About a year ago, I had a period where I was obsessed with the 60’s. The clothes, the music, the changing culture and politics. Now, about a year later, I have fairly left that period behind, although I still listen to The Beatles, Bob Dylan, other sorts of 60’s bands and artists, and not least of all, the Stones. Now I watched Shine a Light this summer and loved it, the Rolling Stones are still one of the best Rock ’n’ Rollers around. So I went into this film with slightly ambivalent feelings, I’m sure I would have loved it no matter what a year ago, and I still love Mick Jagger, but I was still unsure how I was going to approach this film.
The cover of the film strategically forgets to mention the actor playing the main character, James Fox. He has much more screen time than Mick Jagger, and still isn’t even mentioned on the cover. This is one thing that often irritates me, but I understand why it was done. When the film was released, The Stones were at the height of their popularity, so it makes sense in advertisement, but a release, now thirty years later you would think we would be slightly less jaded, particularly considering James Fox I great in this movie and extremely important to the narrative. This is though a fairly daring film, especially back in the days. It’s a twisted mix of violence, sex, drugs and rock. But this is not a glorified version of the 60’s, this is almost like a look back at an era already over, the Mick Jagger character is isolated and weary. It’s gritty, and this is further shown by the very interesting film techniques used throughout the film, as well as the sometimes beautiful and sometimes ugly cinematography. But it works all the way, the film balances between the realistic, the hypnotic and the psychedelic. It doesn’t cover from showing the dark sides of the hippie culture, but doesn’t condemn it either. What I like is the juxtaposition of the violence of James Fox’s character and the drug addled life of Mick Jagger’s character. When the protagonist is forced into living the world of Mick Jagger, his world slowly clashes with the psychedelic carpet of drug abuse, and I felt that as the film progressed, this result became more and more spectacular.
It’s interesting to note that the filmmakers who made this film were at the time amateurs, they had never made a film before. This impressive considering the highly experimentation with the form, but also the parts which seem fairly classical are executed very well. It’s also cut together in a fast paced and interesting way, although this technique has become way overused these days, but as the film stands it makes it better. There is a certain progression in the film, the techniques and style used changes over the course of the film, mirroring the psychological state of the protagonist. One of the slightly depressing things about the film is the way it shows how the hippie era has failed and deteriorated, already in 1968 (the year the film was actually made) they could see where this period was going, and the film encapsulates every aspect of the 60’s. The film and its meaning though might be a bit too ambiguous for some people, but I like the ambiguity, particularly towards the end. There’s also even a musical number, in which Mick Jagger sings, and I think it is probably one of the very first musical videos; it certainly looks a lot like music videos that are made today, which I found quite interesting. One thing that adds to the whole feel of the film is the architecture of the house the film takes place in for most of the time. The rooms are big, but are all designed in a very psychotic way, chaotic but beautiful at the same time, much like the film.
I liked it a lot, and if you’re interested in the 60’s, then you should absolutely check it out. Not always as a whole does it come together, but the mix of the entire psychedelic atmosphere and the unique editing and filming techniques should make it interesting for film buffs as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment