkies shooting smack? Give me a break. It's hardly "life in America", it's a bunch of bored hangers-on living in a bubble of entitlement desperately and pathetically trying to get off. This movie manages to make sex and drugs boring, and tries to do the same with rock & roll (fortunately the Stones in '72 are too good for that). Masterpiece? More like masturbation.

I'm sorry but many serious film critics regard the film as a masterpiece and Jagger himself regards it as a "damn good film." It is a wonderful film about America in the early 70s and about the Stones at that time. I don't know when you grew up but it sounds like you are just looking at the movie with modern day sensibilites and can neither understand nor appreciate the film itself or the era it comes from. Your review of CS Blues here is kind of like what we would get if we asked someone who reads only Stephen King to review a Saul Bellow novel.

No, your assumptions about what I am looking for are completely off. You just should accept that I think it's a pretentious, amateurishly-made film that is badly shot, badly edited, and didn't deserve to be released. I also don't see how in any way it's about "America" in 1972 (save the bits with election scenes on televisions in the background). Instead of projecting assumptions on me about what sensibilities I expected or when I grew up (with zero knowledge of those things) why not just accept that I am possibly a pretty well-informed film viewer and intelligent person who happens to think this film is a piece of crap. The same type of "serious film critics" who thought this was a masterpiece also probably thought the same about Renaldo and Clara, another piece of self-indulgent narcissism committed to film. And your literary analogy (again, knowing nothing of what I read) is rubbish. It's simple: I don't care for bad filmmaking passing itself off as Art, any more than bad painting, bad writing, or bad music. Sometimes shite is just shite - even if involving the Rolling Stones.

I'm sorry it was filmed in America in 1972. It is very much a film about America in 1972. The people, the fashion, the cars, the music etc etc.

I have no problme with your opinion. A lot of people don't like the film. A lot do. I saw it one of the very first times it was shown in the US -with RF in attenedance - and I found it a very odd, disjointed movie then. But over the years my views have evolved and I think it is a wonderful movie now. So I have no problem with your view. It is the force with which you express your views - complete with expletives - that I find is unnecessary

To add my 2 cents to the discussion, I never watched Godard's One Plus One from beginning to end. I always skip the "artistic" parts and watch the stones on studio.

Renaldo and Clara is different. I'm glad Dylan did it. Also, the featured version of "When I paint my masterpiece" is... a masterpiece.