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

Anyone know why Melanie's set didn't make the film cut?

 

It’s a period peace. A document of its time and of an historic event. It’s not a great movie but it is an important film. I wouldn’t recommend it for anyone not interested in 1960’s music and youth culture.

Although it is the last gasp of the 60’s it ushered in the 70’s and many of the darker excesses that followed.

 

Her set was in the wee smalls of the morning. It was raining and a lot of folks had gone to sleep. Keith Moon introduced her. The rain and then the candles came out. Lay down, candles in the rain.

 

Are you sure about this? I thought he introduced her at the Isle of Wight festival the next year.

Q - How were you introduced? Who introduced you?

Melanie - I don't know. Right before I went on, I think the emcee was Wavy Gravy.

 

For another snapshot of late summer/early fall '69 music festival scene, check out Celebration at Big Sur. It's lovely. Plus Steve Stills get in a fight with an audience member - so there's that.

Here's Joni Mitchell w/ CSN and John Sebastian doing a rendition of "Get Together":

 

"Down by the River" CSNY at Big Sur Fest:

 

Better than the Crazy Horse version!

 

Quoting Mel from her Live@Borders album

 

Wow. I feel the opposite----that was when everything was real and in the moment.

If they held it today, nobody would stick around for 3 days because their cell phones would have went dead the first day.

 

So it was ok to be under contract with a big corporate record company, but not appear in a film about a rock festival?

 

Joe was one of the best things about Woodstock imo. Id give a lot to have had his "hoarseness". His body movements are just Joe getting inside the music. Funny lookin at times I suppose. But a man who channeled music through movement as well as vocally.

 

People like Ahmet Ertegun and Mo Ostin were older guys who knew how to relate to younger people. It must have been incredibly flattering to the likes of Stills and Young to have people like that take them seriously and not look down on them as long-haired hippies with bad personal hygene. Plus, Reprise (which was Young's label) was also Sinatra's (own) label and Sinatra's name alone dazzled several generations. They won't have seen Ertegun and Ostin as cunning, suit-wearing capitalists (though they were, of course) but as respected friends.

 

I believe that Sinatra, even though he sold Reprise to WB, received royalties from Reprise artists at the time such as Neil and Jimi Hendrix.

 

I believe he consistently hated rock and roll throughout his life.

 

Funny you mention him, I really like Canned Heat's performance in the 45th expanded blu-ray, but I take it personal hygiene wasn't their first priority. I swear I can almost smell them!

 

Neil likes being a cranky opinionated contrarian. It's his world and he's welcome to it. I choose to ignore him and his noise. Your mileage may vary.........

Back to Woodstock. It's a perfect document of a musical and cultural one of a kind event. I watch it 4 or 5 times a year. Those that have issues with it seem to have not been alive when it happened.

 

I love it too. I watch it every few years. 4 or 5 times a year? Wow, I’d feel like I was living it.

 

It’s a period piece about the peace period.

 

Typical Anti-Neil Young response.

 

The film seemed way more enjoyable than the actual event must have been, unless you were completely zonked out on a variety of substances. I can't imagine how bad the primitive sound quality (or smell!) must have been.

After all, this was way before live event screens...so if you weren't within a few hundred feet of the stage, you probably couldn't see a damn thing! The film is probably the "memory of record" for most of the attendees, too.

 

I love the film. Edited by Martin Scorsese and audio by Eddie Kramer. The film was not destined to make it until Warner Brothers bought it. The film was huge in 1970 and worked very well on a giant screen.

However, the directors cut came along at some point in time adding to the original film and although it’s nice to see a few more performances I think that version is too too long. The original cut is no longer available and I wish it were.

If you’re going to screen it at home I highly recommend the 40th anniversary blu-ray, the deluxe set has lots of extra performances not in either version of the film. And there’s also a 6 CD box set of music worth Checking out.

 

Yeah, Ten Years After... it felt like that segment lasted about ten years.

 

My understanding was that they sold off the rights to the film even before the concert took place due their dire financial situation at that point.

 

It’s complicated and the deals are detailed in Michael Lang’s book The Road To Woodstock. Initially one week before the festival Warner Bros. Made a deal for 50/50 ownership with Woodstock Ventures. After the festival more deals were made and Warner’s ended up owning most of the film. The book is a good read.

 

Not really, the actual camera equipment was not shabby.

The budget for filming was small and logistics played a large part.

The film was shot with 16mm, with French made Eclair cameras. It was common back in the day to shoot documentaries in the 16mm format.

For theatrical release, the film was enlarged to 35mm format, through a liquid gate process, to reduce grain and to minimize the increase in contrast.

But the 16mm process, means a physically smaller frame size and less detail than 35mm.

Simply put, the image will not be as sharp and it will have a more visible grain structure.

In addition, most of the shots were hand held and the Steady Cam, was not invented until 1975.

Larger 35mm cameras of the day, were heavier and more awkward to use. It is one thing to use them on a movie set, it is entirely a different beast, trying to maneuver them around in and during a live event.