The story almost sounds too good to be true: a completely obscure, though highly talented musician from the USA, is one of the best selling artists in South Africa. Everyone thought he had died from some dramatically staged suicide, but appears to be alive and kicking, living as a construction worker in Detroit. 25 years after his last album, he is redsicovered by South African journalists, reappears and makes a great comeback live on stage in South Africa. The film is well told, filmed, and drags the spectator through various emotions. After all, the musician, Rodriguez, is a likeable, intelligent fellow, who doesn't seem to have too much trouble for not being the big star he could have been on the basis of his music in the Seventies. All this combined won the documentary an Oscar, and worldwide audience for Rodriguez, or at least the film. Shall this one get my five stars?
Not exactly. There are a few things that bother me. Already some debate has been raised on the internet about the timing of the film, the sequence in the edit, the long gone money, and possible legalities concerning that. This is understandable in the sense that we can question a lot of things about it. We are let to believe from the start that, possibly, Rodriguez wouldn't be alive anymore, and the search for him was not going anywhere for many years. The investigative journalist looking for him makes the decision to follow the money. He interviewes the former owner of the record company Sussex Records. When he asks about the money, the owner gets angry and disappointed, the reporter doesn't ask any further. Then you think, the reporter coud have chosen two lines of questioning. Either he would have said that he wasn't after the money question, but that this was his way of finding Rodriguez. In hindsight, we know that Rodriguez already had been found, so that makes no sense. Then he could have said: yes, I'd like to know where all that money went, because Rodriguez hasn't seen any of it! But again, he doesn't. I'd say that this would have been a completely sensible line to choose, but the question is left dangling.
But hold on a minute. I left the cinema with a cmpletely satisfied feeling, why go for the negative? Again, the music is great, though a little outdated of course, Rodriguez a puzzling man, who doesn't seem to care about anything, enjoying the ride, but at ease and seemingly happy in his own comfort zone. The story is probably not too unique, but the return of the man to South Africa and the overwhelming succes he got there makes a perfectly round circle. Also, although we get to know only somewhat halfway the film that the mission was already accomplished over a decade ago, the film makers are in their right to try and tell the story chronologically. Also, they can film. I really enjoyed the footage of the scarecrow-type of character all in black, walking the snowy streets of Detroit, sometimes almost tripping over the bad sidewalks. Curiously wearing the same boots as he did at his comeback some 15 years earlier...
But, hold another minute! In the final scenes of the movie, we get to know that one of the South Africans looking for Rodriguez a long time ago, a record shop holder nick-named Sugar, married one of R's daughters, and that all the money that was made by the various live shows Rodriguez did there all went to his family and friends. We can ask ourself if these people's intents pass tests of integrity. And, I'd say yes, why not. I mean, I can call myself son in law of one of the hippy-aged artists, and I'd consider any serious attempt to capture the story of these guys, their legacy to music, and it's business, an asset. If these young docu makers come over and want to make this film, I'd say: go for it, maybe our father, and friend, will finally get what he deserves. And that is where I think the circle reaches it starting point again. We want history to judge upon our fathers by their merits, and this documentary definitally contributes to Rodriguez's legacy.
All in all, it is not too easy to star Searching for Sugarman. On the inital side, five stars for making us leave the cinema with a smile, feeling well. On the other hand, any second thought makes you start wondering about certain, non-trivial, aspects. That costs one star, making it four out of five!
Just a last thought: this documentary won an Oscar. I guess people who decide on these things apparently do not have the time to have second thoughts?
No comments:
Post a Comment