What I've read about Miles suggests that he wasn't entirely at ease with his respectable middle class background, and that he liked to play at being a gangster. FWIW I've not seen the film either, and the reviews I've read don't encourage me to do so.
I thought the film was enjoyable enough, you'll be hard pushed to find a film with a better soundtrack. The storyline should be taken with about 10 fathoms of salt, I'm not entirely sure why they decided to go down the 'made up' route but it works as a piece of entertainment even if it doesn't reflect what actually went on.
@crispi: thanks for an entertaining journey. @rxcory: thanks in advance for the job I know you'll do.
He had a "salty act" and could be rude, but that was one side of him only; he was hardly gangsta material. Academic education, liked to cook, liked to go to the gym...
Read his autobiography 1st, saw the movie shortly after. Did not seem to me that far away from the way Miles decided to portrait himself. U may object to the fact that the film based his narrative on the late 70s. But I think Cheadle did a great job.
Cheadle does not even look like Miles. I’d say the movie does his memory a disservice, but I’m not going to argue the point. The autiobiography is also partly fictional and can be taken with a bag of salt...
What Cheadle gets right about the movie is attitude. He starts with the attitude and spins a fictional story starring “Miles Davis.” It can be enjoyed in those terms. If you expect verisimilitude, you will set yourself up for disappointment.
I think I've said on this thread before that I really enjoyed the film. It wasn't accurate, it was over the top, mostly silly, but it was a load of stupid, pointless fun. Cheadle doesn't look like Davis, but I haven't a problem with that - he does get the attitude, or the attitude Davis wanted us to think he had, correct. To me it felt like including that idea that this was Miles Davis was simply a way to draw in a larger audience and hang the main story on. There are some great moments (the boxing ring/band playing stuff) but on the whole it's not very good. Excellent linguistic joke about tits though.
I remember a few years ago I was reading quite a lot about the retirement period. And the more I read, the more I realised that it was a more active time for Miles than I initially thought. There were even scattered studio sessions, but God forbid me remembering any details other than the year 1978. Also, were there not a few shows as well? Or I am wrong?
I know we're on the 1980s, but I've always had a soft spot for the "missing link" between Miles mid-70s music and the 1980s music - the 1978 session with Larry Coryell and others. It was a shame Miles never went further with the band. Background here. George Pavlis: Interviews: The Last Miles: The Music Of Miles Davis 1980 - 1991: A book by George Cole Eleana Steinberg Tee: Interviews: The Last Miles: The Music Of Miles Davis 1980 - 1991: A book by George Cole TM Stevens: Interviews: The Last Miles: The Music Of Miles Davis 1980 - 1991: A book by George Cole
If you can find it, Larry Coryell's then-wife Julie Coryell had a great interview with Miles in a book called Jazz-Rock Fusion that she wrote around that time.
Finally got a Japanese Agharta CD, what a revelation. (Srcs 9128) How was the Columbia 1990 CD even allowed out of the factory? If you only upgrade 2 Miles CD's to Japanese editions, make it Agharta & Pangaea.
But Tim, you do know that the Mastersound Edition is also a remix, right? A much better remix than on the 1990 CD, but still. The original mix, which appears on later Japanese CDs, has a different, more diffuse feel to it, with arty stereo reverb effects, especially during the guitar solos. The instruments are clearer on your Mastersound edition, but if you want the full-on voodoo funk, you'll need to hear the original mix. There is a discussion on that a few pages earlier.
I hardly see how this should make him less of a gangsta We all have different aspects to our personalities and personal preferences and being somewhat refined of taste doesn't mean we aren't capable of bad acts. On the other hand I think that Miles liked to bask in the infamy that the whole 'Prince of Darkness' persona gave him. He got less hassle that way, for one.
Yeah, my original point was only that it's pretty bad that the only American mainstream biopic on one of the select American geniuses of music focuses on the only (five) years in his adult life that he didn't create music, in a grossly overheated manner to. I'm not sure what that says, but it ain't pretty on a number of levels. It's like, let's make a biopic of Sinatra focusing on his mob ties only. On the second point you're likely right; he used it to keep people at a distance.
You really can’t even consider it a biopic. Or if it is, it stretches the form with enormous creative liberties. I actually think Miles would like it. By using his life as a springboard for a tall tale, it turns him into a kind of Paul Bunyan or John Henry figure.
Well we know that. Average Jane or Joe might come away from the movie thinking that Miles dude was a pretty horrid guy and that he may possibly have been involved in music besides snorting a mountain of coke and playing with guns .
Before stepping into the unknown... This is a good recap of the previous episodes: Panthalassa: The Music Of Miles Davis 1969-1974 If you don't know this album and you like that period of Miles music give it a try. It will surprise you. (great edit on "He Loved Him Madly")
Like GoodFellas, but with crappier music? I'd watch that in a spilt-second. And I agree with your point about the premise of the film, I just reacted to the thing I took completely out of context But my point still stand about that. On the other hand, I think Miles, like most genii, probably often were a horrible person. Because they let him behave that way and get away with it. Haven't watched the film, tho. But isn't that supposed to be like a fantasy or a filmatisation of mister Miles' thoughts?
