Say what? "When he’s doing “Freecloud”, we added coughs, to make it feel like you’re in church." I noticed a lot of clips seemed to have an underlay of ambient noise. I thought maybe it was the theater next door, or people in the theater talking and was thisclose to going "Shhhh!" This all added to the annoyance factor. I see Brett also credited himself for the mash-up music, so what I thought was a series of revelatory audio outtakes - Sound and Vision, e.g, - was probably just Brett and his computer.
Everything sounds so complicated in this interview... The only straight forward response that I understand and agree with is the last one
"He’s just employing techniques of distanciation" I've got to start doing this. (And the anonymous producer Brett refers to is clearly a complete idiot.)
As an example: The interviewer essentially asks twice why their wasn’t more material from Bowie’s later years in the movie, and I don’t think Morgen really answered the question. He said a lot of words, but I don’t quite understand what his reason was. If someone is able to summarize it, that would be great.
Agreed. "I’ll come back to why the film doesn’t go too deep on the post-’95 stuff, for a very good reason" And then...No meaningful reason given... But then he says he found some great material in the post-’95 stuff (experimental dancing..one of the films more comical/embarrassing moments). This interview is a perfect example of why this film is a complete disaster.
Yeah, but it sure has a lot of "I"s. I this, I that... It's maddening for me that he managed to shun the question posed to him twice about why so little of the post-'95 music in it by blabbering about something totally other instead. I would've preferred something like, "I don't dig it, man. What can I say" by way of an answer. Or any precise answer, really. Still, I obviously reserve judgement post-viewing this. Hope it's worth it. Edit: ah, now I see others here are miffed about this as well. Understandable!
One of my favourite philosophers is the nihilist-humourist Emil Cioran, and even he turned a 180° later in life when a young philosophy student came to visit and stay in his (and his wife's) household for the duration of her research.
I don't think the lack of post-'95 footage had anything with Morgen not liking it, there just wasn't a lot to add story-wise. It's supremely frustrating to me that Crossfire Hurricane stops at 1981, as a Stones fan who loves their later work. But I can understand why cinematically that stuff is not as compelling when you're trying to capture the whole arc of their career
It really was loud when I saw it! I'm glad I keep earplugs on my keychain - I needed them! Though I was tempted to give up on the movie not because of the audio volume but instead because it was such a chore to watch. As I think I've mentioned, the frenetic vibe calms once Bowie gets to Berlin, but until then, it's just an assault.
That Uncut interrview with Brett (where we were promised an explanation for the missing Tin Machine and never got it) was actually a great, well-spoken defense/explanation of what he was doing with it. Solid arguments, whatever my quibbles with the final product. As for earplugs, I tried to judiciously time my use of them on my 2nd viewing. They stayed put through the opening ("Hallo Spaceboy" and the Pet Shop Boys are (IMHO) two lousy tastes that don't taste great together). But my love for the opening of original "Cracked Actor" - that wall of noise Ronson creates, and the transition - knows no bounds, and I wanted to be hit with all 7.1 barrels. I was premature a bit, and ended up popping them out just in time for (as it turns out) live Spiders on "Moonage Daydream". No complaints. Believe it. Awesome. I was able to leave them out through "Cracked Actor' and a little while longer. There is definitely something to be said for immersion. I don't need no Bowie scholar behind me yapping over Mick Ronson. Turn it UP! (* If there was a clips-only cut of MD available, I'd go back a 3rd time. But I'm good for now.) (Disclaimer: Years ago, I went to a screening of the film about the A&V exhibition of "David Bowie Is", sat in the last row and ended up not only dozing off, but snoring. I was awakened by the lady in front of me loudly snapping her fingers. I admired her moviehouse moves, but I was still simultaneously ashamed and mortified.)
Agree. I still think he made a mess of a movie but at least I understand why he made that mess of a movie the way he did. Seems like he assumed the audience for "MD" would only be Bowie diehards given that Beatles comment he makes that everyone already knows the story. Truth is that even for a band as famous as the Fabs, the vast majority of the audience doesn't know the history. They might be aware of some bits and pieces but not the whole shebang.
It's the Scary Spider's fault. Brett got bored to death watching live '87 clips and decided to stop going down that rabbit hole. (First world problems, amirite??)
I heard audience chants during some live clips which were obviously and definitely fake. Really distracting.
One of my basic questions, related to the lack of latter period Bowie in the film, was why no Tin Machine... and he seems to address that fairly well even if he side skirts to 'why no Iggy' and rambles on about his general concept as it relates to Bowie's career. Obviously, he's most fascinated by the Ziggy and 70s period - when Bowie shook up everything - and offers a reason for that which makes sense however deep you are into Bowie. As a fan of Bowie's whole career, I disagree but can see where he's coming from. Here's the Q and A from the interview: Is there a reason there’s no Tin Machine in the film? Y’know, I saw a couple of commenters online say, “Why didn’t he mention Tin Machine?” It’s always one of the things with these films that I get asked a lot. “How come you didn’t mention Iggy Pop?” I find this to be the weirdest thing for film critics. When they’re like, “He didn’t even mention Iggy Pop!” Well, if you knew that, what I that’s exactly why I didn’t put it in. Because I’m assuming you could ****ing project a little something onto the screen! I mean, the movie at the end of the day was designed by trying to echo many of David’s ideas towards art, in terms of approaching art, a lot of the Oblique Strategies I would employ on a daily basis – like the idea that there are no mistakes, just happy accidents. I consider 80% of the edits in this film to be happy accidents that I intended to clean that up one day, and then later I was like, “I kind of like that it’s messy.”
I know which remix I’d love to find in the last studio-albums box: the Blackstar album redone by the Maria Schneider Orchestra.
Touché, Brett And we couldn't ****ing project the extremely well known Ziggy MP footage, really well known Russell Harty interview, the several times commercially released Ricochet footage ? Focusing on the Ziggy era is so cliché for even moderate fans. Sure the costumes and make-up were shocking to the fainthearted, bisexuality and the TOTP arm around Ronson helped people get more accepted whoever they were. But musically and in terms of art, Art, and innovation, experimentation the ZS music, however good, wasn't the best example in his career. His groundbreaking work was much more putting himself and his fanbase at risk with every new album, character, image, look, band. Going from glamrock success to soul, funk, electronic, experimental, Weill/Brecht, commercial, back to rock band basics, experimental, industrial, personal and nostalgic to a jazz influenced farewell, meanwhile presenting exceptional music videos and reinventing stage performances. Visconti, Eno, Iggy, Coco, Carlos, Reeves and several musicians, writers, painters and film makers all played crucial roles in his evolving art.
Hmmm, ignoring the Ziggy period? I'm not so sure that would be such a great idea. And I felt that more than 50% was all about his evolution as an artist after the Ziggy phase.
If I never see another lightning bolt painted on someone's face that would be fine. Agree with you that it became a dreaded cliché so long ago that it's almost painful to look at now. Bowie's best and most artistic work (for me) started in Philadelphia after that and went on to Berlin and so many other locales. I could watch whole documentaries on "Outside" or "Earthling" or "Heathen" - they're all more interesting than Ziggy and certainly underrated/unknown by the general public. But I assume, meaning I don't know, that perhaps this film is being targeted to Millennials and other young folks who may only know Bowie by name or reputation. Maybe good for them to experience the early 70s when things really started to change? I hate to admit I was disappointed with the film but that's only because I was expecting so much!
You saw me write no such thing, just not blowing its importance up out of proportion, especially given its overexposure over the decades. After all it was no more than roughly a year, yes success breakthrough too, but in a 50 year spanning impressive career
I guess part of the rationale is that for the last 13 years of his life, Bowie moved from transmit to receive and gave zero interviews after 2006 or so. The last one I can remember is the Scott Walker documentary in 2006.
