Sneelock
god
Better than Washington...
Posts: 8,591
|
Post by Sneelock on Oct 20, 2021 15:47:53 GMT
arty? you mean like floating silver pillows?
|
|
|
Post by peter on Oct 20, 2021 17:15:44 GMT
I get the points above about the documentary being too front-loaded with "the scene." I think Haynes wanted to tell the story of the petri-dish rather than what crawled out of it. There was some tantalizing footage of the band playing live post-Warhol, I recall seeing footage of Lou with his Gretsch Country Gent in a psychedelic club, but alas it was a brief snippet (and probably no audio-sync).
Maybe they'll do a Classic Albums next and music nerds like me will be happy haha
|
|
|
Post by oh oooh on Oct 20, 2021 22:29:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Oct 20, 2021 22:34:01 GMT
The lass left the cinema when they eventually got to WLHW. "I'm tired of this shit" she said and off she went to the pub for a pint.
|
|
|
Post by Half Machine Lipschitz on Oct 20, 2021 22:45:24 GMT
The Velvet Underground: not as good as beer
|
|
|
Post by Half Machine Lipschitz on Oct 20, 2021 22:46:11 GMT
Not much is, to be fair.
|
|
|
Post by DarknessFish on Oct 21, 2021 10:34:24 GMT
Just sneak booze into the cinema like everyone else.
|
|
|
Post by Charlie O. on Oct 22, 2021 5:56:42 GMT
Just saw it. For all its flaws/oversights, I enjoyed it very much.
Some random observations/quibbles...
● Given how much time Haynes spends on the NY underground/avant scene, it's rather astonishing that there is no acknowledgment of Maureen's predecessor Angus MacLise. He is mentioned in passing at one point, which just makes it weirder that there's no mention of him being actually in the Velvet Underground. There exists at least one band photo of them with him, and at least a couple of great stories.
● Ed Sanders sighting!! (Sorry. I've never outgrown my Fugs freakdom.)
● John repeats as fact Lou's canard about running into a barefoot Sterling on the subway (Sterling's riposte, approximated from memory: "I would never walk barefoot on the dogshit streets of New York").
● There's the White Light/White Heat album cover, at least ten times lifesize... and where's the biker tattoo??
● Though Haynes makes it clear enough that he considers the band to be The Lou 'n' John Show, I have to say that the third and fourth albums aren't quite as shortchanged as I had feared they would be. Let's face it, he doesn't exactly do a deep dive on the first two either.
● Frank Zappa & The Mothers Of Invention "were hippies"?!?
● For reasons unclear to me, the film goes to some lengths to suggest that Sterling Morrison left the band before Lou did; in fact he left a year after Lou, almost to the day.
● Loved Lou's sister dancing to "The Ostrich"!
● I do hope that the DVD has more J. Richman interview material.
Despite my nitpicking, I thought it was a pretty exceptional piece of work overall, and I'm glad I got to see it in the cinema. I'll consider going again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2021 6:58:31 GMT
Just saw it. For all its flaws/oversights, I enjoyed it very much. Some random observations/quibbles... ● For all the time Haynes spends on the NY underground/avant scene, it's rather astonishing that there is no acknowledgment of Maureen's predecessor Angus MacLise. He is mentioned in passing at one point, which just makes it weirder that there's no mention of him being actually in the Velvet Underground. There exists at least one band photo of them with him, and at least a couple of great stories. ● Frank Zappa & The Mothers Of Invention "were hippies"?!? Surprised to hear about Maclise as he seems one of the most colourful characters and fairly key to their avant-garde begginigs. Not surprised to hear Zappa get called a hippie, he always seemed a total hippie to me.
|
|
|
Post by Charlie O. on Oct 22, 2021 7:20:37 GMT
Not surprised to hear Zappa get called a hippie, he always seemed a total hippie to me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2021 7:30:35 GMT
I don't buy it. That second track is such a silly thing that you'd need to be stoned to listen to it. It typifies the silly, wacky side of hippie. He'd say anything to get attention.
|
|
|
Post by Charlie O. on Oct 22, 2021 7:44:06 GMT
He was consistent on that point - then and later. If he'd really wanted attention and money in 1967, he'd have sucked up to the hippies.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2021 7:54:17 GMT
He was consistent on that point - then and later. If he'd really wanted attention and money in 1967, he'd have sucked up to the hippies. He did suck up to them. They were his entire audience. He presented himself as some counter-culture guru with some special insight into the times and people were too stoned to see through it. He was like a cut dime cult leader, like a Manson without the musical talent.
|
|
|
Post by oh oooh on Oct 22, 2021 7:57:33 GMT
He wasn't a hippy by the classic love-and-peace definition. That much is obvious from just a cursory listen to We're Only In It For The Money. He hated hippies.
I suppose Mo (and the Velvets) hated him for other reasons, it was partly a West coast versus East coast thing. And the fact that he had long hair and didn't know when to shut up.
|
|
|
Post by oh oooh on Oct 22, 2021 8:01:10 GMT
|
|