<<GS there are some pretty boring moments too, for instance the lawyer call with the owner of the area.>>

Actually, I find the Mel Belli bits entertaining and funny. The only boring part of Gimme Shelter for me is the part in Muscle Shoals when they are listening to the playback of Wild Horses--not exactly the most action-packed moment, and it's hard to tell whether Charlie is just listening to his parts on the recording or about to fall asleep.

Regarding the filming of Jagger, well, he was the front man and was the one doing all the movement. This was a time when they really didn't know how to film rock musicians, like the TAMI show where Keith is completely out of the frame during his guitar solo in It's All Over Now or another segment from around that time, I think the NME Poll Winner's set, where for a whole song, Around and Around they appear to be only a quartet because the frame completely excludes Bill Wyman.

As for the film being "manipulated" to a climax, I really don't see that, because it was quite an event in itself and it was the last show of the tour, so why wouldn't it be a climactic moment? You wouldn't just stick it in the middle of the film and gloss over it or ignore it completely, it made for tremendous drama particularly in the moments leading up to it.

About the "end of flower power", that sentiment comes from the concert itself rather than the film, which was released several months later. Woodstock and Altamont were just polarized examples of crowd psychology--one showing how things can work out when it goes right, and the other showing how things can go wrong, particularly if you hire drunken acid-drenched psychopaths for "security". It didn't require a documentary film for the spectre of Altamont to shroud the times in its paradigm-shifting wave of cynicism.

Quote
stonehearted
<<GS there are some pretty boring moments too, for instance the lawyer call with the owner of the area.>>

Actually, I find the Mel Belli bits entertaining and funny. The only boring part of Gimme Shelter for me is the part in Muscle Shoals when they are listening to the playback of Wild Horses--not exactly the most action-packed moment, and it's hard to tell whether Charlie is just listening to his parts on the recording or about to fall asleep.

Regarding the filming of Jagger, well, he was the front man and was the one doing all the movement. This was a time when they really didn't know how to film rock musicians, like the TAMI show where Keith is completely out of the frame during his guitar solo in It's All Over Now or another segment from around that time, I think the NME Poll Winner's set, where for a whole song, Around and Around they appear to be only a quartet because the frame completely excludes Bill Wyman.

As for the film being "manipulated" to a climax, I really don't see that, because it was quite an event in itself and it was the last show of the tour, so why wouldn't it be a climactic moment? You wouldn't just stick it in the middle of the film and gloss over it or ignore it completely, it made for tremendous drama particularly in the moments leading up to it.

About the "end of flower power", that sentiment comes from the concert itself rather than the film, which was released several months later. Woodstock and Altamont were just polarized examples of crowd psychology--one showing how things can work out when it goes right, and the other showing how things can go wrong, particularly if you hire drunken acid-drenched psychopaths for "security". It didn't require a documentary film for the spectre of Altamont to shroud the times in its paradigm-shifting wave of cynicism.

GS is supposed to be a documentary and I expect documentaries as historically correct as possible. But the whole Altamont climax (which is the basis of the whole movie) is manipulated. So it's not a good documentary in my eyes.

As for the excuse that things were done that way (only filming the frontman), that's no reason not to critize it. A good movie would have shown more.

GS has captured Altamont in a very heavy way and I'm convinced the whole mythology as Altamont being one big orgy of violence has been enhanced by this 'documentary' in not a small way. Wait until our Swiss has done her job, then we hopefully get a much more nuanced picture of the event.

I'm convinced the whole mythology as Altamont being one big orgy of violence has been enhanced by this 'documentary' in not a small way

That's what I try to say for years...........

__________________________

They don't do films like that nowadays...

Doxa is right, they sure don't and maybe that's a good thing, hard to say. I've been following this discussion, some interesting perspectives here. I've only seen the film once, and on youtube, which is not the best way to see any film. I wouldn't want to see it again, I found it disturbing, depressing, mostly boring, and, at times, fascinating.

The groupie scenes were probably what bothered me the most, having read Robert Greenfield's account of what happened on the plane, from the perspective of one of the girls. Perhaps because I am a woman, I was offended that Frank and the Stones would manipulate those girls to add some excitment to an otherwise boring film. It's not like the girls didn't want to be there, but you would think that someone besides Bill Wyman would have found it distasteful. Doxa said there aren't tours like that anymore, but I'm not sure about that...I think the same behavior goes on, just not the same circumstances, that is, out in the open as much.

Maybe that's what Frank was trying to get at, how universal boredom is, even if you are a rock star god...he certainly had a fascination with the banality of life. But, then I am reading Candide right now, so maybe I'm projecting a bit here...it could be as stonehearted and a few others have said that it's a bad film without much merit. Still here we are talking about it again and critics keep coming back to it, so there is something in the film that continues to fascinate.

That's probably the reason they never officially released it.............

__________________________

Well, if we compare GIMME SHELTER to CS BLUES, I think the former hints - like ONE PLUS ONE does also - that "behind the screen" action or even filming a band in creative process (making records) might still not alone offer much "action-packed moments" (to use Stonehearted's expression), that is, not to be translated too excitingly into the form of a film. This is especially true when the editing technics are those of the late 60's and early 70's (long scenes, using basically just one camera, etc. Just compare how they these days edit all those reality shows, etc) It is, however, the drama built by up the awereness of the upcoming climax (Altamont), with some stunning performances, that keeps the tension. A bit like watching TITANIC.

But in CS BLUES all they do is to concentrate on the 'behind the screen' action, and there is nothing else to expect there than to satisfy the curiosity of the spectators. And some of that is even staged to offer that. The performances are one again stunning, but nothing Altamont spectacular - the show going to culture historical spheres - to be waited there. It is a damn naked movie with no story or drama. I guess the effect is a bit similar like seeing The Beatles in some depressing moments in studio in LET IT BE. That the both bands let the camera caught them in their rather private moments, and showing them in not so good light, is brave, but still rather shocking; the band making all those wonderful songs didn't look happy at all, not even getting along, when doing those songs, and the band giving all those wonderful performances, looked rather bored and boring behind the stage.

It also be noted that the band caught in 1969 and 1972 are very different animals. In 1969 they probably had in their mind just to document their triumphal re-invasion of America. They were heroes of the counter-culture, and the band has so much to prove to be worth their reputation (and there still was that still bigger group from Liverpool shadowing their whatever steps). It has been suggested that quite early they got the idea to do their own "Woodstock", and filming that would be the central point of the movie (and thereby having a bit of cash of the 'free' concert). Without film cameras, Altamont most probably would never had took place.

In 1972 they didn't have any longer much to conquer or prove. They clearly had established their status, and now, when The Beatles had gone, with no doubt the biggest rock and roll band in the world. The media attention and interest was unhearable - they were not any longer just "something for the kids" but a cultural icon, and their doing seemed to have a bigger cultural impact. In 1972 The Stones, as the last survivors of the three big ones, represented everything (wanting them or not) the 60's have brought to the world - rock music tightly connected to social, political and cultural change of times, and even having a noticed artistic value.

What was the reason to make a film documenting all the bad habits of "rock stars on road"? Did they thought that everything they do is "cool"? That everything they do is interesting and filmographic an sich? That they don't need to even create any huge spectacles or stories, or actually do anything? Just be themselves. Difficult to say, and I don't even dare to suggèst. Robert Frank once said that the only thing Jagger was worried about, when watching the scenes, was that if Keith looked better than him...

But I think CS BLUES is interesting film in the way it presents the Stones, their life and music in that moment. There is no bigger story or significance there. The aura they still had in 1969 has gone. The cultural icons are nothing but a bunch of spoiled rock stars doing their thing, living their hedonistic life, trying to kill the boredom (screwing chicks in aeroplanes, throwing tv set out of balconies, taking drugs), which, the way Frank presents it, looks rather dull and banal, if not even stupid. In a way it is a death of all the late 60's idealism that rock culture have some kind of inner meaning which could change the world. No, just the egoistic hedonism left from the 60's counter cultural significance. And great performances, which are nothing but great performances. But by same token, we can say that CS BLUES vision-like tries - with its rough means - to explicate the ideals of rock culture how it was going to be like during the 70's (and from then on). It captures not just the Stones, but the whole rock culture in a tansformation.

I think the reason why Jagger finally rejected the project - didn't let the film out - was not some 'controversial' scenes but that he understood that it didn't look so good at all than he probably had thought. Better not to reveal everything, but leave the mystique surrounding them and their charmed life. Let the stories spread and let the people imagine the rest.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-27 01:40 by Doxa.

One Plus One is not dramatic or even exciting, but the studio sections are interesting.

I wish they'd caught them recording Street Fighting Man or No Expectations though or atleast showed Keith recording the solo on Sympathy.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-27 01:56 by His Majesty.

<<One Plus One is not dramatic or even exciting, but the studio sections are interesting.>>

Yes, very. It makes me wonder if that's where McCartney got the idea to make a film of the Get Back sessions. Could it be that the Let It Be movie sprang from a rare instance of the Beatles following the Stones' lead?

Quote
NICOS
I'm convinced the whole mythology as Altamont being one big orgy of violence has been enhanced by this 'documentary' in not a small way

That's what I try to say for years...........

Finally recognition Nicos.

Quote
His Majesty
One Plus One is not dramatic or even exciting, but the studio sections are interesting.

I wish they'd caught them recording Street Fighting Man or No Expectations though or atleast showed Keith recording the solo on Sympathy.

I think One plus One is dramatic in the sense that we see Brian Jones getting isolated more and more.

I wonder if Goddard would have kept and used footage had Brian turned up wasted like in the We Love You promo.

Seems a lot of people link them as being from one and the same session, but they are a year apart and he's not wasted at all in One Plus One.

It would have been a mind blower had they been around to film the philips tape machine playing back the basic take of SFM or JJF through speaker with everyone in the control room watching and listening to it play back.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-27 17:48 by His Majesty.