SXSW Review: Shine a Light
Filed under: Documentary, Music & Musicals, SXSW, Paramount Classics, Theatrical Reviews
Concert films are constantly at war with themselves. If the musical act is transcendent, then a filmed document will never come close to reproducing the experience of seeing and hearing the act live, in the same way that an ordinary photograph can only serve, at best, as a reminder of a moment. Even a great, exact reproduction is still just a copy, not the original. If the act is merely average or worse, then why bother to record it?
The Rolling Stones have been captured performing in concert on film or tape numerous times, so the challenge that lay before Martin Scorsese was to do something different. After all, this is the man who redefined concert films with The Last Waltz in 1978, in which he eschewed the prevailing wisdom that a concert had to include generous allotments of time devoted to the concert goer's point of view. Instead, Scorsese kept the action tightly focused on the stage, allowing the audience to enjoy the interplay between the members of The Band and various guests who shared in the group's final performance. He balanced that with lively interviews; in the process, he helped to establish Robbie Robertson as a viable solo personality in the eyes of the film industry.
I should amend the previous paragraph to read like this: "The challenge that lay before Martin Scorsese was to do something different or so I thought!" As it turns out, my expectations for Shine a Light were far too high.
Because of Scorsese's track record as a documentarian, his legendary appreciation of music, and his expertise in using the soundtracks of his films to enhance the dramatic action, I imagined he was impelled to shoot the music doc because he had something new to say or because he wanted to coax some new insights from the group as they age into infinity. Instead, he made a routine documentary that could have been made by any competent director.
While I'm not a die-hard Stones fan, I definitely respect their legacy and can happily recall singing along many times with their hits over the years. There are probably at least 40-50 songs of theirs that are permanently burned into my memory banks, and I wouldn't have it any other way. (One of the more revealing moments of the doc comes when we see Mick Jagger compiling a set list, working from a printed list of song titles divided into categories such as "medium known," "well known," and 'the ones we don't really want to play again.') The concert, performed as a benefit at the Beacon Theatre in New York City, is razor-edged and sharply performed, at least to my ears. Watching it on a huge IMAX screen -- my first full-length experience with the format -- I was most impressed by the ear-splitting volume. I didn't feel the bass thumping in my chest, as I have at past live concert performances, and my ears didn't start bleeding, but it was definitely in the right vicinity to make you feel like you were right there at the Beacon Theatre.
Ah, but watching it -- there's the rub. Camera placement is always an issue for concert films. Neither the musical act nor the audience wants cameras getting in the way of the show, but if you're not going to have close-ups, then you might as well just plant the cameras next to a seat in the middle of the venue and let them roll. The thinking is that close-ups are essential to make you "feel like you're there," and also provides a view that you wouldn't get if you were actually in the venue.
That's been a decent working blueprint in in the past, but with IMAX the problem of close-ups is amplified. On the huge IMAX screen, with Mick Jagger's face the size of a building, I realized that a plethora of close-ups makes clear that Mick is performing, by which I mean, he's putting on a show for hundreds or thousands of people in the building, not performing for the camera. His exaggerated gestures, the extreme facial contortions, and the like, are perfect in front of large auditoriums, but in close-up you can see that he's playing to the cheap seats -- and looking right through you. While great actors can communicate volumes with their eyes, if you stare into Mick Jagger's eyes, nothing stares back. The same applies to Keith Richards and Ron Wood, and to guest performers Jack White and Christina Aguilera. (Buddy Guy is an exception. The man gives great stare.) The extreme amount of close-ups ends up distancing the viewer from the performer.
In a similar way, Shine a Light is profoundly obvious in its editing rhythms. Keith strums a chord to start a song, point camera at Keith. Mick sings, point camera at Mick. Ron Wood solos, point camera at Ron. Mick starts singing again, point camera at Mick, preferably in extreme close-up. It could be argued that Scorsese is simply sticking with the most dramatic action on stage at that moment, but Scorsese is a great filmmaker because he knows that some of the best, most revealing, most unexpected moments happen where and when you least expect them. What can't we have some variety? What can't we see what Ron Wood is doing when Mick is singing? Why can't we ever get close-ups of Chuck Leavell on keyboards?
And what's with the rote rotation of two or three songs followed by the most obviously ironic archival interview clips imaginable? Here's one such sequence: song, song, interview clip of Young Mick in the '60s: "How much longer do you think you'll be playing?" "Another year," cut to Old Mick in the 00's still playing. It's funny the first time, and then becomes a bit numbing. Didn't the Stones feel like talking, or do they feel they've said all they have to say at this stage of their careers?
As I noted above, I understand the limitations of concert films -- it sounds like the Stones absolutely did not want a cameraman on stage, etc. -- and I also understand that filmmakers cannot always get the clips they want. Most likely, if Scorsese's name were not on the film, I would have zero expectations and been pleasantly surprised to see that the Rolling Stones are still working hard in concert. But with Scorsese's name attached, I wanted more.
If you'd like to experience the Stones "live in IMAX," Shine a Light may be just the ticket. But if you're looking for something a little different, look elsewhere.
'Big Top Pee-Wee': The Original Benicio Del Toro Wolfman
Spin-ematical: New on DVD and Blu-ray for 2/9
Watch This: Brilliant Oscar-Nominated Short 'Logorama'
Chris Nolan to Lead 'Superman' Reboot!?
Tim Robbins Joins 'The Green Lantern'
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
3-27-2008 @ 10:19PM
chazza said...
I was a few rows from the stage at one of the 2005 arena shows, and got a different impression of Mick's performance -- he appeared to me to be a hard-working host making sure that all his guests were having a good time -- he made plenty of eye contact and seemed to work extra hard when he found a few people not looking enthusiastic enough
obviously, a film can only capture so much
PS: i was in the fifth row for a show in 1989 and got a different impression, however, that was in a stadium
Reply
4-03-2008 @ 2:31PM
Jane said...
After watching the Bob Dylan DVD by Martin Scorsese I had high hopes for this film but was disappointed. The Stones as a band have the longest history then any other band but it only showed them on a night/s in New York. The short and far and few clips of interviews were fantastic and I wanted to see more of that, instead of focusing on them on one night only! I have seen the Stones, queued 12 hours to get front bar and they were amazing, the atmosphere was amazing, but that crowd were people who were there to be filmed, they wouldn't queue in the rain... When they introduced Charlie they never shouted Charlie like a crowd normally does. It was probably their first and last Stones gig, there for the occasion. I have better live DVD's of the Stones at home. It didn't capture how they are in big stadiums, their amazing stage designs, how they get 100,000 strong crowd rocking. Bands today can get crowds that size easy. It didn't show or tell what they have truely done for music, anyone who watches that film in 20 years time, knowing nothing about them would wonder what the fuss was seriously all about. To The Rolling Stones: you are a million times better than that 'film', people who haven't seen you live and watch that DVD only will never have a clue to just how fantastic you are. Good? Yes. Does the Rolling Stones justice? No!!
Reply
4-04-2008 @ 5:32AM
gavin king said...
I'd had enough when that stoopid Bimbo came on and jagger should've been arrested. Eye candy for sure but didn't it smack of tokenism - where's your credibility now Marty? How much imput did Jagger have. Jeez, I know he's the singer . . .boy you couldn't tell could ya? I really admire Jagger. I actually think he's a great singer. No, really. I mean, listen to Jack White start his little vignette and then notice the difference when Jagger comes in. The power of the Jagger voice just blows little boy Red away. OK, loud voice aint everything - goodnight Freddie Mercury - but Jagger just came across as so much more of a singer than Jackie boy. Having said that Buddy Guy then went and blew Jagger off the stage - it is in this sequence that we see what the film could have been. The great bit when Keef gives him his guitar, the old guy's guitar playing in fact. What a sequence. Yet talking of guitar makes you realise how much Party Marty missed. Keef and Ron were like two sportsmen. If it had been a footie match they would been substituted with 20 minutes to go . . . and their playing reflected this. Tired, bum notes, lacking fluency, all of the things that their guitar playing had in the opening 30 minutes. In fact their guitar playing is the only thing of note apart froma great version of Tears Go BY. Why oh why didn't mr S just let the camera hang on the guitar for a solo at least. Mind you I would've then complained about missing so much of the great rhythm work. Have to say Ron's slide work was good and Charlie aint no slouch even now. But what about the backing guys? Great to see Bobby Keys. However, I nearly fell off me seat when I realised the Lou Reed lookalike on a bad day was Blondie Chaplin . . . what? I aint aged too bad I thought. Then of course there was the strange phenomenon that happened everytime the camera focused on someone, be it backing singer, paino player, drummer. The volume suddenly went up . . . even if the shot was a fraction of a second . . .what the fek was that about. Have to say that however that Bob Clearmountain did a grand job on the mix. Don't get me wrong I still love the stones c. 1965-73 but there aint been much since too excite me . . . Babylon(?) . . . so what the fuck was the reason of sticking all those 2nd rate latersongs in . . . plus that embarrassing version of Imagination . . . awful. I did think tho' that Far Away eyes, not one of my favoruite stones country forays, actually encompassed one great moment - an insight into what might've been. Don't you just think that if we'd had ten minutes of them in that rehearsal room - (who'dve thought the stones had got an MD? . . . I found that shocking) would've have been far more insightful than anything that actually got let out. As someone else has said just to see what is going on behind Jagger's back would have been so much better.The nadir - or is it just an illustration of how low Scorse drifts here - is the limp end sequence. I tell ya, I saw the advert for Shine a Light this morning and I thought boy i'd love to see that film. Problem is, it aint the film you get.
Reply
4-06-2008 @ 4:56PM
John Wilson said...
Somewhere I saw a comment from Mick Jagger to the effect that "this movie is about Marty". The music may be about the Stone's, and it's recorded and mixed pretty well, but the 'movie' is about Marty - and his fetish for Mick Jagger, apparently. Seems like 90% of the movie is Mick's face. Granted, he's a force to be reckoned with, and powers the stage show, but one might assume a concert film might be about the band. But there is little of that. Mostly it's shots so tight I was afraid of being sucked up a nostril, and WAY too much homage to MTV and the idea that there needs to be a edit for every beat of the song. A few brilliant moments to be sure: Buddy Guy's stare..the only time in the entire movie there is not a cut or a move for several seconds. And the fly-away at the end of "Live with Me", but by and large, it seems to be the story of a film editor doing things because they can, not because they should.
The contrast between the Stones movie and the U2 movie are interesting; I left the U2 movie feeling like I'd seen a great band give a great performance. I left the Stones movie feeling like I'd seen an MTV music video from almost any band, dazed from the visual assault.
I've been looking at the reviews, and it appears that since it's the Stones and Scorcese, we must all fawn over them and be high-brow...but that it was a solid "C"....the Stones are an amazing band, but this movie is more like watching Martin Scorcese, uh..pleasure himself than watching the Rolling Stones.
And none of the reviews I can find mention one of the more fascinating moments of the movie: at the end of "Champagne and Reefer", Keith Richards gives his guitar to Buddy Guy. One of the worlds guitar icons paying homage to a far superior talent...Keith acknowledges later in the film that he's a mediocre guitar player, but that moment of handing his guitar to Buddy Guy is what I'll remember from this movie.
Reply
4-07-2008 @ 5:09AM
SG47 said...
I didn't go to this movie to critique Scorcese, or over-analyze each and every scene, or do a comparative analysis to every other rock concert-documentary that was ever made, etc. etc. etc. I went because I love the Stones and their music and how it makes me feel. First, and last.
LESSON FOR THE DAY: Rock music is PARTICIPATORY, and not a spectator sport. If you're not participating, you're not rocking. If you're not rocking, you're missing the point.
Scorcese, I believe, did a good enough job. Perfect? Perhaps not. But did it allow one to experience and transcend into that euphoric 'zone' that the Stones/Jagger et al, create when they play? Did you allow yourself to go "there"? Or were you sitting, analyzing each and every scene, each and every camera shot, comparing "The Last Waltz" to the U2 movie-concert to the other Stones movies, or to this, or to that, while the Stones played on and on? Was Scorsese making a statement? Have something new to say? Who the hell cares. You feel disappointed because..why? The music wasn't any good? You didn't feel anything? A shame. Personally, I can only mourn for those poor souls who apparently fail to transcend into that 'other world', that 'zone'...as if you lost your sense of smell in a French bakery, or lost your vision while on the beach in Ipanema, or can't get high from smoking a joint. How sad. These critiques above seem to reflect a detachment...as if one was sitting apart, as a mere spectator from afar.
As to the Stones, as ancient as their faces may be, there is still no other band (rock or otherwise) that comes close to their synergy and talent. Think of 1,000,000 on the beach in Brazil...rocking to the Stones. Unreal. What other band can do that? And they're not even Brazilian. As to Jagger, name one front-man that even comes close to all that he does, all that he has been, and all that he is. Bono? wha? Springsteen? Bon Jovi? Eddie god-help-us Vetter?...come on..seriously. So thank God that Martin Scorsese has a Jagger fetish. It rocked.
Reply