Woodstock (1969 Film): How Well Do You Think It Has Aged?

I picked it up in a charity shop for £1.00 the other day and am now having a look. I last saw the film for the first (and only) time in 1982.

Do people find the split-screen technique irritating? This was very much in vogue in 1968-69, having been used in 'trendy' films like The Thomas Crown Affair and The Boston Strangler. I'd argue that only in the latter film was it justified and not distracting.

As to the performances - I don't think any of the acts were captured at their best and some of them are distinctly ropey.

 

You might be onto something there, it's revered by many as it capturing a more innocent time in their lives......I was watching it with my kids, they were curious after seeing John Belushi do his Joe Cocker imitation and wanted to know what it was all about. My wife and kids cringed at the Grease bands background vocals.

 

I enjoy seeing the background stuff with the audience, but I would prefer to see more of the musical performances.

 

This movie is primarily about the music first, culture second, and movie technique a distant third.

It was filmed in 1969 and edited and released a short time afterwards. It’s been almost 50 years. OF COURSE it’s going to be out-of-date and of its time, and reflect the technology and music it was created in!

I also originally saw it in 1982 -and already the culture and the way music was presented seemed long ago. I still thought overall the music was wonderful!

It was a different world then.
If you like your music presented in an organic, authentic manner, you’ll like it. If you prefer something else, you won’t.

 

It's history, and the film and album are now the closest way we can experience an event that was being mythologized before if was even over. I do think there were some great performances: Richie Havens, Ten Years After, and Hendrix all come to mind, and even some of the lesser performances are still interesting from a historical standpoint. As for the split screen, I'm not crazy about it but I guess that was part of the times too.

 

I've just re-watched Cocker's performance. Even in 1969, I'm surprised people were impressed: Cocker's hoarse histrionics and daft air guitar playing look just plain silly.

What I DO like about the clip, though, is the way the camera follows Cocker off-stage after his triumph. He is given a papercup (of water?) to soothe his ravaged vocal chords. That was a new detail, I think.

Oh - and now we're onto the crowd rain chant. Oh, dear.....

 

The Woodstock promoters look very cheery for guys who are on the hook as they declare the Festival a 'financial disaster'.

I know one of them was heir to a multi-million dollar fortune but presumably, they had a feeling they were going to clean up when the film was released (adn they did).

 

I saw it in '70, or '71, and I still like it. No, the split screen does not bother me, as does anything else about it. As for the background vocals of The Grease Band, I distinctly remember people laughing in that theater, which I found ignorant, even at 12 years old. One more example of why I prefer the company of animals, to people.
.

 

I don't know that I've ever seen all of it, but I've seen chunks of it on TV recently. Does anyone know anyone personally who appears in the footage?

 

The split-screen effect was done for wide-screen theaters, against the wishes of Warner Bros., because it added so much to the movie's post-production budget. I see its use as an integral part of the film. In fact, a lot of things about Woodstock that might annoy or amuse people in 2017 are what gives the movie its charm. For better or worse, it is a token of its time.

And it does capture the real miracle of Woodstock: that a group of people totaling what amounts to the population of Miami was plopped into the middle of a muddy, $hitty field for three days and generally had a good time without killing each other.

 

I think it holds up quite well and captures a moment in time vividly. I first watched it in 2000 and was totally captivated, feeling like I had experienced the festival when the film was over.
The relatively slow editing pace and fly-on-the-wall camera techniques are really effective at pulling the viewer into the reality of 1969. At the same time, the split screen effects and other trippy visual touches compliment the psychedelic nature of the music while approximating the mental state of many of the attendees!

 

I attribute a lot of that stuff(other acts as well) to a lack of moniters. They literally had problems hearing themselves. I think they had some but not enough to overcome the huge loud speaker towers. Sometimes forget that a LOT of Woodstock was done on the fly after the change in location. Plans were changed to accommodate the switch to Yazgur's farm.
I note that a lot of guitar players(accoustic) could not hear their own instrument when the crowd was yelling.

 

I never got into Woodstock there’s this whole flea vibe that turns me off

 

But Santana -- "Soul Survivor" wow!

 

I saw it at a movie theater in the late 70s. I went with a couple of high school buddies. We were all Who fanatics and realized that they were one of the bands featured in the movie. At the time there were hardly any ways to actually see bands like that unless you went to a concert.

We enjoyed the Who sequence but wished it was longer.

A couple of years ago I was watching it on TV and my teenage daughter came in and joined me. We were both enjoying it but she got bored and left during Ten Years After's performance. I didn't watch it all the way through but still enjoyed what I saw -- all these years later.

Definitely a product of its time but I don't think it suffers for that.

 

I think I enjoyed Santana the most, followed by Hendrix.

I like it as a historical document.

 

Soul Sacrifice - IMO one of the most electrifying pieces of live music ever filmed/recorded.

Easily my favorite musical segment in the movie.

 

Its held up well obviously. Young people I know love it. One funny quip that comes up regularly is how fit and lean young people looked then. Technically it may shows a datedness but thats unavoidable and exists with every good movie.

 

Woodstock is a concert a film of it's time. It should be appreciated as such. I should think that 50 years from now the young will laugh at our current concerts and the constant cuts to the dolly move over the crowd and not showing bands playing and laugh too.

 

It does seem to play better in a theater. Seems less dated to me than some feature films produced around then. As a musical documentary, I would prefer a bit less hippies and more music. Would have be nice to see more backstage stuff, and more than one song from some performers. Aside from that, there's a thread here that gives the chronology of the Festival performers. It was a lot different (incl. Creedence, the Band, Grateful Dead, BS&T) than the film or soundtrack album suggest.

I sometimes wonder about how appearing there might have effected some bands who for various reasons decided not to play: Rascals, Tommy James and Shondells, Byrds, Poco. I do think there was a certain halo effect for many of the performers who did appear.

 

I've watched my blu-ray, but it doesn't hold a candle to working the movie when it was released. I was @ the Boulevard Theatre in Wichita, KS, where it showed for weeks. The crowds for the premiere night could have just as easily been extras in the film => all cheering along with Country Joe & the Fish in unison.

The theater manager's favorite # was Santana's Soul Sacrifice, for which he would often request the projectionist to crank the volume.

I can't begin to count the # of times I stepped into the darkness, just to catch Ten Years After's I'm goin' home . . .

 

For me, it's the opposite. I find the cinéma verité aspects of the film interesting, but do not really enjoy listening to most late '60s rock.

 

Funnily enough, I noticed a few youthful pot bellies among the construction crew - and even among a few of the audience members.

 

I think we also live in a time where we expect concert movies to be fairly unedited, with complete performances of every song performed, plus a myriad of bonus features. That wasn't the thinking at the time and certainly wasn't the goal of the filmmakers. DVD releases of the film and audio recordings of the soundtrack arguably try to make it fit modern expectations with various degrees of success, rather unfairly.

 

Tim Hardin was at the Festival and his set was filmed but he didn't make the cut.

Then I noticed him in one of the verite sections - stoned and rambling backstage near the beginning of the film.