More bimbos! More young, beautiful people!

Face it, most of us are middle-aged and ugly and don't move so well.

>> Where was it full of 'fictionalised moments' ? <<

the whole setlist joke. Scorsese the "big Stones fan" pretending he couldn't guess
which guitar would kick off the show. those exaggerated "show me some exhaustion" moments.
the volume of the instrument on screen getting louder. the Moon turning into a Stones logo.
and so on.

>> If we're going to take the 'its not really a Stones concert' adage to that extreme <<

smile: it's not an adage, and in my opinion it's already been overdone, but if you care what my take is:
i think the point of the layers of phoniness was to make the authenticity of the Stones shine.
and i think it does work that way in the film ... the only trouble being that for me
they don't need layers of phoniness to shine. they are the Rolling Stones.

Your final observation is spot on, sssoul. It also highlights the film's major flaw.

while i agree with camper88 about what a doc film is and what it is not, i think that people in front rows seeing the concert thru the cameras of their cell phone and taking picture is one of the most "reality" bit of the whole movie.

the point of fans against "extras", i am convinced, is pointless. Still, presuming "real" fans (as extras) were in the back rows i am curious to know what was their perception of the concert.

My from the movie is of a weird fishbowl were a great band kick ass virtually in front of no response. Though mick is the king of keeping the distance from the audience usually in a theatre set is not so "so much". I believe this is also something built on purpose by the director. Still i can't quite believe the lack of energy that (dont) come back from audience to stage. Exspecially because I know some "real fans" were there. It is like there is a glass between band and audience and, while I can make a sense of it in terms of movie making effect, I wonder if and how people that were there as "real fans" perceived that. If they were "annoyed by the cameras" or whatever...

In other words: an audience so lame was the result of the direction, an effect of the theatrical set situation or just a realistic picture of what an american audience is.

In that last case: it is good to have some lively dolls up front... )

Quote
with sssoul
>> with sssoul,
i also imagine they considered not having any tickets available to the public at all,
since it was a film shoot, not a concert, and i bet it was the band who vetoed that.

I must agree with you there, I think so too.

To maumau...
speaking for the paying audience in the second and third balconies, I can honestly say there was a lot of reaction in the audience there, a huge buzz. I remember thinking I have never heard so many people singing along to the words of every single song, not loudly but in uninson. Everyone was standing for the entire show, which doesn't happen at most concerts. competition was high for these low-priced tickets and most all appreciated the opportunity. Filming that made the cuts rarely went past the second balcony. Our sightlines were blocked when Mick went any distance from the main stage and we were glad for th big screen. The sound was quite good where I was.

with sssoul, on the fictionalized moments: Do you think Mick sharing the mic with Keith on FAE was staged or spontaneous? Just curious.

>> Do you think Mick sharing the mic with Keith on FAE was staged or spontaneous? Just curious. <<

the way the good open-g presented it on some other thread sounds more than plausible to me:

Scorsese: could you maybe share the mic on some number?
Glimmer Twins: sure!

just to clarify, by "fictionalized moments" i don't mean things that normally happen during Stones shows
but that need choreography/staging - i don't regard the elaborate set-up for SFTD as a "fictionalized moment",
or Keith spitting out that cigarette. i mean stuff that's just plain faked/exaggerated for the film.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-08-03 23:24 by with sssoul.

Quote
maumau
Still, presuming "real" fans (as extras) were in the back rows i am curious to know what was their perception of the concert.

"I ain't no extra baby, I'm a leading man" (Tom Waits). But seriously, I was there for the first night and had the time of my life. The concert was fantastic. On the whole, it was light on warhorses and strong on rarities: Loving Cup, She Was Hot, Shine A Light, Champagne and Reefer, Undercover, As Tears Go By, . . . it was an outstanding show to have the privilege to see and hear.

As for the extras, by the time The Stones were about two minutes into She Was Hot, the whole place was on fire; the atmosphere was electric. Even if they were "just acting." they seemed genuinely caught up in the evening.

I've had the opportunity to see the boys at the Aragon and the Tower show and I'll never forget any of these shows. Seeing The Stones in a club or theatre is something that can't be compared to any stadium or arena show, IMHO. It's like having the Sistine Chapel in your living room.

Quote
Roadster32

Quote
Sir Craven of Cottage
I think they should have filled the whole audience with eye candy, not just the front row. If we have to have audience shots they should be of people you want to see - not grissly old people who think they have a right to be there because they bought a Stones single in 1964.
Babes in the front row. IT should be the law.

Seems you like to provoke people here.
Not an adequate behaviour for a "Sir", honestly I doubt you are.

Can't you spot a tongue in cheek comment when you see one?

Deary deary me!!!!

The Mick/Keith sharing mic moment, to me was both authentic and staged. Keith was over by Ronnie by the time that chorus came around. Keith usually sings harmony but since he was nowhere near a mic...Mick stepped close so Keith could share it. At a "normal" show....Mick wouldn't have cared...he would've just let Keith not sing it but since he thought "Hey, this IS being filmed...." He knew it was a good time to pull out the "Glimmer-Twin-Sharing-Mic-Gag." To me, it doesn't look like Keith is expecting it. It almost looks to me that when Mick approaches, Keith almost ignores him and gets outta the way (as he usually does). If it was more of a strong suggestion...Keith would've realized it and willingly approached the mic with Mick.

Maybe Martin hinted at them at some point to do it..who knows...but to me although the IDEA was planned...the actual moment it happened...seemed plausible and real. I know theres no point in defending it to this length....but I guess I'm glad that it wasn't a 100% fabricated moment.

As far as Keith spitting out the cigarette....it's all in the editing. Actually, you see Keith spit out a cigarrete during "As Tears Go By"...there's a shot from the back of the band and you see Keith turn his head and you see a cigarette fall to the ground. Who knows....maybe this was the moment they put in SFTD...they just moved it around? It definintely would look cool during SFTD rather than ATGB. I think all for Keith looking "Exhausted"--Keith was just himself. It was up to the cameras to capture it. And then it's up to editing and cinemotographer to make it look even cooler.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-08-03 21:54 by Justin.

The second night was on fire before they came out and more so when they did. :-)
Ours was a cancelled show from the night before which made things a bit difficult for the out-of towners, while adding to the excitement.

with sssoul, thanks, I hadn't remembered that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-08-03 21:53 by angee.

Aint this all being analysied a tad too far?

>> Keith looking "Exhausted"--Keith was just himself <<

well, we all have our perceptions. yes Keith goes down on his knees at the end of shows ... and gets right back up again.
for me in SAL that moment shrieks of a director going "Keith, stay down stay down - hold that, and breathe hard, we can use that".
same with the Charlie Exhaustion Moment - it seems faked, especially since it's shown twice
as if ... no, never mind. :E have some popcorn

Quote
with sssoul
>> Keith looking "Exhausted"--Keith was just himself <<

well, we all have our perceptions. yes Keith goes down on his knees at the end of shows ... and gets right back up again.
for me in SAL that moment shrieks of a director going "Keith, stay down stay down - hold that, and breathe hard, we can use that".
same with the Charlie Exhaustion Moment - it seems faked, especially since it's shown twice
as if ... no, never mind. :E have some popcorn

Oh yeah I didn't mean that this moment felt real to me....Above I said that everything EXCEPT this moment was Keith being Keith. I remember seeing that in the theatre and I went 'yeaaaaahh right." Keith's chest heaving up and down as if he just ran 10 miles! Still, I wish he didn't do that because it makes it seem like "look at these old guys...they can't do a 2 hour show!"

I laugh every time I see Charlie's though, after ADTL. I feel for him on that one....that's a fast song that has him working hard, though!

thanks for clarifying, Justin - i didn't get the "except for" part of what you were saying. now i understand.

>> it makes it seem like "look at these old guys...they can't do a 2 hour show!" <<

i agree - it's not a Stoned thing to convey. and people who haven't seen multiple Stones shows
don't get that it's faked/exaggerated, which i guess is what Scorsese wanted, but i don't know why.
projecting his own complexes i guess? oh well - he's the director, i suppose he's entitled :E



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-08-03 22:21 by with sssoul.

Quote
ablett
Aint this all being analysied a tad too far?

then why are you still reading?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-08-03 22:12 by cc.

You are right, in spite of any of those moments, with sssoul, that the
authenticity shines right through. Shine a Lignt.

Quote
with sssoul
i agree - it's not a Stoned thing to convey. and people who haven't seen multiple Stones shows
don't get that it's faked/exaggerated, which i guess is what Scorsese wanted, but i don't know why.

I think he was trying to make it look like the band had given everything they had. Kind've like Ali being too tired to stand in the ring after his third fight with Joe Frazier.

thanks angee and camper88
really I think that from the movie you cant say that "the place was on fire" and that there was a lot of response. The fact the the second balcony is barely shown is part of the explanation. It's clear to me that Scorsese was not interested in that part of the "concert film" template style where the director hints to the movie audience to identify with the concert audience. And the blonde women up front are just a part of this scheme (unless youre young beautiful blonde and stoned)

Gimme Shelter is an authentic documentary. this isn't .

Does anyone like SAL?

You read this board you'd think otherwise?

Quote
cirrhosis

Quote
with sssoul
i agree - it's not a Stoned thing to convey. and people who haven't seen multiple Stones shows
don't get that it's faked/exaggerated, which i guess is what Scorsese wanted, but i don't know why.

I think he was trying to make it look like the band had given everything they had. Kind've like Ali being too tired to stand in the ring after his third fight with Joe Frazier.

It was Frazier who was unable to answer the bell in the 15th...The Thrilla in Manila.

Oki doki...after re-reading...I know what you mean now.....although Ali won...yes, it took everything out of him.

I remember Ali saying something like..."I saw the Angels tonight" or "I was close to death"

That was a hell of a fight. They don't make 'em like that anymore.

:Raises a glass to both Ali and Frazier:

Quote
Gazza

Im not so sure, camper. The Stones are definitely aware its the same people down front most nights - Mick even said so on the final night of the tour in London.

Good to see you back here again btw - you seem to have been AWOL for quite a while.

I'll second that latter comment - assuming this is the same camper who saved me from freezing to death in that Beacon queue (seriously - it was soooooo bitterly cold) by gallantly bringing me some good HOT soup!! Not to mention his equally gallant efforts to get me a ticket.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-08-04 02:11 by Beast.

Quote
Bingo

Quote
cirrhosis

Quote
with sssoul
i agree - it's not a Stoned thing to convey. and people who haven't seen multiple Stones shows
don't get that it's faked/exaggerated, which i guess is what Scorsese wanted, but i don't know why.

I think he was trying to make it look like the band had given everything they had. Kind've like Ali being too tired to stand in the ring after his third fight with Joe Frazier.

It was Frazier who was unable to answer the bell in the 15th...The Thrilla in Manila.

..and it was Ali who collapsed in the ring after he'd been declared the winner, and who said afterwards it was the "closest thing to death" he'd ever experienced.

Good analogy,cirrhosis

Quote
ablett
Aint this all being analysied a tad too far?

Reviews and analysis are what tends to happen when a film or a recording gets released.

A newly released DVD of a Stones show being critiqued on a Rolling Stones message board. Whatever next?

Quote
ablett
Does anyone like SAL?

You read this board you'd think otherwise?

Its ok....are we allowed to think its not brilliant? Dont worry, if it helps people sleep at nights, what flaws are in it are mainly down to directorial decisions. Just because its a film about the Stones and the band are pretty good in it, doesnt have to mean its a great FILM. Which it isn't, IMO, although it has some great 'moments'.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2008-08-04 03:52 by Gazza.

(duplicate post - deleted)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-08-04 03:47 by Gazza.

Quote
Gazza
(duplicate post - deleted)

post deleted.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-08-04 18:46 by schillid.

If it were real fans in the front, some would have been too busy text messaging their friends in the balcony while turning around waving.

I didnt go to the movie to see the audience, I didnt go to check out Marty's film either, I went to see the Stones and so glad I did.