'Beautiful Noise', shoegaze me

Beautiful Noise
Beefeater In-Edit 2014, Chapter III

The third documentary seen at this year’s Beefeater In-Edit was another easy choice. To my knowledge 'Beautiful Noise' is the first-ever documentary made on shoegaze/noise-rock of the late 80s-90s. Must-watch, again.

The merits of the film are many. Eric Green has created a relevant film from ground zero, working alongside producer Sarah Ogletree during almost a decade through their company HypFilms. Considering the DIY origins of the documentary (funded by a Kickstarter campaign), it's a great achievement they managed to arrange so many interviews with very big music names. But even more important than that, they have been capable of offering us a very solid and coherent work. It's clearly a work of passion for music.

The rise-disappearance-revival of shoegaze is well documented on the rockumentary, thanks to a straightforward chronological line but, foremost, by the huge bulk of interviews. From Cocteau Twins to Chapterhouse, it's hard for me to remember who's missing in the picture (although my dearest one, the great Rachel Goswell, is not interviewed). There are in-depth cuts with Cocteau Twins' Robin Guthrie, The Jesus and Mary Chain's Jim Reid & Bobby Gillespie, Slowdive's Neil Halstead, Ride's Mark Gardener and Andy Bell, or My Bloody Valentine's Kevin Shields, among many others. But there's also space for music giants like Robert Smith, Trent Reznor and Billy Corgan. Extremely impressive. The greatest moments are reserved to Reid and his controversial relation with fame/frustration for the band's lack of sales, and the unresolved war between Alan McGee, boss of Creation Records, and Kevin Shields. They were both right.     

So, the story of late century 'wall of sound' and musicians looking to their sneakers is the tale of a bunch of musicians who tried to subvert rock traditions without leaving guitars, looking for new sounds, atmospheres and introduce melody within the noise trying. Experiment and feel. They were ahead of their time, but they didn't find the success they were hoping for (Ride were the closest ones to achieve commercial support), so the pretty spontaneous movement faded away... until the digital era rescued them. 

Unfortunately, 'Beautiful Noise', except some situations like the ones referred before, lacks poignancy, debate, insight. Bands are utterly praised then simply glorified (can't put all bands in the same bag), and so is the revival (same applies). Besides, the film has too many minutes of empty visual fillers. We get it, it sort of connects with the ethereal, elusive music, but it's kind of lame. The overall feeling is that we are watching a formal, very correct but a bit monotonous documentary. The movie does makes a beautiful noise, but it's subdued.

SCORE: 6,25/10

“My Secret World”, one hundred Sarah Records

My Secret World. The Story of Sarah Records
Beefeater In-Edit 2014, Chapter II

Our second choice at this year’s Beefeater In-Edit was a no-brainer, a must-watch. I mean, a movie about the story of Sarah Records? On the first row without a doubt.

Why? Because every truly single indie-pop heart needs to know about the Sarah Records story, the referential label based in Bristol with an adamantium spirit of independence founded by Clare Wadd and Matt Haynes. They created an immaculate, DIY label (oh my God, the story about the letters!), that overpassed it’s eight years of existence (1987-1995) to become a myth.

Director Lucy Dawkins chooses the most straightforward and didactic approach. She gathers with Clare and Matt and in a very logical order. The origins, the fanzines, the idiosyncrasy and attitude of the label... and every band that published with them in chronological order, covering the 100 7” limited releases Sarah put before going out with a bang. That choice proves to be a very coherent one, making “My Secret World” a very consistent documentary and a pleasant experience for fans, but also an excessively linear and, sorry to say, a bit boring film too, in particular for newcomers into the label’s world or for the ones that are not familiar with the bands.

What this rockumentary shows is that Sarah Records’ was a very small world. A relevant world full of indie-pop pleasures, but also shoegaze and punk flirts, twee music (funny how the interviewed bands refuse the adjective). A world with clear goals and a distinct way of understanding music. A world with a will to fight against the silly criticism (what a piece of shite were the music tabloids, I refuse to say magazines), sexism and misogyny, in my opinion the most interesting moment on the movie, would have loved that bit lasted much longer. But still a small world.

If you are a fan, you’re going to love seeing Blueboy, The Wake, Another Sunny Day, The Orchids, The Field Mice, Heavenly (awww Amelia Fletcher, why not a documentary about her), or “special” fans like music journalist Everett True or Jacob from The Drums, evoking their Sarah Records related memories, or just praising the label’s evolution. Not everything is wines and roses, but Dawkins is not interested on digging deeper on some of the “issues”. Something you have to respect seeing the direction of the movie. But if you’re not a fan, or if you’re not a die-hard fan, “My Secret World” can be just tiring. Whatever the case, a film that needed to exist. Plus a great excuse to listen several unmissable bands. At the end, that’s what makes a label memorable.

SCORE: 6/10

"Pulp", singing for the common people

Pulp: A Film about Life, Death & Supermarkets
Beefeater In-Edit 2014, Chapter I

Our first rockumentary at this year's In-Edit was a highly expected one. I could develop my argument properly, but just let's say that anything involving Jarvis Cocker interests me. Besides, the movie was receiving quite a lot praise, being saluted as somewhat innovative and exciting. Unfortunately, it doesn't fulfill the expectations.

For starters, Florian Habricht's documentary is not that shocking. It's an insight take on a final concert, in this case the last (hope we are wrong) Pulp gig after their most celebrated comeback. With the addition the show takes place at home, at Sheffield. While he approaches the band while they prepare for the show... and to say goodbye to play as one of the fundamental pop bands of the last twenty years, the director tries to dissect what means Pulp, and their music to their fans (some of them, quite quite hardcore fans), their hometown and it's common people.

I know, I know. That doesn't sound bad at all. And, despite its originality is dubious, it is fair to say that's not your average music documentary. And I agree some of the inhabitants of Sheffield interviewed are really genuine and/or deadly funny (freaks, venerable old women with a knack for humour, sensitive and fragile human beings). And they like to sing (the musical scenes where they singalong the band tunes are charming) But it's hard to see the supposed sociological depth or even the testament to a city and HIS band in an amount of jokes for hipsters (the one with the kids is particularly annoying). Entertaining? For sure. Enlightening? Ummm...

So, what we got instead? Several Jarvis Cocker' witty comments, in particular the ones looking/hiding from the camera while he talks about the pass of time and on the subject of fame ("it didn't agree with me – like a nut allergy" he sentences). Jarvis Cocker in diverse and kind-of-cool situations, the best one involving his concert wardrobe and aid kit, which is priceless. Few revelations from the rest of band members, including the über cool Richard Hawley. And a mind-blowing, absolutely fantastic concert footage. Is that enough? Well, thanks to Jarvis charisma and the great tunes, it is. But the best film of the Festival? Or the movie Pulp deserves? It just fails short for that...

SCORE: 6,5/10

“Mistaken for Strangers”, Abel Come On

Mistaken for Strangers 
Beefeater In-Edit 2013, Chapter IV

Back with movies, with the rockumentaries still pending from the latest In-Edit Festival. And we do it with The National. Here goes my band, again.

The most serious group in the "indie planet" shows a much unexpected side, stripping their impeccable black suits and matching ties to offer a funny but equally engaging film about two brothers: Matt and Tom, the Berninger brothers, living extremely different lives. The bloodless, indie-rock version of Cain and Abel with the best soundtrack of the decade. Of course.

Leaving the traditional “tour” rockumentary behind, although there’s some fantastic footage of their mind-blowing gigs too, “Mistaken for Strangers” is a surprising private show, where film director Tom Berninger, Matt’s younger brother blows up all the genre cliches. As a matter of fact, I couldn’t help but think the film has some similarities or debts with the magnificent documentary about Banksy, “Exit Throught the Gift Shop”, where the viewer never knows if the whole plot is a mockery or deadly serious.

If you are looking a film about the band, is not here (the only omplaint I have about is how the rest of the band is sacrificed for the coherence of the film). This is a portrait not so much of The National, but of the relationship between these two brothers, Matt Berninger, the lead singer of a band in the rise and an alternative icon himself, and Tom Berninger, the unlikely roadie of the band while they embark on the "High Violet" tour through Europe, aiming to film his adventure with his now famous older brother while he figures out what he does with his pretty messy life and his… demons.

Even with the shades of being in front of a spoof movie, “Mistaken for Strangers” not only entertains and makes you laugh (Tom really steals the show here with his ridiculous behaviour and comic disasters, even funnier in contrast with the highly professional and serious image the band gives) but it’s also surprisingly rich and emotionally affecting.

Rich because the movie reveals itself as and absorbing insight inside the hard, troubled quest, into the creative process. The creative process of a band trying to give their best live (the scene with Matt losing his temper, his exhausted looks to his annoying brother), on the road (the patience and attempts to understand the peculiar logic of Tom’s questions from the rest of the band members), and a glimpse on the studio starting what it would become "Trouble Will Find Me" ("I Should Live on Salt" playing). And the process of filming the documentary itself, with a sprawling mess of footage the most chaotic filmmaker ever will have to ensemble and give coherence to.

And emotionally affecting, because Matt and Tom’s exposure. What does it mean to be successful? How does it affects the relationship between two brothers? The film depicts it to an absorbing depth, and although there’s a sense of chaos and luck (on purpose?) there are real feelings that cannot be acted (faked) that well enough, like the admiration Tom has for his brother and Co., or how the famous rock frontman is eager to help doing whatever Tom requests him while he keeps pushing his younger brother to finish his (by then) improbable movie. By the time “Terrible Love” is performed, you are completely captivated by the film, and that rousing and impossibly revealing take of one of their most powerful tunes, with the Berninger together will really bring you to your knees.

SCORE: 8,25/10

"Muscle Shoals": Magic, Tragic, Music

Muscle Shoals
Beefeater In-Edit 2013, Chapter III

It all appears to be some sort of joke, or a extremely tough trivia question: what do songs like "When a Man Loves a Woman", "Land of 1.000 Dances", "Wild Horses", "Free Bird", "I Never Loved a Man", "Sweet Soul Music", and hundreds of other soul-pop-rock classics have in common? Here's the answer. A small town in Alabama, named Muscle Shoals, on the banks of the Tennesse River, was the unexpected were they were created. And this is the ridiculously absorbing documentary that reveals and depicts that astonishing truth.

Although having similatiries with the highly recommendable "Standing in the Shadows of Motown", "Muscle Shoals" it's even more shocking. For me it's bizarre that this is not a widely known legend, and that director Greg "Freddy" Camalier had the chance to surprise the spectator with such an spectacular story. And despite that, in my opinion, he takes a while, a long while, on unnecessary scenes filming the "Singing River", and the landscape of rural Muscle Shoals, while he recaps the first bits of opinions from music stardom. Sure, he wants to create the atmosphere, build the myth. But when you have such a striking story in your hands, you just have to let the camera roll on...

But on the other hand, Camalier really nails it when deciding that the focus of his documentary is going to be Rick Hall, and later on, Rick Hall and The Swampers. With that choice he provides the film with an structure while adding a human side that makes it richer. The founder of FAME studios has also a powerful story to tell, Southern style, that includes poverty and terrible, recurrent tragedy. Music is a way to escape and confront his inner demons, and along his rise as owner/producer there's a mind-blowing account of music history, racial evolution (he brought black and white together in not the most open/tolerant place in America), personal ambitions and struggles.

Not yet convinced? Well there's even more to be engaged to. Despite looking like redneck farmers, homegrown FAME studio musicians, The Swampers, will soon evolve as a parallel, intertwined plot. Responsible of creating that special trademark sound that made so many music icons as well as Atlantic Records owner Jerry Wexler go to Alabama seeking for the next big hit, they eventually left Hall to start their own studio, Muscle Shoals Sound. Betrayal, rivalry, tragedy but also huge success again.

On a final note, the amount of musicians that pay tribute to the place is mesmerizing. Bono, Keith Richards, Mick Jagger, Alicia Keys, Greg Allman, Clarence Carter, Etta James, Percy Sledge, Wilson Pickett, and many many more. The majority are/were direct, real witnesses of the music that was/is created there, and the amount of precious, personal remarks is colossal. But even the ones that haven't/didn't record there are so mystified by the place that I guarantee you will end this film absolutely convinced there has to be some kind of magic, maybe something special something in the air or the river banks at Muscle Shoals. Allow you to discover the story. You won't regret it. Thanks In-Edit.

SCORE: 7,75/10

"Greenwich Village", Generation Folk

Greenwich Village: Music that Defined a Generation
Beefeater In-Edit 2013, Chapter II

Very few places have the mythical qualities of Greenwich Village. The Beats, CBGBs, Dylan, Woody Allen... Literature, music, cinema... these streets are sacred ground for me. I've been lucky to wander around the area, and despite the hipster-posh-pricey-style, full of Starbucks (that's heresy!) and organic stores, the neighborhood still has a special vibe. So watching this film at In-Edit Festival was an obvious choice.

As its perhaps too evident full title announces, "Greenwich Village" aims to be an in-depth take of what it meant to be there on the 60s-early 70s, and how the music scene fuelled, or at least was an intrinsic part of the political, social and cultural changes of American society. Director's Laura Archibald approach is a coral one, full of interviews mixed with some striking performance clips, which, on paper, makes absolute sense. After all, the Greenwich Village in the 60s was a collective, a community that became the voice for many. Right?

That's the question. And I'm afraid it remains unanswered after watching the documentary. Don't get me wrong, the film is excellently structured (the comic animations are pretty cool too) and the division in several "chapters" gives cohesion to the different remarks of the artists interviewed. But it is not as revelatory as it could haven been, in my opinion because the quick interventions from the speakers are so short the whole majority of them are just flashy or superficial statements that makes you think there's a bit of indulgence and self-importance. Won't add a lot to the ones who, like me, are already "converted" to the cause. But I don't want to criticise the film, as I believe it's a fantastic work, that can really grab the attention of the casual spectator or only big-names folk/protest songs fans, showing a glimpse of a simpler but probably more human way of understanding life, and a sense of commitment and unity that would be very much welcomed and needed today.

And it does has many points of interest and remarkable situations. Archibald goes way beyond Dylan (maybe the weakest chapter, despite Jose Feliciano's hilarious impersonation), and shows many others artists, rather unknown, doing justice/paying an unexpected tribute to a few of them. She also features some mesmerizing performances by the likes of Phil Ochs, Odette, Richie Havens or Joni Mitchell. And she's not shy to bring (although I would have loved a richer insight) a not-so-happy issue to the table: the blacklisting and persecution from the House Committee on Un-American Activities, and the perennially ridiculous fear of Communism.      

Finally, and it's such a big plus it deserves a separate comment: it does have PETE SEEGER (yeah, in big capital letters). Every remark he offers in the film is full of wisdom and joyous eloquence (don't miss the final credits where he reveals what happened on the über-famous Newport Folk Festival where Dylan "turned electric"), and brought me near tears a couple of times.“What in the world is an un-American activity?” Not singing songs about people, that's for sure...  

SCORE: 6,75/10

“Big Star: Nothing Can Hurt Me”, the Cursed Band

Big Star: Nothing Can Hurt Me
Beefeater In-Edit 2013, Chapter I

Before June 1st of 2011, Big Star was a band always pending to discover because R.E.M., my heroes, were always praising them. But on that date two years ago, the Big Star's Third tribute concert at Primavera Sound 2012 in Barcelona was an unforgettable moment for me, simply being one of the most touching music experiences of my life. Truth be told, the main reason I went to the show was Mike Mills' playing among the guest starts, but the night was so memorable I still got goosebumps when I remember. Since then I've been trying to get into Big Star's music, so no question I was eager to watch this documentary.

Having said that, I don't consider myself a fan yet, and that might explain why, although "Nothing Can Hurt Me" is a highly recommendable rockumentary, I would say it's only a must for hardcore fans. There's an undeniable feeling you are in front of a very peculiar group and a unique story... but not exactly thanks to the film achievements. Allow me to explain.

The film is a caring chronicle of the Memphis' group ill-fated path and its recurrent struggle with success or popularity in the early 70s. Big Star's tale is the epitome of the cult band: loved by critics and fellow musicians, but remaining out of focus from popularity. Sure, it makes no sense, Ardent and Stax Records are sure to blame... but it's not surprising or extremely meaningful. The band's bad luck with his three records, distribution issues and lack of air playing is not that interesting for the occasional listener or the non-fan.

Being honest, I don't how co-directors Drew DeNicola and Olivia Mori could have solved the obvious obstacles they faced doing this film. The factor of the "absence" of the two band leaders on the film is crucial. There's no Chris Bell and no Alex Chilton on camera. All their story, within the band, after the first left, and finally after the combo disbanded in 1974 is reconstructed. The band's tragedy, crystallised on its two key members, can only be recreated by the filmmakers. Add another issue, which is, of course, the fact there's almost no footage of the band performing live. That makes the movie absolutely dependable on cool but a bit tiring visual compositions and a vast amount of opinions from the many people interviewed, harming the overall rhythm of a considerably lengthy film (close to two hours).

Not to criticise the opinions and remarks of the people interacting on the film. On the contrary, that's what makes "Nothing Can Hurt Me" worth watching, and at times, unforgettable. They are the best example of how deeply the songs of Big Star have touched many hearts and souls, in a way that to me (I've seen a lot of documentaries) is hard to compare. As the film develops you'll see an spectacular constellation of musicians, critics and industry-related folks showing a genuine love, even devotion (Mitch Easter, for example) for the cursed band. Some will get close to tears, impossible to hide how affected they still are by the tunes. Others are just striking for the viewer (family, close friends) with lone surviving band member Jody Stephens topping my "personal list". So human and compelling. That's why Big Star is a mythical band. Heartfelt rockumentary, despite the shortcomings. It couldn't be any other way with Big Star.

SCORE: 6,5/10

"Standing in the Shadows of Motown", meet the Funk Brothers

Standing in the Shadows of Motown

Thanks to my father good taste, I have always liked Motown and Stax. Not to the extent of being a fan or much more than an occasional listener. Just someone who fancies that style and is very curious to find out more about. So "Standing in the Shadows of Motown" was a rockumentary listed on the agenda for quite a long time.

The premise of the film, based upon the 1989 same title book is as simple as shocking. (Re) discover Motown music, or better said, find out who was behind Hitsville's trademark sounding style. The back-up band of Motown Records: the Funk Brothers. This stunning cast of musicians gathered by the company owner, Berry Gordy Jr. were, as labelled by the film "the greatest hit machine in the history of popular music". Over a spanning period of fourteen years they played the music on more number hits than any other artists on Earth (Beatles, Stones and Elvis included). But history neglected their vital role, leaving them unrecognised.

In "Standing in the Shadows of Motown", director Paul Justman, takes good care in showing this quite surprising story with detail and respect to the musicians. As a matter of fact, aside the archival footage so recurrent on documentaries, the film relies heavily on the opinions and thoughts of the surviving Funk Brothers. We see much of Motown history through their eyes on a pretty exciting trip. Their personal origins, their involvement/recruitment with Gordy Jr., their work at the studio and the creation of some of the label eternal classics, the consequences of period of time they lived (Detroit riots, Vietnam war), as well as the role each played (in that sense, the film is a compelling tribute to stunning bassist James Jamerson, and to a lesser extent to Benny "Papa Zita" Benjamin) until the company moved from Detroit to Los Angeles, condemning them to be (mostly) forgotten.

Aside from the more traditional documentary structure, "Standing in the Shadows of Motown" also offers some re-creation scenes and twelve live performances of Motown classics played by the Funk Brothers backing up names like Chaka Khan, Ben Harper, Bootsy Collins, Montell Jordan, Meshell Ndegeocello, Joan Osborne and Gerald Levert. This really helps the film dynamism as provides a more movie. But it also hurts it, as one cannot help but wonder on the need of the low-budget movie scenes, mostly irrelevant, and the live versions of the tunes are really uneven. In one hand (at least to me), Ben Harper does wonders with Marvin Gaye's "Ain't Too Proud to Beg" and "I Heard It Through the Grapevine", while Joan Osborne shines with "What Becomes of the Brokenhearted", but on the other hand Bootsy Collins, Me'Shell Ndegeocello and Chaka Khan ruined their tunes.

In any case, the mere existence of this rockumentary has to be praised and celebrated. Just as the music of the Funk Brothers.

SCORE: 7/10

"Independientes", 20 years of Spanish indie

Independientes

Are indie lovers and endangered species in Spain? With my deepest regret, I believe so. But despite being few and struggling, we are not alone, and we had a history behind us. That's what Independientes (Independents) shows. And I would add offers, because this documentary, directed by Jose A. Rueda and produced by La Fabriquilla De Creación Audiovisual is available to watch for free on youtube (see below). Excellent idea and proposal to start with, don't you think?

And Independientes has many attractions for the viewer. As an attempt to dissect how the national indie scene was created is clear and up to the point. There's not a lot of digressing and Rueda let the musicians and relevant actors do all the talking, answering his sort of fundamental and broad questions: is there a Spanish indie scene? how it was created? what does it mean being indie today?, etc. It's always a pleasure to hear and see people like Julio Ruiz (Radio 3 will never be thanked enough), Antonio Arias (Lagartija Nick), Nacho Vegas or Antonio Luque (Sr.Chinarro), among others (including half of Los Planetas, Lori Meyers, Maga, etc). Down-to-earth and really wise people. 

Some of the questions, in particular the latest ones that refer on what means being indie are the most controversial and interesting, showing also the singularity of the Spanish case. Take the example of Los Planetas, the most famous and pivotal alternative group in Spain. They signed with a major virtually since the very beginning of their career, but did that affect their music? Or take a more recent case, also used on the film: Vetusta Morla. Their music is (ok, arguably) on the mainstream side, but they opted for self-producing/releasing mechanisms, achieving one of the biggest successes in recent history of Spanish music.

But the modesty of the rockumentary is also a bit of a curse. With barely one hour of film it can't help but feel incomplete. It's all about alternative pop-rock sounds, missing many styles and bands who would have been relevant for the documentary. Some very important labels are also excluded from the film footage when talking about the first steps and the evolution of the independent scene. The same appeals to the present times. Independientes just poses the debate on the Internet and new channels for reaching fans. But there's so much that could have been added on that: small and emerging labels, the music venues, new bands, live music versus selling records, Festivals... Aww, the documentary should/could last seven hours!

Anyway, that sort of last criticism is quite unfair for Independientes, a movie that has to be praised just because of its mere existence. But we do want a second, third and fourth chapter!

SCORE: 6,75/10

Watch the documentary here! (it's in Spanish, sorry)

Music Documentaries: recommendations wanted!

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

"All Tomorrow's Parties", an alternative holiday

All Tomorrow's Parties

What a difficult movie to review! I thought I was going to watch a proper rockumentary celebrating the then 10th Anniversary of the All Tomorrow's Parties Festival (ATPs), arguably the best one in what regards to indie music (I repeat, arguably), and the expression of one of my music dreams: curating a Festival line-up. But I found something quite different instead...

"All Tomorrow's Parties" is not a director's work... but an editor's work. Nick Fenton collected more than 600 hours of footage from the fans and the bands themselves. Video cameras, mobile phones, super 8s and a few archive footage of the holiday camps in East Sussex and Somerset, where ATPs takes place, compared with what it used to be in the 50s and 60s. Can you make a film with that material?

The answer is yes and no. If the goal was capturing a vibe, and show that the Festival is unique, sort of a holiday break full of music, like the familiar activity it was on the 60s, but full of beards, "hipsters", drunk and stoned people, and of course, great musicians and loads of fun, then this film should be considered a masterpiece. But if you're looking for a documentary on the motivations, general aims, difficulties and evolution of the Festival, opinions of the musicians taking part on it, or just a film about music performances... well, then "All Tomorrow's Parties" is not what you're looking for. 

In my opinion, it's lack of coherence (it's disjointed) and/or structure (of course, there's no plot whatsoever) harms it, because at the end there's no real point on the development of the film. It could go on forever, it could end any second and it wouldn't make any difference. But in terms of visual experience is quite an intriguing one. Even if you don't care that much about the line-up proposed by Explosions In the Sky or Portishead, the film provides a fascinating take on young adults genuinely "abducted" by music. Among them, a bunch of the coolest musicians on Earth, capable of making music almost everywhere (the other biggest impact of the film). The scenes with Daniel Johnston, Grizzly Bear or Lighting Bolt are pretty mesmerizing, regardless whether their music appeals you.

To summarize my impressions: Is "All Tomorrow's Parties" a great documentary? Honestly, I couldn't really say. But would I like to go to one of the ATP's Festival? No doubt about it. Will definitely love to. 

SCORE: 6,25/10

"Let's Get Lost", the sad jazz of Chet Baker

Let's Get Lost
Beefeater In-Edit 2012, Chapter III

Our third film on this edition during the 10th edition of the Beefeater In-Edit Festival was a special challenge for me. I assume this would decrease my "hipsterism" or "coolness factor" to dramatic levels, but I don't get jazz. I won't lie. It bores me, sometimes even annoys me, and I don't think it works for me, not even as background music. That's why "Let's Get Lost", incredibly praised by movie critics (rated 2nd on the documentaries' best-of list) was a challenging proposal for me? Would I enjoy it?

The answer is yes and no. Mostly "yes", because Chet Baker's story is powerful and puzzling, and foremost, because director Bruce Weber seems to be always there, allowed to explore not just the most pleasant parts, basically that Baker was an outstanding talent, a one-in-a-million musician, but also showing that he wasn't precisely a lovely human being: liar, drug addict, not a very caring father, troublemaker, etc. It seemed to me that he was careless about life, and in some way a very sad character. Was he really able to connect with other human beings aside from his trumpet or voice? Weber had the courage of presenting the contradictions of the artist. Showing that behind the "cool cat" flair, there was a lot more to dig in.

"Let's Get Lost" show us Baker's "glory days" in abundance, becoming an icon (he was also good-looking, so success was granted), a reference for the youth in the 50's. He basically represented being cool. It's very interesting to see (its also pointed out by a few opinions) how jazz and particularly Chet Baker were "the alternative" in those days. But his "dark side" was also notorious, and Weber finds and seeks opinions enough to let the spectator get its own conclusions. In particular, there's a lot of attention and information regarding Baker's behaviour with his several women. They are one of the stand-outs of the film for sure.

But I also said "no" before. And that's due to the amount of footage that to me was gratuitous or overlong (as you can see I'm not referring to the songs played despite admitting I'm not into jazz). We have plenty of them, and I can only presume artistic intentions (many of them seems to recall Nouvelle Vague in the way they are filmed) that may embellish the film as a whole, giving it a dreamlike sensation. Ok, it may fit with the music, and even gives a poetic touch reconstructing some moments of Baker's life. But there should be some logic in the chaos, and sometimes is very hard to find it in the film. The opening scene on the beach, the cars at the amusement park, these recurring night walks joined by stunning ladies, the naked women book... I can understand the purpose was to reflect that Baker's life was almost surreal, a junkie (the end of the film is striking) living a parallel existence, one that Weber wants also to present, mixing, building what his memoirs, thoughts and experiences would have been along with not that beautiful reality. But it really harms the dynamic of the film. A length of 120 minutes was completely unnecessary. It also makes it a bit confusing and, sorry to say, pedantic.

Overall, it's an striking portrait of a deeply absorbing character, but also a blurred documentary that wouldn't qualify as really recommendable for many. Shame because "Let's Get Lost" could have really deserved all the praise received.

SCORE: 6,5/10

"I Am Trying to Break Your Heart", Wilco at the crossroads

I Am Trying to Break Your Heart. A Film About Wilco
Beefeater In-Edit 2012, Chapter II

The nice and great people of Beefeater In-Edit elaborated (collecting the opinions of "many experts") the 100 music documentaries best-of-list in occasion of its 10 birthday, including the top ten among the films that can be seen in this edition of the Festival. Needless to say, it was a great opportunity to enjoy some of them. I’m not a fan of Wilco, but its a band I’m quite curious about and I respect a lot, so their story in its hardest hour, their battle against music corporations, sounded pretty exciting to me.

Unfortunately, “I Am Trying to Break Your Heart” suffers, quite a lot, from “too high expectations”. Interesting and I assume, really addictive for Wilco fans thanks to the amount of live songs included, I have to say this is not the promised revealing take on a band struggling, internally and against their record label (Warner- Reprise Records). How to define it? The documentary is (hope that’s understandable) reflective. We don’t really see the band in these turbulent, tense times. We see the band (and manager Tony Margherita, plus other few people) telling us there was conflict and tension then. But that’s giving us their opinion, something that can be interesting, but its far from being the outstanding, unmissable documentary we expected.

That brings directly me to my other concern, or better said, main question: is this documentary controlled, approved by the band? The insight on the group seems quite biased, in my opinion. You spent a third of the movie length before any of the “issues” arise. There’s only one scene in which you can see the obvious tensions between Jay Bennett and Jeff Tweedy. Then there’s a little take on Tweedy doesn’t wanting to say much about it, and the rest of band showing their relief the former member was fired, while Bennett suggests a much bigger problem within the band. There’s only one phone conversation in which we can see the label and the band are going to crash. The rest is merely the thoughts and opinions of Tweedy and Co. (Margherita opinions are brutally biased, he’s a pretty annoying character I have to say). I expected a lot more on the clash between artist independence vs. commercial/music label greediness.

So what’s “I Am Trying to Break Your Heart” offering? A bit of the band on the studio creating Yankee Hotel Foxtrot, tones of live music (Tweedy alone & the full band) looking cool (surely will amaze fans), and just a little bit of what was supposed to be a very troubled period for Wilco. I can’t help but keep thinking director Sam Jones didn’t want to or wasn’t allowed to show us all the stuff he had. Maybe the band (or some members) wouldn’t look so heroic if he had shown us the whole picture? Being honest, after watching the documentary, my impression is that Wilco is Jeff Tweedy's band (look who signs the new contract). For the good, but also for the bad.

I think the most definitive comments on this film came from Rolling Stone’s journalist David Fricke (an opinion that, if you think about it, shouldn’t be particularly relevant for the development of the story) who establishes Yankee Hotel Foxtrot as a landmark within their time, because of its painful process of recording and then fighting against media monster corporations, but in particular due to the music, a creative attempt to challenge themselves musically. What Fricke says is that all that matters is the music. I guess he’s right with this documentary. Must-see for fans, but occasional Wilco listeners or people without a clue about the band might find it quite flat in terms of storytelling. So it will all depend on how much the music appeals you.

5,75/10

Music & Movies: In-Edit 2012 begins!

Beefeater In-Edit 2012 begins tonight! 

From October 25th to November 5th, a brand new edition (its 10th birthday) of the Barcelona's International Music Documentary Festival takes place. After last year's great experience, Bloodbuzzed repeats with another dose of the most exciting rockumentaries (plus a conference which I hope to attend). Here's what my schedule looks like. 

     Saturday, October 27th

18:00 Searching for Sugar Man

22:30 I Am Trying to Break Your Heart

Sunday 28th 

20:00 Let's Get Lost

Monday 29th

20:15 Sunset Strip

Wednesday 31st

19:00 Music and Politics (Chat)

Sunday, November 4th 

20.15 London: The Modern Babylon

 
See you at the movies!

"Marley", king of reggae's hagiography

Marley

I can imagine how hard has be making a film on such an icon as Bob Marley. We are talking about a universal legend, a myth that goes beyond the human being, the musician, his influence and his legacy, including the social and political side. But considering the potential of the material and what a good filmmaker is Kevin Macdonald, I can only qualify this film as a big disappointment. 

Labelled as the "definitive life story" of the Jamaican musician and world icon, "Marley" is not much more aside an extremely long, lush and epic hagiography. Using a strictly biographical account, from childhood to death, based on tones of footage and bits of interviews from the people who knew him close, the rockumentary evolves steadily, but without anything really remarkable, revelatory or just engaging for the spectator. It's a very comfortable work for Macdonald and Marley fans. Most of the interventions are annoying in their emptiness. Marley is merely described, there's little depth on his behaviours, thoughts, attitudes...

Even without being a fan or someone who enjoys reggae, there are things I know about Marley, several moments that should be relevant but are surprisingly ignored on the documentary. Needless to say, I suspect these omissions are made on purpose, so the film can move smoothly, without conflicting facts. It's a very shy, academic approach to a myth.

Despite the second half of its runtime focus on his politic involvement, what we receive is just partial, biased. What about the black panthers, or the unity of black people? The most casual listener can recognize a level of political commitment or commentary in his lyrics, something that is criminally hidden in the documentary (music in particular is vastly neglected in this documentary). What about Robert Mugabe? We see his enthusiasm for the independence of Zimbabwe, but nothing about the instrumentalisation of his music and image by a dictatorship? He was indeed a symbol of reconciliation for a violently divided Jamaica. But her immediate past, before fame and music recognition wasn't really a paradigm of peace, love and understanding. We see some (very interesting) footage about the arrival of Halie Selassie to Jamaica, so we get to know a bit about the rastafari movement/belief, but why there's nothing about Selassie's death when Marley even composed a song, "Jah Live" about it? Won't even start talking about the issue of his "several relationships" and extended offspring (Cedella and Ziggy Marley might be the only exceptions, with a couple of more substantial comments) but is sad the director overlooks the question. Marley was a very complex person, therefore a fascinating character to make a film about. Not just a pleasant hagiography.

In my opinion, "Marley" suffers from wanting too much to be the "complete story" without choosing a focus. Musician? Political activist? Human being? Icon? Macdonald tries to talk about everything, but he is unable to expose more than a few facts, tidbits that conform an excessively long film of 140 minutes without articulating a relevant portrait of a character like the Jamaican legend. Will surely please the fans, but it is, sadly, a failed film.

SCORE: 5/10

"Under Great White Northern Lights", The White Stripes on the road

Under Great White Northern Lights

I'm not a fan of The White Stripes, never been more than a casual listener who enjoys some of their songs. But I do not hesitate to recognize them as one of the most intriguing and exciting bands of the last 20 years. I would have loved to see them live. So, as some sort of consolation prize, I was really looking forward for this rockumentary, that films their 2007's very special tour through Canada, commemorating its 10 years of existence as a band.

"Under Great White Northern Lights" is mainly a concert film, mixed with a bunch of "behind the scenes" material. The "gigs" scenes are frankly stunning. Director Emmett Malloy really does an impressive job of capturing the rawness and uniqueness of the duo. Jack White is mind-blowing on stage, he might be the most significant artist music has given in latest years. Their songs, they way they perform are also helped by their minimalistic but suggestive visual looks, something that Malloy interprets and takes benefit of it. Red, white, black. Almost every song (a very diverse selection, showing the many sides of the band) performance on the film is a blast. 

Aside from the tunes live, the other focus of interest of this film is the challenge of playing in every single province of Canada, and also doing so on not just the usual venues. Jack and Meg did play on a bus, cafés, a bowling alley and even in front of a privileged cast of Indian tribal elders. That particular scene is shocking and amusing. 

But "Under Great White Northern Lights" has a problem, quite serious one. It gets boring, as a film. While the songs are amazing, the leading actors (the "characters", Jack and Meg) or the plot is quite disappointing. Sure, the couple's relationship (extensively written, discussed and documented about) is quite special, but their dynamic in front of the camera leaves the spectator (or at least me, I already said I'm not a fan) quite indifferent. 

Ok, then let's argue Malloy is not interested in exploring the sentimental side of The White Stripes. That's a very reasonable choice (then I ask myself, why the latest, deeply touching scene?). But the interview scenes, about their career, the way they make music, about playing live, are far from being significant either. Meg is silent (her shyness is brutal, very shocking), but is the more talkative Jack who doesn't show/explain much to be remembered either. The opportunity of having an insight on the Stripes is missed. And considering how special was this band, so ambitious and yet so simple (the backbones of music), and how complex was their relation (something you can speculate while watching, but is just that, mere speculation), "Under Great White Northern Lights" to me is a great film concert documentary, but also a seriously missed opportunity. Except if you were looking just for songs of The White Stripes performed live.

SCORE: 5,75/10

"A Skin Too Few", the mystery of Nick Drake

A Skin Too Few: The Days of Nick Drake

How can you make a music documentary when the subject, the band/artist you want to talk about has no "documents", aside songs, of course, on which you can support your film? You probably have only two options: one is filling the gap with hundreds of opinions/assessments from music journalists, other musicians and "cool people" in general. The other choice is just focus on the people that really knew the artist, and we the story is told, end the film (in only 48 minutes!). That's the path taken by Jeroen Berkvens on "A Skin Too Few", an impressionistic and very very intimate attempt to shed some light into the superb English folk singer/songwriter Nick Drake.

With the exception of some off-voices at the very beginning of the rockumentary, pointing out the qualities and legacy of Nick Drake's music, and the short comment from mod-father Paul Weller, "A Skin Too Few" the film develops using the chronology of the musician's short life (1948-1974). So we will begin in Burma, where the artist was born, to follow his childhood in Warwickshire, then teenage and adult years in Cambridge and London, and finally back home in Tanworth before where he sadly took his life (accidentally or not) when he was just 26. The insights are provided by his older sister's Gabrielle Drake (who is the pivotal element of the film), with the occasional comments of the recorded voices of his now defuncts parents. There are not a lot of anecdotes or trivial moments from childhood memories, and music appears quite soon on the conversation.  

As we enter the adult period on which Nick Drake becomes an incredibly gifted musician, we also get the opinions of a couple of friends, his producer, arranger, sound engineer, and the photographer of his albums sleeves. That's how we get to know about his guitar playing style, the presence of music on his family, the wonder of recording his songs (the faces on the scene with collaborators John Wood and Robert Kirby says it all, the joy of recording the music, but also the utter sadness of his finale) and also his disastrous first and last tour, the lack of commercial success and his depression and retirement from society. 

I used the word impressionistic before because the film doesn't want to speculate about the reasons of his death or lack of success, but setting a mood, a tone, an imagery. His tunes are the only soundtrack, and the director uses the landscapes of London, the Warwickshire countryside as well as his house and even the room, packed with the few pictures and memories available, as the only visual anchorage. It's quite amazing that with so little, Berkvens is able to be quite touching with his movie.

Being such an honest documentary, don't expect the film providing any revelation. If any, it confirms Nick Drake mystery: no one really knew him, so not even the closest testimonies possible are able to explain how such a talented person was so troubled with the world. Maybe it was too sensitive for it, as his sister's say? We will never know. But at least, his gorgeous music will never leave us. In that regard, a final praise of the closing scene, where the composition of images of Tanworth with "Northern Sky", suddenly reduced to just his voice is an enduring and compelling closure.

Too short (don't think some comments about his music's legacy and influence would have harmed the film) but very moving and special documentary. Highly recommendable. Please listen to Nick Drake.

SCORE: 7/10

"Lemmy", the rock's heavy rock

Lemmy: 49% Motherf**ker, 51% Son of a Bitch

As you already know, I enjoy music documentaries so much it's easy I could end watching almost everything if its about music, even if the group/artist is completely opposite to my personal tastes. That's the case with "Lemmy", a rockumentary on Motörhead's leader, Ian Fraser "Lemmy" Kilmister, an undeniable hard-rock/heavy metal legend and rock icon.

The good about this rockumentary is that (luckily) doesn't focus on the music, and is not a collection of footage just to please his devote fans. It is a film about Mr. Kilmister, about capturing who he is and what's behind his iconic figure. The conclusion couldn't be more striking: there's no difference between Lemmy, the "rock God" (not my opinion, you'll hear that affirmation thousands of times during the film) and Lemmy the human being. There's no Lemmy and then an Ian. Forget the usual glamorous, decadent or eccentric side of a rockstar. Forget the tortuous and extremely hard disassociation of his musician's life and his life at home. The guy is just the way he is. Always.

Many rockumentaries have their good share of interviews/comments with relevant/related people talking about what it means for them the artist/band object of the film. Many of them are really bland, but in Lemmy's case, if you let aside some worshipping and anecdotes that seem trivial (the passion, enthusiasm and consideration from the likes of Metallica or Dave Grohl looks genuine and moving), you'll hear/see a recurrent affirmation. He's real. He's the person you are seeing. There's no fake, no star-pose. For good or bad. Take it or leave it. Celebrity Joan Jett from The Runaways summarizes it: "Everybody assimilates at some point [...], go along to get along, you know, to get what they need to get... I don't see Lemmy as that kind of guy [...] I see him doing things his way to get where he wants to go. And that's attractive, because people don't do that anymore."
 
Lemmy's portrait is necessarily bittersweet, revealing a complex character to take an insight of. Aside from the expected account on Lemmy's role within music history, we see his everyday routine (bars and slot machines), his musical interests, his personal life, from his views on marriage to a shocking interview together with his son, his collector, more like an obsession, "mode" and (glups) peculiar tastes recalling uniforms, a little recall of his early career (the most hilarious moment of the film, with the Hawkind members trying to justify why they kicked them out of the band due to "different drugs choice") and interesting footage of his current music career: life on the road, band and crew opinions and some brilliantly filmed music clips (but if you ask me, Lemmy's voice is really annoying).

Some could say the rockumentary is a bit loose in its structure, or that, in my opinion it would flow better with a reduced length, but it succeeds well in its goal of bringing a detailed account on Kilmister, with several moments to be remembered. Even for a non Motörhead fan... well let's be honest, even for a metal hater, "Lemmy" is an absorbing film, an unusual, profound and brave attempt to show a music legend that just happens to be a complex human being, with a not very glamorous everyday life. His own life, made of his own choices. He's like a rock, unalterable despite fame, drugs, alcohol, sex, etc. He's the rock's heavy rock.

SCORE: 7,5/10

"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