BillWelcome Home Studios Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 So the Rock 'N Roll GirlFriend and I treck out to a Cinemark IMax to see the new Stones movie. We went the extra distance to take advantage of the "IMax Experience". Well, first off that is total bullshit. There is a real IMax theater here, so we know what IMax is supposed to be. What Cinemark is offering ain't it. But the screen and sound system were FAR better than what is currently offered in the typical cineplex. So if you're going to see the movie, it is probably worth the trip if you have a choice. Should you see the movie? Hard to say. As a concert film, it is not so hot. The big focus is on Mick to the exclusion of most everything else, with occasional shots of Keith and Ron. Pretty much anyone or anything else appears on screen by accident. You can't argue with the performances, other than Keith, who just can't be bothered. He spends most of his time trying to look like a slightly tipsy uncle attempting to look cute and sly, and not quite pulling it off. He plays about half of the notes about half of the time. But everyone else is rocking out, and the show is definitely high energy. Ron Wood is just kicking ass all night long...sobriety defintely agrees with him, or at least, with the quality of his playing. I do not believe that I have EVER seen him play so well, by orders of magnitude. The film is cut for shit, lit poorly, and honestly, for there being a camera every three feet, I just have to wonder if any of these guys had -been- to a rock show before. If they indeed edited together the best shots that they had available, then they needed different camera crews. Really dull, predicatble, thoughtless shots. Had I been the director, I would have replaced those guys after the first day. In an event that should have provided tons of amazing shots, there were only a handful that pulled me right into the film. The sound mixing also draws a serious 'wha?!' from me. I am usually very tolerant of poor film sound. But this flies beyond poor. I have often been a critic of surround sound, because most of the people who mix for surround seem to want sound objects to fly all around the room. This film is no exception. From the first song, instruments slide around the soundfield with no regard to where the instruments or amps actually reside in the physical space. In addition, the volume levels of various instruments jump and change in disconcerting and anoying ways. The ability to have multichannel sound playback should enhance, NOT distract, from the film experience. This film is a primer on all of the things NOT to do in surround. With all of that technology, the overall musical mix comes off as a muddy mush burried behind Mick's vocal. Another surround issue possibly tied to the difference between the mix and playback space (and another of my objections to the way that surround is so casually and cavalierly handled in todays world)was the width of the audio image. The band wrapped around my head too far, dragging me acoustically farther on stage than I expect to be, and putting instruments behind me. Wierd. Acoustically I was standing somewhere behind Mick, between him and Charlie. Visually I was in front of Mick, looking up his nostrils. The upside to the surroumd mix was that the rear channels did indeed envelope me in the audience between songs, with the ambient noise and applause sounding very realistic. Another sound issue was the differences between the first and second nights of the event. The mixing was well handled to disquise this, but there were places, mostly in Micks mic, where the differences were too evident. On some tracks his mic was kinda flat and dull sounding, while on others his mic had a lot of push and presence. Jack White was pretty much a waste of time, but I expected that... I didn't think that Dave Mathews belonged on the same stage as the Stones when I saw them together, either. Buddy Guy really sang his ass off, though the song itself gets pretty ragged, and Mick pulls out some fun old familiar Stones harp riffs. The other guys did play on the song, but not so much as you could tell. Likewise, Christina Aguilera did far better than I expected. She really belted out the song and though I have a personal dislike of the way that so many female pop singers try to stretch out every note that they sing (ya-A-a-A-a-ayyyyyyyyyYyyYYYYyYyyYY.....) the gave the song total commitment, and what more can we ask from a guest artist? She could hold her own on a stage with the Stones, and very few of their guests in recent years have been able to bring that much game to the show. The show is mostly live music. There are short snippets of interviews from the past, which we have all seen before, interspersed throughout. They are not long enough to satisfy those who are curious to see them, or want some history. It is not much of a documentary. It is not much of a record of a performance. But the energy of the Stones, in the end, surpasses the technical issues and makes this an enjoyable experience in spite of the mediocre quality of the decision making behind the film. If you enjoy the Rolling Stones, you'll probably like this film. If you are not so much a fan, don't waste your money. If you expect anything from Martin Scorcese, save your money. He is little more than a cardboard cutout in this film. If he has had any input, it is not obvious, nor something about which he should expect to brag. Bill "I believe that entertainment can aspire to be art, and can become art, but if you set out to make art you're an idiot." Steve Martin Show business: we're all here because we're not all there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Patrick Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 I heard a couple of tunes off the soundtrack on the radio. It sounded way too clean and polished, like they washed off all the grease... I wonder how much after-the-fact fixing of parts they did... Buy Tangy's latest CD, "Sorta Like Very Ultra" The Official Tangy Website Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miroslav Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 The big focus is on Mick to the exclusion of most everything else... Wow...now THERE'S a new perspective for the Stones.... miroslav - miroslavmusic.com "Just because it happened to you, it doesn't mean it's important." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillWelcome Home Studios Posted April 8, 2008 Author Share Posted April 8, 2008 The big focus is on Mick to the exclusion of most everything else... Wow...now THERE'S a new perspective for the Stones.... What I mean is that, from a camera point of view, you get very few wide shots of the whole band performing. Most of the 'point of view' is, as I said later, up Mick's nostrils. Or over his shoulder. Or beind him. Poor Charlie is mostly ignored, he gets about as much face time as Chuck Level, and nowhere near as much as the backup singers or the bass player. Since the TAMI Show, Mick has always been the front man and has worked hard at being a good front man. But in all the Stones concert footage that I have seen, there is the aknowlegement that the band is a band, not the Mick Jagger Show. Bill "I believe that entertainment can aspire to be art, and can become art, but if you set out to make art you're an idiot." Steve Martin Show business: we're all here because we're not all there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danzilla Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 So it would have been better if it had been directed by Marty DeBergi? "Am I enough of a freak to be worth paying to see?"- Separated Out (Marillion) NEW band Old band Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillWelcome Home Studios Posted April 8, 2008 Author Share Posted April 8, 2008 So it would have been better if it had been directed by Marty DeBergi? It would have been better if it had been directed my my mom, or your cousin Frank. Or someone who was going to take the time to see the whole.... you can't see the forest, just the knothole in one of the trees. Bill "I believe that entertainment can aspire to be art, and can become art, but if you set out to make art you're an idiot." Steve Martin Show business: we're all here because we're not all there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeftyBlues Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 Bill, Thank you for taking the time to give us such a thorough review. I'll probably go see it just becasue it is the Stones, but if I don't find time to see it I won't lose any sleep over it. I saw them 3 times on the last tour and it was an out of body experience for the old lefthander and I'm really glad I finally broke down and spent the money (really not all that much) to see them live. Some bands just have to be experienced live as you all well know. I was born at night but I wasn't born last night... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeftyBlues Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 Also worth pointing out that because it was filmed, they filled the front rows with "pretty people" not hard core Stones fans. I tried, like many others, to get a ticket for this venue (they were $50!!) and was optimistic enough to book a room at the Beacon Hotel at $350 a night just in case. Many of the reviews I read on the Stones website were less than glowing as the movie crews and equipment were pretty overwhelming in the Beacon. Still would've loved to been there though. I was born at night but I wasn't born last night... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fantasticsound Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 Great review! It's annoying when you see the results of a given. As in, it was a given that millions of Stones fans will pay money to see anything with their name on it, irregardless of the quality. Given that you add Marty Scorcese's name to the bill and you'll draw in another group interested to see his take on a concert performance/documentary movie. I'm not a huge stones fan and I, like you, do not suffer well poor film making or sound production. It's easiest to find me on Facebook. Neil Bergman Soundclick fntstcsnd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillWelcome Home Studios Posted April 8, 2008 Author Share Posted April 8, 2008 ...reviews.... were less than glowing as the movie crews and equipment were pretty overwhelming in the Beacon. ... Yes, the Rock 'N Roll GirlFriend and I talked about this on the way home. I've worked on quite a few 'shot for TV' shows in theaters, most notably a handful of the PBS offerings shot here at the Benedum Center or Heinz Hall. In these, the audience is treated as props. Songs are shot and reshot and reshot until they are correctly 'in the can', to the director's satisfaction. The shooting runs many, many long hours. Boom cameras whizz and zoom overhead, fixed cameras take up prime seating, and ENG cameras roam freely around the stage. The whole idea is to create a show for TV, NOT to put on a great rock show, and capture the energy live. It was obvious to me that from the Stones point of view, they were going to put on a concert in a small venue, and someone was going to film it, but the focus for them was the live audience. This is discussed to some degree in the early part of the movie, in a phone conversation between Mick and Martin. I imagine that there were more in-depth conversations on this subject off-camera. And to be fair to Martin Scorcese, this approach does not make it easy to shoot a great movie. But he knew the job was dangerous when he took it, and he must have wanted to be associated with this project in a very bad way to accept the conditions under which they were trying to work. At the same time, ultimately the blocking and establishing shots were his responsibility, as was the final cut and the final mixes (probably subject to Stones approval, too...). When a pro of his remarkable ability presents something this medicore, I figure that by actual showtime, he just didn't care. That is a shame. "Also worth pointing out that because it was filmed, they filled the front rows with "pretty people" not hard core Stones fans." Yeah, it looked like the local Brabazon modeling agency got the front row tickets. "I tried, like many others, to get a ticket for this venue (they were $50!!) ..." Too bad you didn't make it. The Stones, live, are still a great show. I've seen the last ten or fifteen years worth, after skipping the 80s. Seeing them in a small venue would be great, because it would limit the sizzle and present more of the steak. Bill "I believe that entertainment can aspire to be art, and can become art, but if you set out to make art you're an idiot." Steve Martin Show business: we're all here because we're not all there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miroslav Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 The big focus is on Mick to the exclusion of most everything else... Wow...now THERE'S a new perspective for the Stones.... What I mean is that, from a camera point of view, you get very few wide shots of the whole band performing. Most of the 'point of view' is, as I said later, up Mick's nostrils. Or over his shoulder. Or beind him. Poor Charlie is mostly ignored, he gets about as much face time as Chuck Level, and nowhere near as much as the backup singers or the bass player. Since the TAMI Show, Mick has always been the front man and has worked hard at being a good front man. But in all the Stones concert footage that I have seen, there is the aknowlegement that the band is a band, not the Mick Jagger Show. Yes...that's why I was joking about it, as I cant recall any Stones footage where Mick didn't chew up at least 75% of the camera's attention. ...the Rock 'N Roll Girlfriend and I talked about this on the way home. So Bill...didn't she become the "Rock 'N Roll Wife awhile backor is Rock 'N Roll Girlfriend her permanent moniker? :grin: OhIve been looking for one of those myself (the R&R Girlfriend)but they are getting harder to find these days miroslav - miroslavmusic.com "Just because it happened to you, it doesn't mean it's important." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillWelcome Home Studios Posted April 8, 2008 Author Share Posted April 8, 2008 So Bill...didn't she become the "Rock 'N Roll Wife awhile backor is Rock 'N Roll Girlfriend her permanent moniker? :grin: OhIve been looking for one of those myself (the R&R Girlfriend)but they are getting harder to find these days Yeah, that is the moniker that fits best. We like it. We will have been married a year this coming May. Good luck on the search. I can only say that I had given up on finding a quality woman and expected to wake up to an ever aging stream of also-rans after nights of debauchery and lechary, when out of the blue appeared the woman of my dreams. If it happened to me, it can happen to you. Bill "I believe that entertainment can aspire to be art, and can become art, but if you set out to make art you're an idiot." Steve Martin Show business: we're all here because we're not all there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miroslav Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 ... nights of debauchery and lechary... God...aren't those just awful! :grin: miroslav - miroslavmusic.com "Just because it happened to you, it doesn't mean it's important." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillWelcome Home Studios Posted April 8, 2008 Author Share Posted April 8, 2008 ... nights of debauchery and lechary... God...aren't those just awful! :grin: Let us just say that, after a certain number of years they are not as satisfying as they used to be. (!) "I believe that entertainment can aspire to be art, and can become art, but if you set out to make art you're an idiot." Steve Martin Show business: we're all here because we're not all there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.