I'll start this review off by establishing my identity as a critic: I love to hate stuff. Anything that deserves to be hated on, I will most definitely hate.
Here are some recent things that I've hated.
- The Velvet Underground reunion DVD from 1992
- Rude Boy (the performances are pretty good)
- The Smiths' video collection (they hated making videos; what was I expecting?)
- The Police reunion tour (everything was too slow and Adult Contemporary)
With that out of the way, I'm ready to tackle the new Rolling Stones film,
Shine a Light. Lovingly directed by Martin Scorsese, it's the tale of Travis Bickle - a lonely NYC cab driver with a heart of gold - and his friends, the Rolling Stones.
Inevitable comparisons will be made to
The Last Waltz, which is often referred to as "the best rock performance film of all time". So let's get that out of the way:
Shine a Light holds up. It can lay claim to being a modern version of The Band's final concert. That's not the whole story though, as TLW was more than just a concert - it told tales of mythological proportions about the group through interludes and special guest appearances. SAL does not do that, but instead it reflects an odd trend in Scorsese's films: as he's gotten older, rather than slowing down, his films have gotten quicker. Much quicker. Watch
The Departed and let me know when your head stops spinning. Everything extraneous is cut out.
And so it is here. The first few minutes set the scene and the tone, with everyone involved in the film apparently scattered across the globe, trying to figure out how in the heck are we gonna do this and oh no, will the guys like it and we have to build the set now and they haven't given us any feedback yet! Mick Jagger's biggest complaint is about cameras; he doesn't want a bunch of them new-fangled movin' picture boxes floatin' around, ruining the show for the audience. (Has he even seen
The Last Waltz? Maybe Mick should have asked Ron Wood how it went, since he was freaking
there.)
Anyway, they go on like this for a little while, setting up a frantic tone - but what nobody mentions is the fact that there are two shows, and thus two nights of filming with two days in between. But I guess it's not as legendary if they have time to reshoot and correct mistakes.
After all this hullabaloo (and some photo shoots with various important guests), somebody runs up to the control room and slaps down a setlist - the Holy Grail that Scorsese has been whining about getting since the very first scene - and the band immediately starts to play. Once again, nice storytelling. A very dramatic moment that isn't quite believable, but who cares? It's rock and roll.
Speaking of which, the film begins to rock (and roll) at this point. I was ready to be underwhelmed by a band that by all accounts have dodged more than a few bullets in their career, but this topped all of my expectations and then kept on going. It was a full-on assault and I don't think Mick Jagger stopped moving the entire time. He was throwing down mad moves. Any up-and-coming frontman who doesn't take his cues at least partly from Jagger is just treading water and wasting time.
The performance was solid. Everybody can play, everybody can sing. Nobody has "lost it", and if you want to criticize Jagger for not going for a lot of high notes, keep in mind that 1) HE WAS MOVING THE ENTIRE TIME (did I mention this already?), and 2) about 2/3 of the way through I realized that every single note he sang was calculated in terms of the line and building the songs up at the right times, perhaps while preserving energy because of point 1. But don't let this fool you. He gave 100% and it was impressive. The way he sang was effective and he also proved that he still does have the high notes, which I guess is him saying that he's gonna do what he damn well pleases, and we're gonna like it.
This brings me to my final point: I liked it. It's tough and it's brutal, and it hits you right where you live. The clips between songs don't do anything except present sound bites of various Stones being irritated with the media and alternately saying that they do and/or don't think that they'll still be playing when they're 60. The one interview clip that was fascinating was an interview with Dick Cavett, because you can tell Mick is engaged and interested in the questions that are being asked. I think this has to do with the fact that the vast majority of reporters and talk show hosts had no idea what was going on, and always asked the dumbest, least intellectual questions ("What's the question that people ask you the most?" Keith: "That one.") but Cavett sets his questions up with genuine, thoughtful insights. I don't know anybody that does this today. The trend among interviewers right now is sarcasm and so-called satire (not naming any names here, Comedy Central), but it's too easy to mask ignorance with it - you don't always have to know what you're talking about to be sarcastic.
I won't spoil anything else for you, except to say that Buddy Guy at 71 can play and sing anybody off the stage. I hate the blues and I thought I would never like it, but this made me think that maybe it has something to do with witnessing the performance rather than just hearing the music through some tiny speakers at home. They should have never released the soundtrack on CD. It's a rock and roll movie! Go see it - don't even preview the songs on iTunes because they are nothing without the visuals.
Shine a Light isn't supposed to be listened to. It's supposed to be experienced.
Labels: it's only rock and roll but it's still better than college road trip
