I've read the word Chameleon used here and in several reviews to refer to the message of the film. If that's really what the director was aiming for, it's a terrible disservice to Bowie, considering he loathed being called Chameleon.
What a brilliant docu! I thought it was very creative, impressionistic and free-flowing, just like the man himself. This told us so much more about the man's journey through life than any straightforward 'and then in 1976 this happened' docu could have ever done. Great stuff. Now I want to see Earl's Court 78 so badly!
Spot on. The film's compulsion to convince the audience that Brett Morgen is A Very Important Artiste overwhelmed David Bowie the actual artist. The Bowie completist will have seen 95% of the Bowie content, the casual fan will have no context for half of it, such as the clips from the Lazarus video or The Elephant Man, and neither cares a whit about a montage of still photos of random celebrities (Buster Keaton?) buzzing along at 180 shots per minute. The only collaborator mentioned by name is Eno; although occasionally shown in photos or snippets of live footage, talents like Ronson, Visconti, Belew, Alomar, Fripp, Rogers, Slick, Frampton, Gabrels, Dorsey et al are never identified. After the fantastic DavidBowieIs exhibition, this was a massive disappointment whose failure I think can be traced to four short lines of text: Directed by Brett Morgen Written by Brett Morgen Produced by Brett Morgen Edited by Brett Morgen There was nobody in the screening room to say "Umm Brett?... this sucks".
It’s amusing to read all the negative reviews. I saw it yesterday and found it to be near-perfect. The film is supposed to have a look at Bowie’s views on life, death, art and love, throughout his carrer, via his own words. He was a really philosphical human being which comes through very clear. How do you encapsule a larger-than-life artist in 2 and a half hours in the first place? It makes perfect sense to start at Ziggy and then make a more or less chronological journey through to the nineties. With that in place, it has flash-back’s plastered though it. Like a collage. I get that it also skips over some stages, but that’s not important here. Overall, all the important parts of his carrer is touched. To use songs that underscores his journey through his carrer, is a masterstroke. Ziggy singing “Rock ‘N Roll Suicide” while we at the same time saw him fall from grace during the Glass Spider Tour, was totally genius. He lived his art and art lived through him! And I fail to see how it is a ‘disservice’ to Bowie the artist. As I see it, it’s VERY MUCH in his spirit to make a ‘collage’ to illustrate life and time as something transcendent. The film is certainly not your usual ‘documentary’. Thank goodness for that. Bowie was never ordinary. This film isn’t either.
local theater has sign up at BO window there will be "No Refunds on the David Bowie" film , once admitted If you want to exchange your ticket , do so before admission. Be warned , the film is very loud.
I enjoyed because I liked seeing all this on IMAX. It was fun and weird, sound was great. It's very artsy and I went in knowing that. Trippy at times. However, I do agree that a proper "Beatles Anthology-like" documentary that covers eras from beginning to Blackstar without skipping would be wonderful as well.
So, here are my thoughts. Overall, I found it an enjoyable experience. I think a lot of the issues people have with it are because they don't understand what it is trying to be. As the director stated, it isn't a documentary, but something of a new genre. I would describe it as an expression of Bowie as an artist, and occasionally as an individual, more than anything trying to simply relay information. It did drag on a little at certain points, and it's disappointing that certain years were missing entirely, but the film never claimed to be that definitive. Spoiler The underuse of the Earl's Court footage, even during "Heroes" was disappointing, as was the overuse of Ricochet footage. The 1974 footage, despite being in poor quality compared to the rest of the film, were still very enjoyable. Other than that, I don't really have much to say. It was a fun film, just not what I think many people were expecting.
This is an example which I mentioned earlier about the divide between film critics and Bowie fans. Glowing reviews from the critics, not so much from the fans. Mark Kermode is both film critic and long term Bowie fan, and he’s pretty emotional about the film saying how brilliant it is. Certainly polarising opinions. Interesting review Oatsdad, as I know you are also a long term fan.
I was looking through Brett Morgen's Tweets and I found two things that I thought were interesting. 1. His team spent 650 hours restoring and enhancing the footage of the Motion Picture. It definitely shows, looking great on the Imax screen. It gives me a lot of hope for a deluxe edition for the 50th anniversary next year. 2. Two shows of the Diamond Dogs tour were filmed, but both are in poor condition. Considering that a large effort was put into restoring the footage and it still didn't look great, I can't see us getting a release. I would still be happy with one though.
Yes, it certainly coheres around that thesis, but what it left out was the extent to which our identities are defined by our relationships to other people… and because the film so relentlessly focuses on Bowie, his words and art and various permutations, with only fleeting references to his collaborations and friendships, (even during his darkest times) we are left with the sense of Bowie just floating through the cosmos in a state of existential angst, a prisoner in his self-constructed art jail of funhouse mirrors… until he meets Iman, happy ever after, the end. The narrative is consistent, but doesn’t ring true for me… it’s the filmmaker’s conception of how he interprets Bowie the artist, but I imagine the man himself exhibited far more complexity and warmth. Anyway, if one just takes the movie as an art project, it can be enjoyed on those terms. I just reveled in the concert footage and endured the rest.
I heard Ron Howard is gonna direct it. Whoopi Goldberg and Eddie Izzard are going to tell everybody what made Bowie so great.
I'd be more impressed if we had 300 separate shots of Bowie on the escalator and not the same one repeated!
Yeah, the Bowie we hear from in the movie seems like a crashing bore most of the time - little sign of personality or warmth or humor or charm. Ironically, it's Crazy Effed Up Mid-70s Bowie who seems the most likable! As I said, I get the impression it wants to paint Bowie as The Unhappiest Fella until he met Iman, and then the clouds parted. I fully believe that was a great relationship for him, but we get little real insight.
Narrated by James Corden as he does carpool karaoke with several celebrity guests all dressed in era appropriate Bowie outfits.
If you need to leave because it's too loud, ok. Otherwise, kind of pathetic that people can't spare two hours if a film isn't exactly what they expected. The Marvel Effect, I suppose.
Granted some people went in expecting a straightforward documentary, that wasn't the case for me. I watched the trailer, I read the interviews with the director, I read reviews from people who attended early screenings. I knew full well that it was a non-linear (hyper cicle). That doesn't mean I have to hail it as a masterpiece. I enjoyed some aspects of it, but I found it to be an extremely flawed work. I don't think it's a fair assessment to call this work a definitive representation of Bowie's creativity or vision, what it is in fact, is Brett Morgen's interpretation of Bowie. It's more about what Bowie means to him than an objective look at every aspect of his career. In that sense, every single one of us would have made a different movie, and no one would have praised it universally, that is true. However, I think regardless of your vision or tastes, if you're given access to an incredible wealth of material, you don't fill the screen time with Ricochet. And yes, it is a disservice to skip the last part of Bowie's career, it makes it seem like "yeah, he did some stuff after the 80's, here's Hallo Spaceboy again." I don't find anything brilliant in the choice of Rock n' Roll suicide as the background for the 80's montage. Not only is the implication silly, but it's wasting time again with footage we have seen a hundred times. I would understand some of the film's choices if the director had been denied access to the archives and only had official DVDs and Youtube to work with. He did not. He had a free hand to pick what to show on the film. The Earls Court footage is superb, cinematic and unseen by anyone. If anything I'm glad the film was made because it increases the chances of such footage being released as a stand alone product. Will I return to Moonage Daydream? I doubt it. Also, in my opinion using dialogue Bowie said in a movie, passing it off as a random quote connected to comments from interviews is deceiving. It happened several times during the film, and it irked me. In my opinion, the film also gives the impression that other than Brian Eno, the rest of Bowie's collaborators where mere sidemen that were just there in the background. You see them playing, but they're not mentioned by name, they're not referenced or emphasized. Lots of Bowie's works were the result of team efforts where Bowie's sketches were brought to life by musicians, producers, make-up artists, photographers, etc... As mentioned before, there's barely any context to the images thrown at you on the screen. There are multiple quotes from Bowie discussing Buñuel. There's even a homage to Buñuel in the You Belong in Rock n' Roll video, as well as in Lazarus. Yet, the director takes the easy route and just slaps a scene from Un Chien Andalou on the screen for a few seconds. If you're not aware of Bowie's interest in Buñuel, tough luck, it'll be just another random image for you. That's one of the problems with this film. Is it aimed for a Bowie layperson? I'd say not, the situation described above being an example. Is it aimed for the diehard? I'd say not either. We were teased with unseen footage just to see it overshadowed by Hammersmith 73 and Ricochet. As a diehard, did I learn something new from the film? No. I had seen all those interviews on Youtube before. So who exactly is this film aimed for? This is where once again, I'm left with the feeling that I'm watching a film that only covers the areas of Bowie's career that are interesting for the director, regardless of whether many other eras deserved to be in the film in an objective way, but maybe Brett doesn't care for them personally. Every single time the animations appeared I felt frustrated. There's unseen footage at hand, yet we sit through animations? The Jean Genie is finally restored and available to watch in good quality, but instead we get more Ricochet? The things I liked about the film: The Jean Genie/Love Me Do, Earls Court 78, Buffalo 74, The Hearts Filthy Lesson in HD, Bowie's paintings in large format on the screen, the brief unseen bit from Russell Harty 1973. What I didn't like: Everything I've described above. And please, don't tell me that if I didn't like the film it's because I "didn't get it" or had unrealistic expectations. I knew full well what I paid to watch and the director's intent, yet I'm allowed not to consider it brilliant.
and you dont fill the screen time with random blobs of color and i agree i specifically said in my thoughts, that i was happy he made it and happy for those who enjoyed it, but it was not my thing this neither means that i was hoping for a straight documentary, nor that i didnt "get it":
Yes, I thought that although it's a two hour movie it only really covered one aspect of Bowie's psyche. He was much more complex than that. For instance, in my view his experiences throughout the 60s are essential to understand him and cannot be ignored without giving the viewer a feeling of just skimming the surface of the man. I wouldn't want to put people off seeing it though, it's definitely worth a visit to the big screen.
Where does the live version of Hallo Spaceboy come from on the soundtrack? Are Warszaw and “Heroes” both from Welcome to the Blackout?
Granted it was loud, but I loved it like most other things Bowie. Some parts were totally killer, such as the weaving of Nietzsche into the other presented ideas.
I think those are some valid criticisms. I was looking forward to this film, but I’ll probably wait to see it when it comes to streaming.
Hallo Spaceboy: Live from Phoenix Festival 1996. Indeed, Warsaawa is from Welcome to the blackout. Although labeled as "Original Single Mix" Starman is the album version.
