Gimme Danger (2. 01. IMDb. A fitting, funny, sentimental and insightful chronicle of an iconic band. I just saw this at Melbourne International Film Festival in my home town, and It completely lived up to my expectations. I am a big Stooges fan and first heard of this documentary collaboration between Iggy Pop and Director Jim Jarmusch a few years back and could not wait to see it. As a fan of the band and some of the Director's work, they are the perfect marriage to tell this tale. The documentary, told by most of the band themselves but primarily Iggy, covers the bands early inception and up to the 2. Iggy is a fascinating interview subject, as are all The Stooges that offer insight,wit and humour in recreating the journey they shared. There is a definite brotherhood between these guys, that was at times as destructive as it was touching. The tributes paid to the fallen Stooges are moving in its unique way, and the documentary as a whole really captures the lasting impact this band has had on music and their influence they have left in their wake. Any fan of this incredible band, that were a statement that pre- dated punk and shocked so many at the time, will love this film. If you aren't a fan, then it also serves as a very entertaining document on a band that are unmistakable in their impact,the fascinating characters and is a chronicle of a turbulent time in music and the world that The Stooges so brilliantly encapsulated in their sound.
When it reopens at the Film Forum in New York Friday, it will once again ignite audiences with sinuous yet explosive concert numbers from the Rolling Stones’ 1. Mick Jagger was at his jangly prime. Gimme Danger, Ein Film von Jim Jarmusch mit Iggy Pop, Ron Asheton. Gimme Danger Tab by Iggy Pop Learn to play guitar by chord and tabs and use our crd diagrams, transpose the key and more. For his pick, Mick Jagger went with 1969's 'Gimme Shelter.' NPR's Melissa Block suggests that the two talk over the song, to which Jagger jokingly responds. Gimme Danger est un film r. Synopsis : Apparu pour la premi But it frames those performances with pictures of Jagger in front of a film viewer, watching footage of the ’6. Dec. 6 of that year at the isolated Altamont Speedway in Livermore, Calif., and the band’s embattled appearance there before a freaked- out crowd and a violent clutch of Hells Angels. At the soul- shriveling climax, a knife flashes — and a murder unspools on- screen. The image is so blunt and Jagger’s response to it so shrouded or implacable, that the film becomes disturbing in an almost primordial way. In the rock dishonor roll that includes the Who concert in Cincinnati in 1. Pearl Jam in Roskilde, Denmark, this year, no name flashes out more luridly than Altamont. At Altamont, even a star — Jefferson Airplane lead singer Marty Balin — was knocked out. With 8. 50 injured, two dead in a hit- and- run, another drowned and an 1. Hells Angel, Altamont was awful enough to have arbiters of hipness call for the kids of Woodstock Nation to be put in stocks. The making of — and response to — the film of the concert, “Gimme Shelter,” proved to be just as tumultuous: It drew the most dynamic rock stars, rock writers, documentary- makers and movie critics of its era into an intellectual mosh pit. The story of this movie and its discontents is a pop- cultural saga that stars Jagger and Pauline Kael and Vincent Canby; Haskell Wexler and Greil Marcus and Stanley Booth; and includes cameos from the likes of George Lucas and Walter Murch. The way the film’s three directors — David and Albert Maysles and Charlotte Zwerin — shape the material, the movie is a tribute to the Stones as popular artists wrapped inside a cautionary tale for the counterculture. The filmmakers crystallize the jagged contradictions that gave rise to an epochal fiasco. From the start, the atmosphere is ripe for catastrophe. The entire enterprise is all too willful. There’s something perilously off about the blend of the Stones’ zonked brand of superstar noblesse oblige, fabled attorney Melvin Belli’s high- powered maneuvering on behalf of the group and the surrounding attempts at seat- of- the- pants, grass- roots organizing. When disaster strikes and strikes again — first with the Angels’ leaded pool cues, later with the flaunting of a gun and the slice of that knife — it’s doubly excruciating because we see it coming. Zwerin and the Maysles slow the moment of the murder down for Jagger (and for us) on an editing table. The shot is shadowy and we know we’re not getting the whole story. But the harrowing context gives the deadly scene an apocalyptic stature. It’s part of a colossal, mass bad trip. They said it was exploitative, too small for the subject — even, since the Stones financed part of it, a made- to- order job designed to restore the group’s tarnished reputation. He’s the director of the Criterion Collection — the company that will release “Gimme Shelter” on DVD and that, along with Janus Films and Home Vision Cinema, spearheaded the theatrical re- release. While conceding that the filmmakers had caught Jagger’s “feral intensity” with acute “editing of the images to the music,” Kael said that “the filmed death at Altamont” was part of a “cinima viriti spectacular.” She condemned the movie with rhetorical questions: “If events are created to be photographed, is the movie that records them a documentary, or does it function in a twilight zone? Is it the cinema of fact when the facts are manufactured for the cinema?” (Kael is an old friend of mine. When I told her that her original review was still, in Albert Maysles’ words, a “thorn in his side,” she cheerfully remarked, “Tough shit!”) Canby panned the film, under the title “Making Murder Pay”: in another New York Times piece Albert Goldman complained that the movie “really uses its brightly colored footage whitewash the Rolling Stones, who must share some of the responsibility for the disaster and who also, as it happens, are the people who hired the filmmakers.” Arthur Schlesinger Jr. It was, he said, “unduly protective, not just of the Stones but of the Woodstock myth of the young.” And a few years later, in 1. Marcus, by then a book columnist at Rolling Stone, wrote that “the Stones were shown as victims, as if the purpose of the film was not to deal with real events, but to absolve those who paid for the film of any responsibility for those events.” See the movie in a theater today and you’ll wonder what this critical rumble was all about. Younger viewers, especially, will probably be dumbfounded when they come upon these charges: Watching the Stones watch this wreck of an event in “Gimme Shelter,” they won’t think for a second that the filmmakers were trying to make the rock stars look like choirboys. The Cannes Film Festival is going to be rocking next week, thanks to a special midnight premiere of Jim Jarmusch’s Stooges-centric documentary, 'Gimme Danger.'.At worst the Stones’ responses are pitifully inadequate. During the actual cataclysm, they seem despairing and confused; even months afterward, they appear to be in shock. The movie never asks us to forget that the Stones were the concert’s prime movers. And the filmmakers don’t beg any indulgence for themselves. True, they never lay out within the film that the Stones had hired them. And they don’t touch on the role the movie played in precipitating the concert’s last- minute move from Sears Point Raceway in Sonoma to Altamont Speedway. Why are they showing this chronicle to the Stones? Are they themselves looking for the Stones’ approval — and our blessing? As I thought about the movie and interviewed a dozen people who either worked on it or attended the concert, several directed me toward the Jan. Rolling Stone, which devoted 1. Altamont under the headline, “Let It Bleed.” It is often spoken of as the ultimate authority on the event. But when it comes to the widespread misrepresentation of the movie, I discovered, it was more like a smoking gun. Marcus was at Altamont and with 1. Rolling Stone; John Burks edited their contributions, newsweekly style, into one headlong unsigned piece. It’s a mammoth and laudable example of on- the- spot journalism, and it helped redefine the concert in the public consciousness as the anti- Woodstock. The legend of Altamont as apocalypse was largely based on that Rolling Stone cover story. Unfortunately, it contains a dozen short paragraphs on the movie that pin the blame for the disaster on the making of the movie. These paragraphs are pocked with errors, and lamentable in tone as well as content. They read as if they were written by someone who’d never been close to the making of any kind of movie. The magazine’s chief movie critic at the time, Michael Goodwin, was at the concert, but his contributions to the piece were limited to a transcription of Jagger’s exhortations for the crowd to calm down and “be cool”; Goodwin had recited the words into his tape recorder as Jagger said them, so they wouldn’t get lost in the mob noise. The introductory sentence to the movie section lays down some heavy attitude: “It may surprise many of the people who suffered Altamont to discover that they were, in effect, unpaid extras in a full production color motion picture.” A cameraman says David Maysles told him to ignore a large naked woman “freaking out backstage” and shoot only “beautiful things.” The whole account portrays the filmmakers as slick hired guns helping the Stones beat “Woodstock” to the screen, using Hells Angels as their bodyguards. Typical sentence: “The Stones figure they spent something like $8. Altamont affair, including helicopters, which isn’t bad at all — when you consider . The “movie set” and “unpaid extras” slams from the Rolling Stone article are echoed, for example, in Kael’s statement that “the free concert was staged and lighted to be photographed, and the three hundred thousand people who attended it were the unpaid cast of thousands.” There’s one problem: It isn’t accurate. Kael’s review argued against automatically accepting any film that looks as real as the truth; it’s a brilliant and potent critique of the cinima viriti school of documentary filmmaking in fashion at the time. But even if you embrace her argument, what she had to say about the making of “Gimme Shelter” doesn’t fit the Maysles’ method. They relied for their effects on molding found material, not spending time and money — which they didn’t have much of at Altamont anyway — devising a reality “spectacular.” It’s understandable that young, rock- oriented moralists looking to explain the disaster would turn moviemakers into villains. And the Maysles and Zwerin may have also misled their critics by putting the film together in a confident and seemingly inevitable way, as if Altamont were always its final destination and Mick Jagger’s storm- cloud stare always its endpoint. But “Gimme Shelter” is not about manipulating events — it’s about letting events get away from you. It presents the ultimate appalling oneiric vision of “going with the flow.” Over the past three weeks, I discussed it with the surviving co- directors, Albert Maysles and Charlotte Zwerin (David Maysles died in 1. Stephen Lighthill and Walter Murch; a Salon editor and former Altamont volunteer, Douglas Cruickshank; three writers who worked on the Rolling Stone Altamont issue (Goodwin, Burks and Marcus); and no less than two Stans and a Stefan — the Maysles’ right- hand man, Stan Goldstein; Rolling Stones biographer Stanley Booth; and Stefan Ponek, a DJ at San Francisco underground radio station KSAN, who ran a post- Altamont talk show excerpted in the movie. I’m convinced that “Gimme Shelter” was less an act of exploitation than an attempt to derive order from chaos — or at least cut the chaos down to size. We don’t know what American prices should be. We’re not fucking businessmen. In fact, yeah, we’ll have a free concert,'” he says. Booth says the band also wanted to do a film, intrigued by rock movies like “Don’t Look Back” (D.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
December 2016
Categories |