When asked about what it was like to be at Woodstock, the people I've heard, in second and third-hand accounts, will tell you how it was muddy, there wasn't enough food, it rained and there weren't enough places to shower or go to the bathroom. Asked about what it was like to play at Woodstock, the artists will tell you that the sound was bad, artists cancelled at the last minute, the playing order had to be improvised sometimes and notable acts obviously performed stoned (to their dismay when they heard the tapes). But the event has become the defining event of a generation that one simply HAD to be at - probably partly due to generational nostalgia but probably the release of the documentary movie "Woodstock" played a large part too.
I remember seeing clips of "Woodstock" on PBS when I was a teen. I've always appreciated the music of that time but found the presentation of the movie a bit silly. Much of the movie consists of split-screens two or three frames wide - I suppose they thought they were really being "far out there" when they thought of that. And the interviews with everyday concertgoers - aren't they just stoned out of their minds? These people thought they were starting a revolution?
But watching it now, I was completely missing the point. I laughed at the extent to which it was "of its time" but that exactly what's to love about it. It's dirty and spacey and experimental because it's a product of that time. The split-screen (most of the time credited to Martin Scorcese, though he credits director Michael Wadleigh) IS amazing - it creates the sense of the "bigness" of the event. The interviews with flower children ARE valuable because they give a sense of the people living in that time and place. Even when a revolution fails, it is nonetheless interesting to examine the attempt.
Some of my favorite interviews in the film don't even involve hippies (at least directly). The film crew goes around to talk to the townspeople who live in the Woodstock area and ask the invariably old people what they think about all these visitors descending on their home. Many of the old people don't like it and say so. I was wondering what the intent behind these interviews is. Are we supposed to laugh at the "square generation" as they "don't get it"? I don't think so. I'll take the filmmakers on their word that it's an honest attempt to capture a spectrum of opinion.
And then there's the music.
Watching the Director's cut, at almost 4 hours long, there's a good deal of music that I don't care for. And many of the best bands are not even featured. The Band were so unhappy with the sound, they refused to allow the video to be released. As I said, they were not alone - The Grateful Dead and Creedence Clearwater Revival were others with similar stories. Carlos Santana is in the movie but his performance is under the influence of mescaline - he thought it was safe to take it and then was told he was going on stage early. But even with all of these drawbacks, the music soars. Crosby, Stills and Nash do the entire "Judy Blue Eyes" suite. Sly and the Family Stone are amazing. Joe Cocker does "With a Little Help from My Friends". And, of course, Jimi Hendrix gets significant screen time. It occurred to me watching it this time that when he comes to "the rockets' red glare" and "the bombs bursting in air" he extends the section to actually express the rockets and the bombs bursting.
There's more than a little distance between me and the Woodstock generation. Far from a muddy pit, I watched the concert from my couch. I was, I admit, occasionally distracted by my laptop and I had no trouble using the restroom. But it is Summer and, over the four hours that I watched "Woodstock", the day slipped into night and I felt no need to turn on a light. Watching in the dark, bathed in a stream of images from that historic event and soaking in the great music, it did feel like a magical experience, it did feel transcendent even if the strongest thing I had ingested was iced tea. Oh, and it just started to rain.
8/10.
No comments:
Post a Comment