Not really expecting much from this film. Just a chance to "hang" with Keith a bit, enjoy his presence, hear some more Keith-isms, possibly see him in a few new settings. I'm not sure this was intended as a promotional film for his new record or not. I seem to remember that it was originally kind of a separate deal but at some point it was decided that the two should be mated in both publicity and release dates. Of course the timing of the filming is going to capture a lot of the activity and feelings surrounding CrossEyed Heart since it is the main creative project in Keith's life these days.

Hoping the Q & A produces some good material, really enjoyed Keith NYC Public library appearance, although not expecting that good or detailed of an interview. But Keith has done so many interviews recently, we can only hope that folks don't repeat the same 'ole questions and actually get some great information and answers from the man. Something detailed and surprising, because I'm probably not the only one here who feels they could have answered the recent interview questions almost verbatim and are craving just a bit more.

As far as a new Keith documentary I'd love to see one composed entirely of people who are now or have been close to Keith, going into considerable detail about the man. Patti, Jane Rose, Marlon, Anita, Theo and Alexandria, Mick, Bill, Charlie, Ronnie, Don Was, Steve Jordan, Wally, Tom Waits, Mick Taylor. Those sections of his book were some of the best and left me wanting more.

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
with sssoul

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
with sssoul
Gimme Shelter wasn't very probing or revealing about the band either.
I don't need or expect Under the Influence to probe Keith;
I'll be totally blissed if he talks about the music he loves,
and if there's footage of him in the studio.

Totally disagree. GIMME SHELTER portrayed a helpless ineffectual Mick Jagger on stage and a startled Jagger listening to Sonny Barger call him an idiot on the radio.

Of course it was a complex film for many reasons, but hardly any of those reasons
had anything to do with the inner workings of the band or its deep true nature.
Showing someone being ineffectual in a situation where everyone was ineffectual
(except the people ready & willing to kill), or someone being taken aback at being called an idiot
isn't what I call deeply insightful. And the editing made it look like the Stones bailed out after Hunter was killed.
Showing them having the balls to stay and play even when they were scared shirtless might have been more revealing.

But I digress. I hope Keith talks a lot about the music in this new one.

Ok, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm not claiming that GIMME SHELTER is LA DOLCE VITA or BREATHLESS or anything like that. But as a portrait of its times, in the way it juxtaposed a rock band being on the one hand at the height of its powers, holding audiences in its sway all across American, with on the other hand the sight of that same band desperately vamping and pleading, having lost all control ... well, I thought it had a lot to say about hubris, about people thinking they could control what they clearly could not. While it may not have shown what The Stones were thinking about the events that transpired, it certainly had a perspective that was something other than marketing/pr for the band.

Gimme Shelter was definitely not at critical view of the band. It was just more critical than other rock movies because by happenstance the filmmakers captured one of the band's worst moments on film and the Maysles (i'm assuming) owned outright the rights to a lot of the footage surrounding events (everything except that in which the Stones appeared).

It's possible the Stones allowed it to be released because it clearly exonerated them from being responsible for the deaths, although as mentioned it clearly indicts them for poor planning, ineffectual crowd control, and an inability to grasp what was happening. The scene where organizers assure people that the concert can go ahead without incident is the placement of blame the film makes that aligns with the Stone's interests.

I think it would have been a terrible idea to show the band continuing to play; while probably the right thing for them to do at the time it would have made them look incredibly insensitive and even more clueless. Indeed, it's possible that the Maysles brothers agreed to leave out parts like this in return for the Stones' cooperation.

To answer the large point, the Maysles were there to make a marketing/PR film about the Stones. They caught Altamont on film, however, and the PR around Altamont was very negative for the Stones, so the filmmakers were in a great bargaining position to be able to put out something other than a normal "rockumentary".

I'm happy that there is nothing so terrible to cover in the Keith documentary and I'm excited to see him visiting Muddy Water's home, etc.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-14 20:04 by Turner68.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
with sssoul

Quote
LongBeachArena72

Quote
with sssoul
Gimme Shelter wasn't very probing or revealing about the band either.
I don't need or expect Under the Influence to probe Keith;
I'll be totally blissed if he talks about the music he loves,
and if there's footage of him in the studio.

Totally disagree. GIMME SHELTER portrayed a helpless ineffectual Mick Jagger on stage and a startled Jagger listening to Sonny Barger call him an idiot on the radio.

Of course it was a complex film for many reasons, but hardly any of those reasons
had anything to do with the inner workings of the band or its deep true nature.
Showing someone being ineffectual in a situation where everyone was ineffectual
(except the people ready & willing to kill), or someone being taken aback at being called an idiot
isn't what I call deeply insightful. And the editing made it look like the Stones bailed out after Hunter was killed.
Showing them having the balls to stay and play even when they were scared shirtless might have been more revealing.

But I digress. I hope Keith talks a lot about the music in this new one.

Ok, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm not claiming that GIMME SHELTER is LA DOLCE VITA or BREATHLESS or anything like that. But as a portrait of its times, in the way it juxtaposed a rock band being on the one hand at the height of its powers, holding audiences in its sway all across American, with on the other hand the sight of that same band desperately vamping and pleading, having lost all control ... well, I thought it had a lot to say about hubris, about people thinking they could control what they clearly could not. While it may not have shown what The Stones were thinking about the events that transpired, it certainly had a perspective that was something other than marketing/pr for the band.

Gimme Shelter was definitely not at critical view of the band. It was just more critical than other rock movies because by happenstance the filmmakers captured one of the band's worst moments on film and the Maysles (i'm assuming) owned outright the rights to a lot of the footage surrounding events (everything except that in which the Stones appeared).

It's possible the Stones allowed it to be released because it clearly exonerated them from being responsible for the deaths, although as mentioned it clearly indicts them for poor planning, ineffectual crowd control, and an inability to grasp what was happening. The scene where organizers assure people that the concert can go ahead without incident is the placement of blame the film makes that aligns with the Stone's interests.

I think it would have been a terrible idea to show the band continuing to play; while probably the right thing for them to do at the time it would have made them look incredibly insensitive and even more clueless. Indeed, it's possible that the Maysles brothers agreed to leave out parts like this in return for the Stones' cooperation.

To answer the large point, the Maysles were there to make a marketing/PR film about the Stones. They caught Altamont on film, however, and the PR around Altamont was very negative for the Stones, so the filmmakers were in a great bargaining position to be able to put out something other than a normal "rockumentary".

I'm happy that there is nothing so terrible to cover in the Keith documentary and I'm excited to see him visiting Muddy Water's home, etc.

Is that actually the case? The Maysles had already made one of their masterpieces (SALESMAN, 1968), so they were very respected "arty" documentarians. I had no idea they had signed on to do a puff piece on the band. Seems unlike them, but until I can get home and refresh my GIMME SHELTER memory banks, I will defer to you!

At the end of the day, the Maysles WERE hired by the band. Apparently they were paid $14K for MSG and $129K for Altamont. They then later spent over $400K of their own money finishing the film and also needed to take on a fatcat real estate tycoon to help finance the completion of the film.

Based on what I've read, I think:

--the Maysles were told to do their thing with minimal interference (Jagger's famous comment that 'I'm not going to be an actor in the film')
--they were NOT given unfettered behind-the-scenes access (the hotel room in Muscle Shoals seems the exception here)
--according to interviews with the Maysles, the brothers took the gig because they met the band then flew down to Baltimore to see the fabled 11/26/69 show (the one where Mick adlibbed a bit of 'Hey Jude' during a 9 min SFTD) and realized that not only were these guys really good but there was an aura about them, something in the air, a sense of danger, of things being on the edge.

That last point could be totally self-aggrandizing on the Maysles' part: no one of course could have known that Altamont would happen they way it did. But these guys WERE uncanny artists. I'd say Turner is probably right that what The Stones thought they were getting was a PR rock concert movie; I'd also say that that was never exactly what the Maysles planned on doing. They just didn't work that way.

This is a pretty interesting Salon piece about many aspects of the film, including the reactions of many contemporary critics who accused the Maysles of protecting The Stones and absolving them of any responsibility. I don't think that point of view has held up very well over the years.

[www.salon.com]

Hoping our friend and resident Altamont expert swiss, might weigh in on this discussion. She interviewed Mr. Maysles shortly before his death and might be able to provide some insight into the issues you guys are discussing.

Quote
Naturalust
Hoping our friend and resident Altamont expert swiss, might weigh in on this discussion. She interviewed Mr. Maysles shortly before his death and might be able to provide some insight into the issues you guys are discussing.

That's a great idea, NL; just PM'ed her on the other site.

It's all pretty academic, of course, at this point, but I have always wondered about the understanding between the brothers and the band, and what each party's true desires were when it came to the film project.

Hello. I've not Netflix, if everyone can send me a link for see Under Influence it'll be very nice and cool ! Pascal from France

...yes, me too....I need a link!
Thx!!

Voilà, Pascal...ce lien marche bien en France.

Under the Influence

Tom Waits:

'Keith showed up with a semi with about 300 guitars and he had a guitar valet who kept bringing in guitars as if they were beverages and desserts'.

Love it!

I just watched it. This is a TESTAMENT in a way.
And a true hommage to the great black musicians.
The film is just FANTASTIC ! so keith.

Have you seen Keith guitar on the roof ?
you can read this : [www.rollingstone.com]

Keith is not getting old he is just evolving as he says.

"we know it's a bit late but we hope you don't mind if we stay"

I also just watched this fabulous romp. Keith is like a coiled blues snake, just loving life. That is one of the things that really came through on how happy he is. Ok, yeah there is the whole "Keif" persona cliche, but he truly seems full of joy for music. His purring reasoning of why music has kept him young. Heroine was one of his curtains he hid behind, and music got him through. Some lovely camera work as well. very crisp close shots of lines and smoke. Great gnarled knuckle porn shots.

Something that did seem a bit odd at times is how the camera would come in tight on him playing the after a glimpse would pan out fast to another musician.

A lovely account of how he became a pianist...and finally Keith on film talking with love and respect about Ian!

I would like to watch it again...and like his new album, I think I will like it even better the second time around.

Yep the piano part was really interesting and new to me at least. Brought back memories of listening to the old Toronto tapes many moons ago...

--------------
IORR Links : Essential Studio Outtakes CDs : Audio - History of Rarest Outtakes : Audio

Just watched the documentary tonight. Really a good flick, feels like you spent some casual time hanging around Keith. Really good cinematography !!
Excellent shots of the guitars and the faces.

Some of my favorite parts were Pierre's catalog of Keith's guitars, the Street Fighting Man multi tracks soloed, Keith playing that simple but beautiful piano!!, realizing that Sweet Virginia may be my favorite country tune, Buddy Guy asking Keith if he liked corn liquor, Patti walking in and kissing Keith.

Delightful all around, rated it 5 stars of course.

Mick with Muddy at the checkerboard lounge looked better, more genuine and happier that I've ever seen him on stage. Mick THAT'S the vibe and feeling you need to find again with new a Stones music. It's so obvious.

Studio cats will realize that Keith's microphone vocal technique hasn't improved in 50 years, singing into the mic is often an afterthought for him. lol I also though a different less pop more country approach to Trouble would have worked a lot better. They screwed it up when they tried to kick it up, IMO.

Might be the last close look we get of Keith, he's getting old and the miles are showing but I love the guy dearly.

There are also some jams in the studio with all the band. They played SD. Very good version and very strong sound. I love this documentary.

Quote
pepganzo
There are also some jams in the studio with all the band. They played SD. Very good version and very strong sound. I love this documentary.

Nothing against you but it could be nice if people write the name of the song and not "SD". Loose my time guessing what song you talk. Thanks!

Quote
ouroux58

Quote
pepganzo
There are also some jams in the studio with all the band. They played SD. Very good version and very strong sound. I love this documentary.

Nothing against you but it could be nice if people write the name of the song and not "SD". Loose my time guessing what song you talk. Thanks!

The song must be Substantial Damage, easy.

You can listen to the jam here.
[www.youtube.com]

Have a nice day mate.

Quote
Naturalust
Just watched the documentary tonight. Really a good flick, feels like you spent some casual time hanging around Keith. Really good cinematography !!
Excellent shots of the guitars and the faces.

Some of my favorite parts were Pierre's catalog of Keith's guitars, the Street Fighting Man multi tracks soloed, Keith playing that simple but beautiful piano!!, realizing that Sweet Virginia may be my favorite country tune, Buddy Guy asking Keith if he liked corn liquor, Patti walking in and kissing Keith.

Delightful all around, rated it 5 stars of course.

Mick with Muddy at the checkerboard lounge looked better, more genuine and happier that I've ever seen him on stage. Mick THAT'S the vibe and feeling you need to find again with new a Stones music. It's so obvious.

Studio cats will realize that Keith's microphone vocal technique hasn't improved in 50 years, singing into the mic is often an afterthought for him. lol I also though a different less pop more country approach to Trouble would have worked a lot better. They screwed it up when they tried to kick it up, IMO.

Might be the last close look we get of Keith, he's getting old and the miles are showing but I love the guy dearly.

Glad you saw it an enjoyed. Your review made me wonder if you have seen the stones' full performance at the checkerboard? If not it is worthwhile (though short). I agree that Mick's performance was exactly right.

Quote
Bliss
Voilà, Pascal...ce lien marche bien en France.

Under the Influence

...Fantastic!! Thx -

P.S.: it can only be 'watched', not downloaded... correct?

Quote
Turner68

Quote
Naturalust
Just watched the documentary tonight. Really a good flick, feels like you spent some casual time hanging around Keith. Really good cinematography !!
Excellent shots of the guitars and the faces.

Some of my favorite parts were Pierre's catalog of Keith's guitars, the Street Fighting Man multi tracks soloed, Keith playing that simple but beautiful piano!!, realizing that Sweet Virginia may be my favorite country tune, Buddy Guy asking Keith if he liked corn liquor, Patti walking in and kissing Keith.

Delightful all around, rated it 5 stars of course.

Mick with Muddy at the checkerboard lounge looked better, more genuine and happier that I've ever seen him on stage. Mick THAT'S the vibe and feeling you need to find again with new a Stones music. It's so obvious.

Studio cats will realize that Keith's microphone vocal technique hasn't improved in 50 years, singing into the mic is often an afterthought for him. lol I also though a different less pop more country approach to Trouble would have worked a lot better. They screwed it up when they tried to kick it up, IMO.

Might be the last close look we get of Keith, he's getting old and the miles are showing but I love the guy dearly.

Glad you saw it an enjoyed. Your review made me wonder if you have seen the stones' full performance at the checkerboard? If not it is worthwhile (though short). I agree that Mick's performance was exactly right.

It's been a while but I had seen various clips of them at the Checkerboard before. Don't think I've seen the whole show in one film. It was just clear to me that this type of roots music is where Jagger truly shines. Such a contrast to his attempts at pop stardom and from my perspective a really great and comfortable role to see Jagger in.

Quote
RoughJusticeOnYa

Quote
Bliss
Voilà, Pascal...ce lien marche bien en France.

Under the Influence

...Fantastic!! Thx -

P.S.: it can only be 'watched', not downloaded... correct?

Finally I could watch it. Awesome!

PS. If you've watched it, you have already downloaded it ...only, it's somewhere in the Temp folders and will be lost when you close the browser.

use this free tool to find it quick and save it as a flv file.
[www.nirsoft.net]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-30 02:20 by open-g.

watched it about a week ago and quite enjoyed it

what I took from it is it is amazing that that French bull dog can sleep through that noise and smoke and why did Patti give Keith the kitty?

Quote
tumbled
what I took from it is it is amazing that that French bull dog can sleep through that noise and smoke and why did Patti give Keith the kitty?

I thought the same thing about his pup! As for the cat, I'm guessing Keith loves hanging with him, Patti was just obliging.

Quote
latebloomer

Quote
tumbled
what I took from it is it is amazing that that French bull dog can sleep through that noise and smoke and why did Patti give Keith the kitty?

I thought the same thing about his pup! As for the cat, I'm guessing Keith loves hanging with him, Patti was just obliging.

Yes and quite a lovely ball of fur it was. Patti is such a sweetheart, wish we had a few interviews of her talking about her man. Photogenic doesn't begin to describe the woman, the last scene of her and Keith kicking on the lounge chairs was sweet. Beauty and the beast those two together these days. lol

It´s a nice film indeed. But to me Keith became the kind of grandfather you would like to have. A bit strange, many storys to tell...

Quote
latebloomer

Quote
tumbled
what I took from it is it is amazing that that French bull dog can sleep through that noise and smoke and why did Patti give Keith the kitty?

I thought the same thing about his pup! As for the cat, I'm guessing Keith loves hanging with him, Patti was just obliging.

What did Keith say? "Poor thing, he's nearly as old as me..."

Quote
Green Lady
What did Keith say? "Poor thing, he's nearly as old as me..."

Yep.
My guess is that the director asked Patti to enter the scene and she (or someone) came up with bringing the cat as a reason.
The dog was indeed amazing - so stolid that at first I thought s/he was a pillow.

The close-ups the great sound the professional production just made Keith appear more animated and unreal. Same laughter, same oneliners the almost stalkerlike thing about Mick Jagger being his brother. Surreal film.

It's a nice peak into the heart of Keith Richards as a musician while providing a glimpse into the life of Keith Richards without making it too weighed down by Stones history.

In short, a well made document that doesn't over stay its welcome.