"The Spirit of '45", the 99%, back then

The Spirit of '45

So glad to see Ken Loach back on track. "The Spirit of '45" is a moving documentary and a crystal-clear tribute to the British people that, together, were capable of leaving behind the scourge of the II World Wars, and along with the '45 Labour government rebuild the country. A new England under a new vision: a fair and united society. Tories, Republicans, Merkel fans, PP voters... all right-wing devotees, as well as Tony Blair or Zapatero nostalgics, 80-90s socialists, you should stop reading right now. This is going to give you hives (skin rash).

Loach doesn't care about the possible (obvious) criticism he has/is going to face. I assume he's got so used to the accusations of being heavily biased that he probably doesn't waste a single second to read critics opinion (who cares about the right-wing opinions anyway? we all know they are all crazy). After all, "Spirit of '45" is the next step of a director who has always had a coherent political speech, something showed in his long filmography. 

As expected as well, Loach is not interested in portraying a flamboyant, state-of-the-art documentary. He combines footage from the vast British archives with contemporary interviews, many of them people who were there and, with their answers can define how dramatic was the situation after the war, how the changes arrived with the labour government. The film is not the most dynamic, but on the other hand, is powerful and determined to get its point exposed: there's an URGENT NEED of another SPIRIT OF '45.

Co-operation, solidarity, unity, support, but also nationalisation of any economic-productive sector that was pivotal for society, and the creation of a welfare system (health, education, subsidies). Does it sound familiar to you? Yes, that's the same social protection system our despicable politicians in Europe are trying to destroy. Or the national health program Republicans from the States would qualify as evil (meaning communist, of course). Keynes against the "market law", now updated into an even more criminal version, Friedman's privatise-everything (that serves to my only benefit) law, packed with shameful speculation. Sorry, but like Loach, I have decided it makes no sense to waste my time trying to be more "polite/tolerant" with the people who are the reason of the disaster we are in now. Let's say it out loud and clear: we have enough of criminals who are there just for their own greed. 

Let's go back to the documentary then. It's so evident Loach is trying to tell us we can't give out hope today. Yes, the bastards are everywhere, and extremely powerful and the situation is extremely difficult. But was it worse than 1945? Don't think so. And then, the 99% of Great Britain decided it was time for a change, a revolution. And so came the change. Loach rediscovers history to show it's time for another revolution. That we can fight and succeed.

I personally missed the voice of young people, believing it would have been nice to confront the current generations with the memories and thoughts of the elders. Also I'm kind of dubious of the last-minute attack to Thatcher. Don't get me wrong, Thatcher can't be condemned enough, but it's kind of tricky the way it is exposed. She introduced the criminal (sorry liberal) economic policies in the country, trying to dismantle the Welfare System. But Loach doesn't take the time to explain how the monster arrived to Downing Street, and she wasn't alone. What about John Major? And Blair? Aside from that, a documentary to watch and think about it.

SCORE: 7/10

"Generation of Swine", Dr. Gonzo vs. Reagan

Generation of Swine. Tales of Shame and Degradation in the 80's. The Gonzo Papers Vol. 2- Hunter S. Thompson

Of course, I couldn't go the States and not read Dr. Gonzo. It's a MUST DO thing for me. This collection of articles, his weekly columns for the San Francisco Examiner have a bit of everything, but what makes this book recommendable is clearly Hunter's analysis of American politics, covering the last years of Reagan's presidency, and the pre-campaign for the 88's elections.

Luckily, the political chronicle occupies by far the biggest part of the book. In pure Hunter's style. His trademark's fire-powered prose, fierce sarcasm and relentless will to shake readers minds by saying, without any fear, things "by its name". That, in the 80's, meant shouting out loud how miserable and despicable were Reagan and his cohort of politicians, aka as The Generation of Swine.

These Generation was evil indeed. Along with the equally abject Margaret Thatcher in UK, under Reagan's presidency the United States of America wrote some of their more shameful pages: the Iran-Gate, Nicaragua, their friendship with Saudi Arabia or the Afghan Talibans, and the spread of the worst form of capitalism, on its wildest, merciless and stupid version, the one that destroys millions of jobs, ruins lives everyday, mortgages the future... all in the name of privatization, speculation and the "holy" market (umm, how familiar). I have no doubt about it: is thanks to the "Reaganomics" and its British counterpart that economy ate politics, and as a consequence, we have a world that today is a chaotic jungle.

Hunter reveals himself as a surprisingly accurate political analyst and a noteworthy social commentator (his attack to TV preachers and the role of the media is brilliant). Behind all the hallucinated vision (but don't expect "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas", nothing like that here) there's a devoted journalist to his task, give his thoughts about was going on in the States, foremost with regards to politics, always with his unique way of writing, but with a very clear message: Republicans are terrible beasts, but don't expect that much of Democrats, either. Politics in America are depressing. Yet there is space for cynicism and laughing in front of the doomed situation (from Oliver North's trial to Bush I run to presidency to how the democrat candidates keep self-destroying themselves) but even Hunter can't hide a feeling of defeat and disappointed resignation. The defeat of the American Dream, replaced by the greed of a few.

Unfortunately, there are two important "issues" that make the book rating lower that what it should for me. Well, the first is really my fault, because "Generation of Swine" demand you to know quite a bit of American politics, many secondary political actors appear or discussed about so the non-expert reader could feel a bit lost sometimes. The second one has to do with the "other" articles, that in my opinion aren't that interesting, working simply as random thoughts and very personal adventures, but lacking the punch our favourite Doctor used to have.

In any case, another remarkable work of the Doctor. How much do we need (in America, in Spain, in every part of the world) more Gonzo journalism, brave enough to reveal how ugly is the truth! We miss you badly.

SCORE: 6,75/10

"Live Forever", the days of britpop

Live Forever: The Rise and Fall of Brit Pop

My teenage years were the britpop years. It was a very fun and exciting time even from the distance, Spain, because there was music on tv (quite a lot if you compare with the desert that is now tv in that regard) and Oasis, Blur, Suede, Pulp, etc, were also artists able/capable of topping the charts then. Something unthinkable now. Those were better times (thanks technology for the internet though, you have made tv completely useless for music, which is something good, considering how awful it is here in Spain). I will try to restrain my nostalgic impulses from now on, although nostalgia is an important factor on “Live Forever”, the documentary.

“Live Forever” tries to analyse the “boom” of popular music in the UK on the middle 90s, and its importance/weight on the British cultural and political landscape. It bases part of its strength on the contributions of the artists themselves: Noel and Liam Gallagher of Oasis, Damon Albarn of Blur and Jarvis Cocker of Pulp, with occasional interventions from Massive Attack’s 3D and Sleeper’s Louise Wener, among others (Damien Hirst, Ozwald Boateng, music journalists and members of the industry).

There’s a lot of fun in this “rockumentary” about this unusual period on the recent history of music. In particular, Noel and Liam are two fantastic comedians on their own, justifying watching the film with their opinions (Liam is hilarious). The film flows with rhythm despite the amount of interviews. But director John Dower is able to go much further than just the battle of Blur vs Oasis (Albarn’s reaction to the question speaks by itself) or the records. “Live Forever” aims to be a study of popular culture in the UK.

It almost achieves that ambitious goal. The renaissance of British music is clearly contextualised. Thatcher (always Thatcher) spent more than a decade to destroy the country, and, of course, that included the annihilation of culture. But after her, at the beginning of the 90s, the landscape changed, first slowly (Noel saying how bad was the electronic-house music on the clubs is amusing), with the landmark gig of The Stone Roses, but then accelerated, to the years of madness, from 1994 to 1997. A reaction against the conservative period, the Americanization of culture, and the reinvention of “everything Brit” to adapt it to the emerging momentum are well documented, resulting in a very engaging documentary.

It gets even better, when the bastard of Tony Blair appears and the so-called New Labour's tries (with significant success) to seek the alignment of britpop with them. When the term "Cool Britannia" appears. And when the consequences of the huge and sudden triumph arrive (the obvious presence of drugs, Jarvis comments about the struggle while making “This Is Hardcore”) before the inevitable, also sudden, fall of the movement, replaced (with cruelty) by Pop Idol and Robbie Williams. Its even more depressing if you consider that, 15 years after, we are still surrounded by the same kind of rubbish (I would add sadly multiplied).

Unfortunately, “Live Forever” is also a “hit & miss”. The film dates back from 2003, and many things seem outdated, or incomplete with the perspective of time. Think on Oasis' split, on Blur, Pulp, Suede and The Stone Roses reunions... Think on the current vindication of the 90s in music (in particular American indie, neglected on the documentary). Think on how awful, terrible is mainstream music nowadays, when during the 90s, britpop was the mainstream... That is not covered by the documentary.

But if that’s understandable, what it is hard to assume is the limited scope in what regards to bands. Sure, Oasis, Blur, Pulp were the leaders of the movement, but where are the rest? Just to name another big name, where’s Suede? Where are the precursors of the movement, in particular The Smiths/Morrissey? And the vast amount of groups that were also part of it, or jumped into the britpop bandwagon, with more or less fortune? And the ones who didn't want to be related with them (Radiohead, PJ Harvey)? Also, if “Trainspotting” was so referential, why there’s no interview with any of the people involved? I could keep going on and on... but I think you get the idea. Too many interesting things are presented, but very few are sufficiently explored, while others are ignored. It is one of the rare occasions when the length of the film is evidently not enough to "fulfil its promises".

“Live Forever” is a highly valuable documentary. It offers quite a lot in a quite engaging way, and benefits from the interviews of some of the fundamental artists of the music movement, that are revealing and/or very funny. But it falls short. Like being in front of an iceberg named brit pop, you know you are only seeing a relatively small part of the whole thing. Hoping for a bigger, bolder, better documentary covering that music period soon.

SCORE: 6,5/10

"The Beat is the Law", Sheffield, not Pulp

The Beat is the Law: Fanfare for the Common People

The extraordinary Beefeater In-Edit, the local music documentary Festival, teamed again with the San Miguel Primavera Sound, offering a highly recommendable offer of rockumentaries as another complementary activity prior to the days at the Parc of Fòrum. And in principle, the movie programmed on Monday couldn't be more engaging: a film, premiere in Barcelona, about Pulp's story? Count me in.

But unfortunately, that wasn't the case. It might be very bad advertising, or perhaps, intentionally, a way to make it more attractive for bigger audiences, but "The Beat is the Law" is not about Pulp, is about Sheffield music scene, from the 80s to middle 90's.

Director Eve Wood starts the documentary tracing a quite ambitious, for a music film, overview of how it was living in the 80s in Sheffield, not precisely the friendliest city in the world. Unemployment and few hopes for youth clashing with the Margaret Thatcher totalitarian regime, explained by the opinions of Sheffield musicians and people related with the music industry/business of the city.

Right. Among the people interviewed you'll find Pulp members Russell Senior, Candida Doyle, Nick Banks and Jarvis Cocker. And of course, you'll be hearing part of their story as a band struggling to survive, virtually not existing while the city deals with a social agony provoked by the governmental policies and then against a vibrant music scene that exclude them, until the circunstances/luck/opportunity change so much they will become the forefront of the britpop movement in the middle 90s. But this is just part of the film.

"The Beat is the Law" is also the (partial) story of Richard Hawley, of the Longpigs, of Chakk, of Rob Gordon and the Warp label, of Clock DVA, of acid house, dance and the club culture. With all that material and the cooperation of so many artists the film could have been amazing. But there's no balance on it. After almost an hour of documentary devoted to politics and the evolution of a music scene in Sheffield during the 80s, giving a lot of the film length to dance and house growing movement, Pulp reappears, almost out of the blue, for a homecoming gig. And then they headline Glastonbury in front of 80.000 people? Wood also allows the Longpigs to explain how they failed in a moment when they seemed capable of "making it" too. But again it fells so short compared with the previous hour of film. There's no real analysis of what/how/why britpop exploded. And after Glasto's performance, the film abruptly ends. So you cannot say this documents Pulp's career.

Overall, "The Beat is the Law" gives you a quite blurred image of these times. Its lack of definition and scope gives the spectactor an undefined picture, with social and historical remarks, artists and band members (some very relevant, some barely known outside UK) sharing their view on the city and music evolution. Many are interesting and engaging, but cannot help the sense it fails as a whole, as a cohesive music documentary.

SCORE: 5,5/10

"They Call It Acid", house music & the right to party

They Call It Acid- A Dance Music Documentary
In-Edit Beefeater Festival 2011, chapter IV

The last film at the music documentary Festival (on a cinema without air-conditioning that became a sauna) was, unexpectedly, a fine ending of four days of music documentaries for us. Unexpectedly because of the interest and quality of the movie itself, very remarkable considering I kind of hate house/dance music myself, and because after two films on folk music and the Newport Festival, "They Call It Acid" closes the "circle" on a high note.

Director Gordon Mason (who devoted over 10 years to the project, totally self-financed) takes a fantastic challenge: explain what was the acid house culture, from their origin, its cenit, and its downfall (or at least struggle against authorities). From being born as an underground movement to collapse the centre of London with the demand of "the right to party". And it does with a smile. The yellow, famous smile that became the most recognisable icon associated with acid house.

The film offers almost all explanations about this peculiar movement. Names (Paul Oakenfold, Carl Cox among many others), places, dynamics, evolutions, influences... inviting us to a trip that includes Chicago, Detroit, NY, grows in the Balearic Islands and gets full form in England. For the fans of this electronic music style, the documentary must be unique. For the "non-believers" is intriguing and very curious. Particularly absorbing is how an initial style of music, hedonistic and let's say it, completely empty (in what refers to lyrics, message, etc) develops into a countercultural, anti-establishment movement. Its quite amazing if we compare with the Newport Festival, 30 years before acid house. Folk music, with the people seated while they listen carefully the meaningful lyrics of the artist, who exposes his/her serious tribulations on mankind, war, rights of the people, became the soundtrack of a committed generation. But three decades after, a music that can only be danced (better with  drugs) achieves the same results. Noel Gallagher, also interviewed on the documentary nails it: "Acid House is thanks to Margaret Thatcher, she fucked England so much there was nothing else to do". Unbeatable historical and social comment.

But I wrote before "They Call It Acid" almost provides all the explanations. Almost, because misses a big one. The drug thing. Except the police/politics, everyone in the film talks about the peace, the community, the great vibes, and how the little pill made people connect with each other... That's great, we can believe that.. but there's zero mention to addiction, drug abuse and violence associated to house. Even more, there's no questioning at all of the quality of a music style that must be enjoyed under the effects of a drug. That's being partial, and harms the credibility of the film, missing the chance of having two potentially engaging debates. Aligned with that, there's also little blame on the commercialization of the acid house by the people who saw a lot of money could be earned from that, making the movement huge, for good and bad.

That made me feel a bit frustrated with the film at the end. It could have been a masterpiece, a detailed and very dynamic documentary, but the lack of willing to explore its obvious contradictions takes away some of its value. Anyway, a very remarkable work.

SCORE: 7/10