Wow, this was kind of heavy. After seeing Neil Young and Crazy Horse play live last night, now Caspar saw them again in this documentary by Jim Jarmusch. It was like you saw the show again, but in another year, another place, and more up close. In all its raw, 8 mm filmed material, with short introductions of the band members , its history and life on the road, the film does justice to its subject: four guys, two guitars, a bass and drums, plus a basket full of great songs; rock 'n roll in its purest form!
As I mentioned yesterday, I hadn't seen Neil Young and Crazy Horse live before. Funny enough, it was the documentary The Year of the Horse that I saw twice already when it was released in 1996, at the Filmmuseum in Amsterdam. What struck me most back then was the loud and intense way Neil and the band played. I really liked it; most of the songs in the film I knew already and I related to (see:CasparLive: Neil Young and Crazy Horse). Peculiar how that CD was released under the same name, but contains a very different set of songs. Now, after having seen the live show, I thought the film even more impressive. We get so close, almost as if we are on the stage with them. But do not think you can get in between them somehow. The movie shows clips from the past when the band was fighting over the vocal parts, but if there is anything clear that we get from the film is that this is a very tight band, both musically and personally.
Funny how the film has been critized by various people over the choice of Jim Jarmusch to use 8 mm film. It gives the film a grainy touch, which is amplified by editing loosely shot material for example looking outside from the touring bus while on the road. This choice can be explained two ways. From the one hand it might give the movie a sort of artsy fartsy look (dixit guitarist Poncho Sampedro), that combines nicely with Jarmusch' image as the intelectualist, New York film maker. But on the other, we can say that it supports Crazy Horse's raw music, and characters. Anyhow, in my opinion it works well. The film is a nice pastiche, with great live performances, and some more or less pivotal scenes from the past, and short interviews with the guys, Neil's father, and their long standing manager Eliot Roberts (see also: CasparCritique: David Geffen always wins). This way we get the whole picture and introduction to the band in a great way. Surely, as Poncho Sampedro states three times, the film maker will not tell the whole story on the basis of a few questions and in two hours, but that would mean that the story could not be told by anyone. So, this is comes close enough.
One last thing that struck me was that guitarist Sampedro and bass player Billy Talbot apparently do not use any effects, or guitar tuning. Now that I think of it, also Neil himself is able to force his guitar to the max getting feedback from his amps, still being able to play the intro to Hurricane afterwards in a tuned way. Also, the way they stay close to eachother on a stage, no matter how big it is; they're in it for the music, and their love of noise. After so many years, so many stories, so many songs and so many tours, Neil Young and Crazy Horse are still the same guys as they were before. No pretentions, plug in your guitars and let's rock! This way, a movie can hardly ever go wrong for me; I'll give it 4 stars out of five!
Showing posts with label music doc. Show all posts
Showing posts with label music doc. Show all posts
Casparcritique: David Geffen always wins
So far, at the CasparSongs blog, we have been looking at artists, their songs, maybe the studio where they recorded. But, we haven't looked at the the world behind the stage; the managers, record company executives, etcetera. Why not? Maybe because it is about the music, the creativity, the artists themselves. Maybe because there are not many people in that section of the industry that interesting to pay attention to. And hey, if these people were not around, there still would be music, but not the other way around!
These were more or less my thoughts when the documentary about legendary entertainment manager, and record label boss, David Geffen started last night. Again, I knew his name because I read it on albums like Aerosmith's Get a Grip, or Guns 'n Roses' Appetite for Destruction. Big selling albums, but not necessarily history changing. The bigger was my surprise when I kept on watching and was really entertained by the film.
The film starts with Geffen's upbringing from very humble background in Brooklyn, New York, when he sets himself out to be an artist manager, lies about his education, and gets a job at the mailroom of a company called William Morris Agency. He soon left to become the personal manager of a singer-songwriter called Laura Nyro. To be honest, CasparSongs never had heard from her before. But, Geffen made sure that after her debut album didn't sell too much, other artists recorded her songs and that way the two made a lot of money. Then Geffen started a company together with Elliot Roberts. This is the time when Geffen showed his great entrepreneurship talents. He managed to get David Crosby, Stephen Stills and Graham Nash out of their respective record deals at three different companies, so that they could form their own new super group. The next big thing for them was to get a young, and promising new talent Jackson Browne started. After failing to get him into a mainstream record company, they decided to found their own label, called Asylum Records. The word Asylum was choosen to show that the label was a place for struggling artists to find shelter. And a good name it was: Geffen is still hailed for his unconditional support for his people!
As the artists were haning out smoking pot along with the staff of Asylum, Geffen is the only one that didn't. In stead, he was constantly on the phone making deals, and he never took no for an answer. His style is not a pleasant one, when you're against him, but you cannot think of a better manager on your side when he is with you. In that respect, he has got an amazing staminae, a 100% drive to succeed.
Until this moment in the film, it all seem to be positive, an ordinary, though good, story about how anyone can make it in the USA. But then a set-back occurs. His first protegee, Laura Nyro, decides to leave Asylum, and signs for another company. She didn't tell Geffen, she just did. For Geffen, whose style it was to, almost, parent his artists, it feels like he is stabbed in the back. He cries for days about Nyro's decision, and finally understands he has got to change things. He leaves Asylum, starts a relationship with Cher (while being gay), and moves into the movie business. He doesn't feel very at home there though, also because he gets a boss above him, and he is not used to that. Also, in his personal life some things happen concerning his health and the break up with Cher. So he returns to the music industry by starting a new label: Geffen Records in 1980. And, in 1990, Dreamworks, the blockbuster movie studio.
There is a lot more to tell about David Geffen and the documentary. For example his charity work, or his political affiliation with the Clintons, and Barack Obama. Again, he shows his ability to tell people straight in their face what he thinks. When Bill Clinton doens't live up to his promise to have gays accepted in the American armed forces, Geffen drops him and doesn't hesitate to attack him in public. Again we are shown a piece of his mind. And that is just what I found so very interesting about the portrait: the psychology of a succesful entertainment tycoon. On the one hand, he gives more than 100% for his artists, going through walls to get them their success. But on the other hand, he demands 100% loyalty of the people he works with. If the other person doesn't deliver, you'd better hide. In my opinion, one cannot continue like that. Even if the other person would be able to give 100%, I bet you it is not 100% the same thing you're talking about. Any normal person would not be able to survive this 'all or nothing' attitude. David Geffen has got this incredible and rare talent to rise again, starting new initiatives, and a radar for what will be succesful in entertainment.
The documentary David Geffen always wins (of which the American title is Inventing David Geffen, but I liked the Dutch title more) shows us an insight of a world we know it exists, but never saw it so personal, moving, and entertaining. Let alone the incredible amount of information any fan op popular music would love. A solid account of a survivor, a macher in the entertainment industry, that would have existed without him, but that wouldn't have been the same. *****
These were more or less my thoughts when the documentary about legendary entertainment manager, and record label boss, David Geffen started last night. Again, I knew his name because I read it on albums like Aerosmith's Get a Grip, or Guns 'n Roses' Appetite for Destruction. Big selling albums, but not necessarily history changing. The bigger was my surprise when I kept on watching and was really entertained by the film.
The film starts with Geffen's upbringing from very humble background in Brooklyn, New York, when he sets himself out to be an artist manager, lies about his education, and gets a job at the mailroom of a company called William Morris Agency. He soon left to become the personal manager of a singer-songwriter called Laura Nyro. To be honest, CasparSongs never had heard from her before. But, Geffen made sure that after her debut album didn't sell too much, other artists recorded her songs and that way the two made a lot of money. Then Geffen started a company together with Elliot Roberts. This is the time when Geffen showed his great entrepreneurship talents. He managed to get David Crosby, Stephen Stills and Graham Nash out of their respective record deals at three different companies, so that they could form their own new super group. The next big thing for them was to get a young, and promising new talent Jackson Browne started. After failing to get him into a mainstream record company, they decided to found their own label, called Asylum Records. The word Asylum was choosen to show that the label was a place for struggling artists to find shelter. And a good name it was: Geffen is still hailed for his unconditional support for his people!
As the artists were haning out smoking pot along with the staff of Asylum, Geffen is the only one that didn't. In stead, he was constantly on the phone making deals, and he never took no for an answer. His style is not a pleasant one, when you're against him, but you cannot think of a better manager on your side when he is with you. In that respect, he has got an amazing staminae, a 100% drive to succeed.
Until this moment in the film, it all seem to be positive, an ordinary, though good, story about how anyone can make it in the USA. But then a set-back occurs. His first protegee, Laura Nyro, decides to leave Asylum, and signs for another company. She didn't tell Geffen, she just did. For Geffen, whose style it was to, almost, parent his artists, it feels like he is stabbed in the back. He cries for days about Nyro's decision, and finally understands he has got to change things. He leaves Asylum, starts a relationship with Cher (while being gay), and moves into the movie business. He doesn't feel very at home there though, also because he gets a boss above him, and he is not used to that. Also, in his personal life some things happen concerning his health and the break up with Cher. So he returns to the music industry by starting a new label: Geffen Records in 1980. And, in 1990, Dreamworks, the blockbuster movie studio.
There is a lot more to tell about David Geffen and the documentary. For example his charity work, or his political affiliation with the Clintons, and Barack Obama. Again, he shows his ability to tell people straight in their face what he thinks. When Bill Clinton doens't live up to his promise to have gays accepted in the American armed forces, Geffen drops him and doesn't hesitate to attack him in public. Again we are shown a piece of his mind. And that is just what I found so very interesting about the portrait: the psychology of a succesful entertainment tycoon. On the one hand, he gives more than 100% for his artists, going through walls to get them their success. But on the other hand, he demands 100% loyalty of the people he works with. If the other person doesn't deliver, you'd better hide. In my opinion, one cannot continue like that. Even if the other person would be able to give 100%, I bet you it is not 100% the same thing you're talking about. Any normal person would not be able to survive this 'all or nothing' attitude. David Geffen has got this incredible and rare talent to rise again, starting new initiatives, and a radar for what will be succesful in entertainment.
The documentary David Geffen always wins (of which the American title is Inventing David Geffen, but I liked the Dutch title more) shows us an insight of a world we know it exists, but never saw it so personal, moving, and entertaining. Let alone the incredible amount of information any fan op popular music would love. A solid account of a survivor, a macher in the entertainment industry, that would have existed without him, but that wouldn't have been the same. *****
Casparcritique: Soul of America, documentary on Charles Bradley
Last night I came across this documentary made two years ago about the improbable rise of soul singer Charles Bradley. At the age of 62 he managed to get a career started, after a life of misery and hardship. I had listened to his second CD which was released recently. After having seen the Soul of America, my respect for Charles Bradley's story really grew. It made me relisten!
Bradley's story starts when he is reunited with his mother. She had left his place of birth to go to New York in search of better oportunities (or for the love of a married man, as her brother claims), when her youngest son Charles still is a toddler. That means he hadn't seen his mother for about 7 or 8 years, so he doesn't recognize her at first. She takes him and his brother to New York. What exactly happens there is explained thoroughly in the film, but at the age of 14 Charles leaves home and he lives on the street for some time, keeping warm by travelling the subways. He makes little money by impersonating James Brown, until his complete band is drafted for the Vietnam War. He lives half and half on the streets, sometimes in the basement of his mother. One time, he gets hit by a terrible disease. His brother Joseph makes him fight for his life. We can only imagine the pain he must have felt when this same brother is killed in robbery. So far, and I hope you don't mind me saying this, these kind of stories are not that unusual, and Bradley's life might have ended anonimously for the rest of the world, until the record company Daptone Records advertises their search for new singers. Here Charles Bradley comes to life for us, lovers of great music.
What we get from the documentary is an incredibly dearing, human portrait of a somewhat naive, but truly honest and open character. The film is leading up to the date of the release of his debut CD. So he is still completely unknown, and overwhelmed by a minimum of attention he gets. Beautyful how he reacts when he hears that he will be in the newspaper, and embracing people in the street who are genuinely happy for him. Completely understandable he is blown off his socks when he sees that his CD presentation show is sold out.
To me, an important moment in the film is the scene where Charles takes English classes, and aparently his level is somewhere in the first few grades. He can't read or write! Another key scene to me was where he explaines how he was too nervous to get on stage. He reenacts this for the documentary! When we combine these two things, we might get to to the bottom of what makes this documentary a great film: it is the person it is centered around. Bradley is uneducated, and bruised by events in his past, but with his golden voice, an open attitude, and a natural charm, makes him a great, rare chracter, that waited for the right time to blossom. He took the initiative when Daptone was searching for talent, and every now and then he shows he is aware that he has to do things to help his career. Now is his time, let's hope he will stick around long enough to pick the sweet fruits of success. (4 stars out of 5)
Bradley's story starts when he is reunited with his mother. She had left his place of birth to go to New York in search of better oportunities (or for the love of a married man, as her brother claims), when her youngest son Charles still is a toddler. That means he hadn't seen his mother for about 7 or 8 years, so he doesn't recognize her at first. She takes him and his brother to New York. What exactly happens there is explained thoroughly in the film, but at the age of 14 Charles leaves home and he lives on the street for some time, keeping warm by travelling the subways. He makes little money by impersonating James Brown, until his complete band is drafted for the Vietnam War. He lives half and half on the streets, sometimes in the basement of his mother. One time, he gets hit by a terrible disease. His brother Joseph makes him fight for his life. We can only imagine the pain he must have felt when this same brother is killed in robbery. So far, and I hope you don't mind me saying this, these kind of stories are not that unusual, and Bradley's life might have ended anonimously for the rest of the world, until the record company Daptone Records advertises their search for new singers. Here Charles Bradley comes to life for us, lovers of great music.
What we get from the documentary is an incredibly dearing, human portrait of a somewhat naive, but truly honest and open character. The film is leading up to the date of the release of his debut CD. So he is still completely unknown, and overwhelmed by a minimum of attention he gets. Beautyful how he reacts when he hears that he will be in the newspaper, and embracing people in the street who are genuinely happy for him. Completely understandable he is blown off his socks when he sees that his CD presentation show is sold out.
To me, an important moment in the film is the scene where Charles takes English classes, and aparently his level is somewhere in the first few grades. He can't read or write! Another key scene to me was where he explaines how he was too nervous to get on stage. He reenacts this for the documentary! When we combine these two things, we might get to to the bottom of what makes this documentary a great film: it is the person it is centered around. Bradley is uneducated, and bruised by events in his past, but with his golden voice, an open attitude, and a natural charm, makes him a great, rare chracter, that waited for the right time to blossom. He took the initiative when Daptone was searching for talent, and every now and then he shows he is aware that he has to do things to help his career. Now is his time, let's hope he will stick around long enough to pick the sweet fruits of success. (4 stars out of 5)
Casparcritique: Sound City
Even though some people might disagree, I always considered Fleetwood Mac one of the best bands around in the seventies. Their albums, called Fleetwood Mac and Rumours, are exemplary to me for what can be called the sound of the seventies (also see my former blog 'The sound of vinyl'). Thing is, I never realized that the first of these two albums was recorded in a legendary studio called Sound City. The closing of this studio inspired Dave Grohl to make a documentary about the place. Caspar Songs saw the film at the Melkweg venue in Amsterdam last night, and had a great evening.
In the history of Sound City, there are actually two key albums, both turning the studio for the better in their own rights. After Sound City bought themselves a serious studio control board called Neve, which cost the price of two respectable houses, they had two young musicians, and love birds, in the studio recording their debut album. Lindsey Buckingham and Stevie Nicks, about to become legends, made their album, but the greatest contribution to music history are not the songs on it. When the studio directors tried to convince Mick Fleetwood to record the next Fleetwood Mac album at Sound City, they played the Buckingham Nicks tape. It inspired Fleetwood not just to use the studio, but also to take the couple along with his band. History in the making: a blues band turned to pop, and one of the monster selling acts world wide. If you listen to a song like Rhiannon, you'll get the sound we are talking about.
As it works, such a great success attracts others looking for the same kind of sound. After Fleetwood Mac, Sound City recorded many great artists in the seventies, early eighties, from a wide variety as Rick Springfield, Tom Petty, but also Barry Manilow, and many others. In the analog age, Sound City was in the eye of the storm when it came to recording pop-rock artists. But, the analog became digital, making Sound City outdated and struggling for survival.
The digital revolution didn't just change the way music was recorded. Moreover, it took over the way music was played. In stead of having to be able to play an instrument, you could (read: can) simply order a machine to do it for you. That way, the heart beat was left out, the soul hidden by a number of computer bytes. The quintessentially analog Sound City couldn't win that war. As we can see in the documentary, the people managing the studio were very kind and gentle, but not the kind of people to take on a battle bigger then their own.
Luckily, they hang out long enough to be able to stage the counter-revolution. A largely unknown band from Seattle called Nirvana came driving down in a van, and recorded a master piece at Sound City. Their album Nevermind was the turning point. This way not only music changed for the better, but it also put Sound City back in the centre of recording. Acts such as Rage against the Machine, and Queens of the Stone Age recorded their ground making albums on the warmth of the Neve control board, and made Sound City last another 20 years.
If the story of Sound City were to end here, the documentary would be the eulogy, the story of a legendary studio. Luckily, Dave Grohl is around and willing to play various parts at the same time. Of course, he was drummer of Nirvana, inventing one of the best recognised drum riffs ever (intro of Smells like Teen Spirit), front man of one of the biggest band at the moment (Foo Fighters), but also owner of a big home studio that could use a notorious control board. All these parts Dave Grohl plays, round up the story. Grohl bought the control board from Sound City, and decided to make a documentary on its history. One further decision he took, was to ensemble many artists from this history to make an album with them recorded, obviously, on the Neve.
Now, when someone plays that many parts, one has to be cautious not to place oneself too much in the centre of attention. I mean, as Grohl placed himself on the poster of the documentary, you might wonder what it is about: the studio, or an artist full of himself. Surprisingly, Grohl finds the exact balance for this. I mean, sure we he see him around a lot. He even manages to interview himself about the time Nirvana pulled up into the studio parking ground. But, at the end of the documentary, you realize that it was all about trying to capture the heart and soul of a legendary studio, and that is just what the film does. It portrays two key periods in its existence, concludes that the soul is in the control board, but moreover keeps its soul alive by taking it along and let it live on in new music. I guess there is just one question left unanswered, and that is why Nirvana choose Sound City? Dave Grohl doesn't remember it, Kurt Cobain sadly is not around anymore. This makes you wonder: was it chance, luck, or did someone realize that to make a great analog album, in a studio that probably wouldn't cost much in those days, you had to go to Sound City?
To round it all up: Sound City gets four stars out of five!
In the history of Sound City, there are actually two key albums, both turning the studio for the better in their own rights. After Sound City bought themselves a serious studio control board called Neve, which cost the price of two respectable houses, they had two young musicians, and love birds, in the studio recording their debut album. Lindsey Buckingham and Stevie Nicks, about to become legends, made their album, but the greatest contribution to music history are not the songs on it. When the studio directors tried to convince Mick Fleetwood to record the next Fleetwood Mac album at Sound City, they played the Buckingham Nicks tape. It inspired Fleetwood not just to use the studio, but also to take the couple along with his band. History in the making: a blues band turned to pop, and one of the monster selling acts world wide. If you listen to a song like Rhiannon, you'll get the sound we are talking about.
As it works, such a great success attracts others looking for the same kind of sound. After Fleetwood Mac, Sound City recorded many great artists in the seventies, early eighties, from a wide variety as Rick Springfield, Tom Petty, but also Barry Manilow, and many others. In the analog age, Sound City was in the eye of the storm when it came to recording pop-rock artists. But, the analog became digital, making Sound City outdated and struggling for survival.
The digital revolution didn't just change the way music was recorded. Moreover, it took over the way music was played. In stead of having to be able to play an instrument, you could (read: can) simply order a machine to do it for you. That way, the heart beat was left out, the soul hidden by a number of computer bytes. The quintessentially analog Sound City couldn't win that war. As we can see in the documentary, the people managing the studio were very kind and gentle, but not the kind of people to take on a battle bigger then their own.
Luckily, they hang out long enough to be able to stage the counter-revolution. A largely unknown band from Seattle called Nirvana came driving down in a van, and recorded a master piece at Sound City. Their album Nevermind was the turning point. This way not only music changed for the better, but it also put Sound City back in the centre of recording. Acts such as Rage against the Machine, and Queens of the Stone Age recorded their ground making albums on the warmth of the Neve control board, and made Sound City last another 20 years.
If the story of Sound City were to end here, the documentary would be the eulogy, the story of a legendary studio. Luckily, Dave Grohl is around and willing to play various parts at the same time. Of course, he was drummer of Nirvana, inventing one of the best recognised drum riffs ever (intro of Smells like Teen Spirit), front man of one of the biggest band at the moment (Foo Fighters), but also owner of a big home studio that could use a notorious control board. All these parts Dave Grohl plays, round up the story. Grohl bought the control board from Sound City, and decided to make a documentary on its history. One further decision he took, was to ensemble many artists from this history to make an album with them recorded, obviously, on the Neve.
Now, when someone plays that many parts, one has to be cautious not to place oneself too much in the centre of attention. I mean, as Grohl placed himself on the poster of the documentary, you might wonder what it is about: the studio, or an artist full of himself. Surprisingly, Grohl finds the exact balance for this. I mean, sure we he see him around a lot. He even manages to interview himself about the time Nirvana pulled up into the studio parking ground. But, at the end of the documentary, you realize that it was all about trying to capture the heart and soul of a legendary studio, and that is just what the film does. It portrays two key periods in its existence, concludes that the soul is in the control board, but moreover keeps its soul alive by taking it along and let it live on in new music. I guess there is just one question left unanswered, and that is why Nirvana choose Sound City? Dave Grohl doesn't remember it, Kurt Cobain sadly is not around anymore. This makes you wonder: was it chance, luck, or did someone realize that to make a great analog album, in a studio that probably wouldn't cost much in those days, you had to go to Sound City?
To round it all up: Sound City gets four stars out of five!
Casparcritique: Searching for Sugarman
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?
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?
Casparcritique: Pearl Jam's 20
Over a period of twenty years, filmmaker and journalist Cameron Crowe filmed Pearl Jam, and assembled all sorts of material of the band. For their twentieth birthday, he put it all together and managed to make a two hour documentary out of it. As the band surely was a big influence on rock music from their first album onwards, I had to see it for sure. It is a great film, especially because it makes clear why I have had such a love-hate relation with them.I remember vividly when their first single 'Alive' appeared on MTV in 1992. After the unforgettable Grungerock impact Nirvana made with Smells like Teen Spirit, we would also call it grungy. Of course Pearl Jam was from the same 'Grunge' capital Seattle, as was Nirvana. At the same time, it was more melodic, more traditional then Kurt Cobain's band. The singer had this peculiar style, sort of singing through his teeth, the guitar solo was nice, but a bit too smooth for what was considered reinvented punkrock music. Quite obviously, Cobain called Pearl Jam too commercial, allthough the film contains footage of him talking about Eddie Vedder and calling him something like 'nice'.
After Alive, the second single released was called Jeremy. And that is when I lost my, potential, being a fan. I simply disliked that song, and the accompanying video with it. Bassist Jeff Ament explains in the film that their song writing abilities were not that great yet: they play an A throughout most of it. Now, that is not a reason not to like a song, but it sort of whimpers on, maybe I didn't catch the drive of it thinking what are you so upset about it and why do you splash your emotions in our faces. The over the top yeah-oh singing in the chorus was what finally finished my interest.
Years after I got two Pearl Jam albums by chance. For some reason that I cannot recall buying Yield, the other was called No Code. A friend of mine gave it to me stating that he couldn't listen to it because he thought it was horrible. What's funny about that, is that No Code is actually pretty good, when you get past the first, like, five songs, and my friend probably didn't get that far. Also, I really liked most of Yield, also because of the fact that Jack Irons played drums, and he was the first drummer of Red Hot Chili Peppers, which is one of my quintessential sources of music (as regular readers of this blog will know). Another major feat in the mid nineties was the Pearl Jam show on Pinkpop festival. Watching it on the telly, you could feel the energy, adrenaline, and decibels coming through the screen. It is still considered one of the best shows ever in 45 years of Pinkpop history.
So, with Pearl Jam sort of rehabilitated, and with a position in the subtop of my favorite bands, there was one more thing thatt bugs me about the band. For a long time, the majority of singers in rock bands in the Netherlands thought it was cool to sing Eddie Vedder-style; down your throat, and through your teeth. Best known for doing this is Dinand from the band called... hum, can't recall now, but still big over here. But many, lesser known, singers did this. Man, there was no talking them out of it. And you know what? They said they didn't do it on purpose, meaning that it got down in our collective DNA, or something. From a more theoretical perspective, this means great credit to Eddie Vedder, of course, but when you are in the middle of it...
Now, back to the documentary again. Did it change my perception of the band itself? Well, I guess so. Eddie Vedder seems more real then I thought he was, and the rest of the band too. In the core, they do not seem to be commercial in any sense. (Selling millions of CD's is not the same thing, apparently!) I mean, many of their albums contain unbareable songs, are released first only on vinyl, and they do not use any artificial things like top models in video clips. They took the company Ticketmaster for a fight when they tried to make too much money over the heads of many live acts. I got the impression that they have stuck to their believes and roots. As the film is larded with unknown, private scenes, it gives a good sense of what it means to be big in the States, eventhough that is not always what they wanted.
More than enjoyable, this film, 4 stars out of 5. I guess we will have to except the fact that the film might inspire a new generation of singers singing through their teeth again.
Casparcritique #8: Tropicália
Although I am very much aware of the Gaucho Rock from the
South of Brazil, generally speaking you won't find too much
rocky tunes in Brazilian popular music. We usually think of cheezy
songs on amor and coração, samba sounds and slowly
swinging Bossa Nova tunes. But when watching the documentary
Tropicália, I realized that this particular wave of popular
culture in 1960s meant quite a lot in terms of heavy, rock-oriented
music.
Let's first start with the term Tropicália itself. Too many docs pretent to give an all inclusive definition of the subject after which it is proven right by many examples. Tropicália doesn't fall for that trick. At the start Caetano Veloso is interviewed and asked what Tropicalism means. He starts answering, but hesitates. Rather, the doc discusses the various elements associated with it. It contained elements of music, culture, drugs, politics, revolt. Broadly speaking, a wave of culture associated with the sixties, in all aspects, but with specific Brazilian traits.
All through the fifties and sixties, the Bossa Nova was the leading style in popular music. Internationally acclaimed by the great jazz players, but sugar sweet and slow. It didn't contain any spark that would attract young musicians when at the same time they heard news from other countries about the whole liberation movement the hippies had started. So, while the military dictatorship in Brazil used more and more coercive force to hold on to power, it was logical that young musicians looked for other ways of expressing themselves. Following the British bands at the time, a more blues/rock orientation helped them to find just that. Mixed with Brazilian folk music, you get more or less the Tropicalismo sound.
Along with the music came the drugs. It's quite obvious from the documentary itself that the it was the hallucinatory era; colourful, liquid shapes are all around, especially the, what I'd like to call, unofficial footage. I mean, the documentary shows a lot of official footage from national TV. And even though that looks like festive occasions, the way it was registered on camera looked rather straightforward and corny.
One of the more interesting point in the docu is this influence of English music. As much of the movement was anti-imperialist, how come musicians look for British, and American examples? The docu shows some criticism of this aspect, but I guess that many rebellious musicians from other countries were considered as anti-establishment, and therefore acceptable.
Anyway, frontrunners like Caetano Veloso, Gilberto Gil, Mutantes, Gal Costa, used their growing notoriety for political purposes as well. They appeared at massive demonstrations in 1968 in Rio de Janeiro following the death of a student at a riot, after which the military regime tightened their grip on society. Moreover, both Caetano and Gil were arrested and put in jail for two months! After a few months of house arrest they went into exile for years. And that was about it. The Tropicalismo movement ends at the time when their most important members lived outside of Brazil. I don't think there is one point, or event, that closes it all down. As Caetano explaines in the film, the end came when he left Brazil. Now, you must know that Caetano has never been embarrased to put himself in the middle of attention. I think it is a bit more obvious to say it ended when he was allowed to return to Brazil in 1972, and he didn't pick up what was left of Tropicalismo. I'm pretty sure that he was allowed to return only after promising to stick to music and refrain from politics. I mean, maybe in the European context you might say that certain demands from the liberation movement were answered thus taking the sting out of the conflict. But in Brazil, during the seventies, the military junta tightened their grip even more. Did Caetano make such a promise? The documentary doesn't really answer this question. This way, it looks like Tropicalismo simply faded away, leaving traces in new bands like Secos e Molhados. But with a wave of so many different elements, it is hard to pinpoint what exactly is left of it.
I must say, I really enjoyed the film. Great editing, great music. Nothing too positive (as is sometimes the problem with Brazilian documentaries. I remember a eulogy of Pelé once...), well told, interesting quotes by key people. Personally I found the live performance by Gal Costa, almost Janis Joplin style, most surprising. So, let's say 4 out of 5!?
Let's first start with the term Tropicália itself. Too many docs pretent to give an all inclusive definition of the subject after which it is proven right by many examples. Tropicália doesn't fall for that trick. At the start Caetano Veloso is interviewed and asked what Tropicalism means. He starts answering, but hesitates. Rather, the doc discusses the various elements associated with it. It contained elements of music, culture, drugs, politics, revolt. Broadly speaking, a wave of culture associated with the sixties, in all aspects, but with specific Brazilian traits.
All through the fifties and sixties, the Bossa Nova was the leading style in popular music. Internationally acclaimed by the great jazz players, but sugar sweet and slow. It didn't contain any spark that would attract young musicians when at the same time they heard news from other countries about the whole liberation movement the hippies had started. So, while the military dictatorship in Brazil used more and more coercive force to hold on to power, it was logical that young musicians looked for other ways of expressing themselves. Following the British bands at the time, a more blues/rock orientation helped them to find just that. Mixed with Brazilian folk music, you get more or less the Tropicalismo sound.
Along with the music came the drugs. It's quite obvious from the documentary itself that the it was the hallucinatory era; colourful, liquid shapes are all around, especially the, what I'd like to call, unofficial footage. I mean, the documentary shows a lot of official footage from national TV. And even though that looks like festive occasions, the way it was registered on camera looked rather straightforward and corny.
One of the more interesting point in the docu is this influence of English music. As much of the movement was anti-imperialist, how come musicians look for British, and American examples? The docu shows some criticism of this aspect, but I guess that many rebellious musicians from other countries were considered as anti-establishment, and therefore acceptable.
Anyway, frontrunners like Caetano Veloso, Gilberto Gil, Mutantes, Gal Costa, used their growing notoriety for political purposes as well. They appeared at massive demonstrations in 1968 in Rio de Janeiro following the death of a student at a riot, after which the military regime tightened their grip on society. Moreover, both Caetano and Gil were arrested and put in jail for two months! After a few months of house arrest they went into exile for years. And that was about it. The Tropicalismo movement ends at the time when their most important members lived outside of Brazil. I don't think there is one point, or event, that closes it all down. As Caetano explaines in the film, the end came when he left Brazil. Now, you must know that Caetano has never been embarrased to put himself in the middle of attention. I think it is a bit more obvious to say it ended when he was allowed to return to Brazil in 1972, and he didn't pick up what was left of Tropicalismo. I'm pretty sure that he was allowed to return only after promising to stick to music and refrain from politics. I mean, maybe in the European context you might say that certain demands from the liberation movement were answered thus taking the sting out of the conflict. But in Brazil, during the seventies, the military junta tightened their grip even more. Did Caetano make such a promise? The documentary doesn't really answer this question. This way, it looks like Tropicalismo simply faded away, leaving traces in new bands like Secos e Molhados. But with a wave of so many different elements, it is hard to pinpoint what exactly is left of it.
I must say, I really enjoyed the film. Great editing, great music. Nothing too positive (as is sometimes the problem with Brazilian documentaries. I remember a eulogy of Pelé once...), well told, interesting quotes by key people. Personally I found the live performance by Gal Costa, almost Janis Joplin style, most surprising. So, let's say 4 out of 5!?
Casparcritique #7: A Skin Too Few: The Days of Nick Drake
How come this Dutch documentary maker called Jeroen Berkvens always touches me with his work? He did it before with Jimmy Rosenberg: The Father, the Son and the Talent, and with his last piece of work on the number one music venue in Amsterdam, the Paradiso. Now I watched his documentary on Nick Drake on youtube, and I must admit that I do not have the vocabulary to expres my feelings. It is great, both by people interviewd, the lightning, the score, the colours, it is all sheer perfectionism.
Let's first get a closer look as to who Nick Drake actually was. I mean, I am a big fan, but hadn't heard from him till a few years ago, and there must be a lot of you that do not know him. Nick Drake was a singer-songwriter of the purest kind. He published three albums in the seventies, after which he died from an overdose of anti-depressives. To me, he represented two exceptional qualities. First, his songs had beautyful melodies, and original structuring. I haven't heard this kind of song smithering ever again. Second, though not much acclaimed as far as I know, is his guitar style. This has been such a great example for me, trying to finger pick each and every note where it belongs. In the documentary someone calls his playing a machine, and that is spot on and precisely how I'd like to see my own playing (believe me, I am not there yet, hehe). But, Drake had one terrible downside as well: he was depressed, and not just a little bit.
Back to the documentary. Drake was born in Birma, from what apparently looks like, a loving family. In the film his older sister explaines that their mother had a gloomy side herself, but the father made sure she didn't fall ill. His mother also resembles the artistic side: she was a composer herself. At the age of four, Nick moves to England, proudly presents his first album called Five Leaves Left. It all went wrong though when he made his first tour. He was very shy, insecure, and needed the whole venue to keep quiet and focus on his performance. Already I can imagine how he had to tune his guitar for every song (for having a different tuning), and the crowd was drinking and talking. He didn't have the staminae to stand up for himself and his music, and halfway the tour he simply quit. Never ever he played live again. He did continue to record though, two beautiful albums (Bryter Later, and Pink Moon, respectively 1970 and 1972) fulfilling his thin, but essential songbook.
In many rockumentaries the film makers usually put in as many famous people as possible telling how great the person, or act, was. So many band have been called the best band ever by people who once would like to be returned the favour and be called the best band themselves. Not this time though. Jeroen Berkvens chooses to interview Drake's sister (the beautyful, but slightly sinister Gabrielle), a friend from college, his producer and studio technicians. Not necessarily good talkers, but essential to portray Nick Drake. One of the other strong points of the documentary is the footage of the English landscape that Berkvens uses to accompany some of Drake's best songs like Way to Blue, or Day is Done. (Just as a thought: this reminds me of a song by Dutch band Johan, whose singer/songwriter is not a very happy man himself, but nevermind.) Most amazing scene, I thought, was when Drake's death is portrayed into the round window from his boyhood room, that slowly freezes over. Breathtaking!
A last thought I had was how sad and devastating these mental illnesses can be. They can account for lyrical artistic produce, but from a human perspective, you'd rather give the man happiness any time. From what looked like loving, warm surroundings came this mentally tortured soul that gave the world three amazingly fantastic albums. Should we be pleased, or feel sorry? Let's give tribute to the man who put it all into one 48-minute must-see documentary: Jeroen Berkvens. (still available on youtube. Ranking? 5 out of 5!!)
Let's first get a closer look as to who Nick Drake actually was. I mean, I am a big fan, but hadn't heard from him till a few years ago, and there must be a lot of you that do not know him. Nick Drake was a singer-songwriter of the purest kind. He published three albums in the seventies, after which he died from an overdose of anti-depressives. To me, he represented two exceptional qualities. First, his songs had beautyful melodies, and original structuring. I haven't heard this kind of song smithering ever again. Second, though not much acclaimed as far as I know, is his guitar style. This has been such a great example for me, trying to finger pick each and every note where it belongs. In the documentary someone calls his playing a machine, and that is spot on and precisely how I'd like to see my own playing (believe me, I am not there yet, hehe). But, Drake had one terrible downside as well: he was depressed, and not just a little bit.
Back to the documentary. Drake was born in Birma, from what apparently looks like, a loving family. In the film his older sister explaines that their mother had a gloomy side herself, but the father made sure she didn't fall ill. His mother also resembles the artistic side: she was a composer herself. At the age of four, Nick moves to England, proudly presents his first album called Five Leaves Left. It all went wrong though when he made his first tour. He was very shy, insecure, and needed the whole venue to keep quiet and focus on his performance. Already I can imagine how he had to tune his guitar for every song (for having a different tuning), and the crowd was drinking and talking. He didn't have the staminae to stand up for himself and his music, and halfway the tour he simply quit. Never ever he played live again. He did continue to record though, two beautiful albums (Bryter Later, and Pink Moon, respectively 1970 and 1972) fulfilling his thin, but essential songbook.
In many rockumentaries the film makers usually put in as many famous people as possible telling how great the person, or act, was. So many band have been called the best band ever by people who once would like to be returned the favour and be called the best band themselves. Not this time though. Jeroen Berkvens chooses to interview Drake's sister (the beautyful, but slightly sinister Gabrielle), a friend from college, his producer and studio technicians. Not necessarily good talkers, but essential to portray Nick Drake. One of the other strong points of the documentary is the footage of the English landscape that Berkvens uses to accompany some of Drake's best songs like Way to Blue, or Day is Done. (Just as a thought: this reminds me of a song by Dutch band Johan, whose singer/songwriter is not a very happy man himself, but nevermind.) Most amazing scene, I thought, was when Drake's death is portrayed into the round window from his boyhood room, that slowly freezes over. Breathtaking!
A last thought I had was how sad and devastating these mental illnesses can be. They can account for lyrical artistic produce, but from a human perspective, you'd rather give the man happiness any time. From what looked like loving, warm surroundings came this mentally tortured soul that gave the world three amazingly fantastic albums. Should we be pleased, or feel sorry? Let's give tribute to the man who put it all into one 48-minute must-see documentary: Jeroen Berkvens. (still available on youtube. Ranking? 5 out of 5!!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)