Martin Scorsese: Shine a Light (2008)

[Chris Knipp]

MARTIN SCORSESE: SHINE A LIGHT (2008)The Rolling Stones are still rollin'.

That is the primary message of Martin Scorsese's well crafted if conventional rock and roll movie, Shine a Light, compiled from two concerts played at the Beacon Theater in New York City in late 2006. Mick Jagger was always considered a phenomenon, the sexiest, most hyperactive white soul dancer in the world. He's almost freakish now, as exhilarating and kinetic at 62 as he was at 20. But still 62.

Mick has the same tiny butt and slim body and an astonishingly flat, smooth stomach, and all his hair, or a reasonable facsimile. He's also still a very, very good singer and a simply amazing dancer. But he, like Keith Richards and Ron Wood, has the gaunt, ravaged face of a Bowery bum. These Dorian Grays bear the marks of their dissipation--or simply their intense living--in the visage. Only Charlie Watts, the perennial Stones drummer, just looks like an ordinary, healthy old man. Four or five years ago Wood was downing a bottle and a half of vodka a day and smoking a pack and a half a day. Keith Richards' indulgences are legendary, including his own claim, later retracted, that he once snorted up his father’s ashes in a line of coke.

Watts, the drummer, has always maintained a Buddha-like silence together with a Cheshire cat grin. Richards is notable for often kneeling on the stage, and draping his wrist over a mike, or over one of his cohorts' shoulders, and flashing ecstatic smiles (they love their work, he says, and he shows it). Ron Wood is constantly mobile and smiling, and has that standard aging rocker look: big seventies mop of dyed or otherwise assisted hair, ravaged face, stick-thin limbs. Mick of course is the front man of the band, its voice, its dynamo, its flame. He has as many moves as Michael Jackson, and you may wonder who influenced who of that pair.

Ups and downs they have had, and changes of personnel, with Wood coming in after Mick Taylor, who replaced the drowned Brian Jones, left the band; Daryl Jones replacing Bill Wyman as bassist, and so on. But the Stones have an exceptionally solid history nonetheless, with Keith Richards and Mick Jagger, who met at the age of four or five in Kent, still after 45 years together, not only the creative center but the centers of enthusiasm and masters of the revels.

The aggregation Scorsese records here is typically excellent. The Stones not only have an unrivaled set of songs but still deliver extremely classy musical backup as well as all the old style in their renditions. It's just hard to get on the stage as an equal with a band this tight and this strong. But since the newest song they do is from twenty-five years ago in the film, the occasional fresh partner provides welcome variety. Success varies. The cute, smiley Jack White is a charmer when he joins Mick with guitar and voice for "Loving Cup," but his performance is so good natured it's more a sweet sing-along than the exciting duel it might have been. Christina Aguilera does a blistering rendition, with Mick, of "Live with Me," but she tries too hard and almost wails out of control. Best of these assistants, not an assistant at all but a fully equal partner, is the blues great Buddy Guy along for a song Mick says he first heard Muddy Waters perform, "Champagne & Reefer." That one is a true duel--and it's astonishing to see the youth of Guy's face, alongside the deep creases in Jagger's, given that he's nine years older than Mick.

As an album, Shine a Light unquestionably works. It doesn't include all my faves, but it does have exciting, risk-taking performances of "Satisfaction" and "Sympathy for the Devil." not to mention "All Down The Line,” “Start Me Up,” “Brown Sugar,” “Shattered,” and “Jumpin’ Jack Flash” Mick imparts all his old swagger to “Some Girls” and “Tumbling Dice” and makes “As Tears Go By” and “Faraway Eyes” touching and (tongue-in-cheek) sincere. It's simply awesome that all these songs can still come across so intensely and musically; but that's what being great performers and the greatest rock and roll band is about. Scorsese shows them very well up close. Maybe they'd look better from a distance, where you can't see the wrinkles.

Scorsese used so many photographers and so much light it made the Stones nervous ahead of time. The result is technically impeccable, but for a director who made the classic musical summing up The Last Waltz and just recently the penetrating Dylan documentary No Direction Home, and for a band famously recorded in the shocking Maysle brothers Gimme Shelter not to mention dozens of inventive song videos, the tame technique used here is a bit disappointing. One thing that's missing is any long looks at members of the audience, though glimpses show that they're of all ages. It doesn't add too much to have footage showing Marty's control freak nerves before the shoot (he could never accept that he didn't know exactly what songs were coming and in what order), nor is it hugely exciting to have Bill and Hillary present, though they have to be, because there they were, and Bill said a few words to the crowd before the concert began. Not earthshaking either are a few clips of early Stones interviews, though it's inevitable to show the one where Dick Cavett asks Mick at 24 if he can imagine doing concerts when he's sixty, and he replies, "Yeah, easily. Yeah." He was playing for laughs at the time, but truer words were never spoken. There is a recording of the concert by itself, including a few extra songs. I'd like to see the whole film again in IMAX. The sound system wasn't cranked up quite enough in the screening I saw. This is a remarkable experience. It confirms the excellence of the band. But to see them in their prime, better the 1974 concert film, Ladies and Gentlemen, the Rolling Stones, when Mick's face was smoother and his costumes more immodest--though that one is hard to come by.

Mick to Dick Cavett, 1972: "Yeah there's a lot of people that do it at sixty. I think it's a bit weird, you know, but they seem to still get their rocks off at it."

Yeah, easily. Yeah.

[Johann]

You got it, Chris. Excellent.

I wrote about it in the Scorsese Cinema Study thread.
Sorry, don't know how to cut and paste.

I bought the 2-disc soundtrack and it's got the track "shine a light", which was oddly not in the film.

I also laughed when Mick was imitating that foreign interviewer, "Who would you be if you weren't Mick Jagger?"

"I'd be someone else." (paraphrasing- who can remember every line from a movie after seeing it once?)

[Chris Knipp]

I think that's what he said, just "I'd be somebody else."

You ought to learn how to cut and paste. It's not hard really. Hold the left click of your mouse down, and scan the text you want to copy. Then when it's scanned, hit Control + C (letter C) on your keyboard. Release the keys. You've "cut". Now pount your curser where you want to paste in, and hit Control + V (letter V), and releast. It will paste in the scanned text there.

[oscar jubis]

SHINE A LIGHT (2008)

It feels weird, at age 47, to be among the youngest members of a film's audience. Mind you, I watched Shine a Light at a theater blocks from the University of Miami, at a multiplex that is a certified teen hangout. There's no getting away from the fact that this performance film is an exercise in nostalgia, a "trip down memory lane". The most recent song played, "She's So Hot", is 25 years old! Shine a Light's theme is longevity. It celebrates the Stones being in their sixties and playing rock, a music that originally signified youth and rebellion, with verve and gusto.

Can you believe they're still around?! Honestly, I'm not surprised. I learned my lesson way back in the 70s. After the magnificent double album "Exile on Main Street" came out in '72, they released a string of mediocre albums. Goat's Head Soup, It's Only Rock 'n Roll, Made in the Shade, and "Black and Blue" didn't sound like records made by "the greatest" rock 'n roll band. Not even close. The label "dinosaurs" seemed quite deserved. They were rich and decadent yet still affected a type of bohemian "what can a poor boy do/ Except sing for a rock 'n roll band?" attitude that had always been mere posturing. Especially when compared to the sonic assault perpetrated by the New York Dolls, The Ramones, The Sex Pistols and The Clash, this music sounded old and tired. The Clash in particularly rocked harder, faster and, most importantly, smarter. Yes, I gave up on the Stones by my middle teens even though I kept favorites like Aftermath and Let It Bleed in heavy rotation. Then, six years after their last great album, Some Girls came out and it blew me away.

It's no coincidence that Shine a Light includes four songs from Some Girls whereas no other album of original material is represented by more than two songs. The midtempo version of "Shattered" played at the Beacon Theater show filmed by Scorsese and his posse of ace cinematographers pales in comparison to the propulsive forward momentum of the original. However, I think it was a good idea to excise the line from the wonderful title track "Some Girls" that goes "Black Girls just wanna get fucked all night/I just don't have that much jam". There's one thing that has dated from the Stones' best music and that's their flirtation with racism and sexism (Mick still sings "Brown Sugar" though, a song about sex with young slaves, as originally written). Anyway, after Some Girls I understood the Stones would never go away and I was glad.

It's great to see them having so much fun on stage and playing so well. Besides ignoring Charlie Watts for most of the film, director Marty Scorsese knows exactly which camera feed to use at every moment. He knows these songs inside and out, obviously. The sound mix is very clear and loud. I came out with a delicious ringing in my ears, as if I'd attended an actual concert. The Stones catalog is so long it'd be impossible for anyone to be completely happy with the set list. They play close to 20 songs and there's only two I didn't like here: the abovementioned, slowed-down "Shattered" and "As Tears Go Down", a song that demands a degree of sincerity Mick can no longer project.

[Chris Knipp]

There's no getting away from the fact that this performance film is an exercise in nostalgia, a "trip down memory lane". Yes and no. The most recent song is 25 years old: yes, and I mentioned that in my review. But it's misleading to imply that you get a "golden oldies" feel from either the music or the way it's performed in the film. The "golden oldies" are the performers. And so is Scorsese to devote so much effort to such a conventional film at this late stage in the Stones' career. (It would be better to reissue Ladies and Gentlemen, the Rolling Stones. ) However, the fact is, the Rolling Stones keep filling stadiums, and they keep on giving a great show.

Somewhere Keith Richards said the persistence of rock and roll itself for so long (he said this twenty years ago) is "a fluke." And it only has happened "because nothing else has come along."

Jazz greats who play are not doing "golden oldies." Because the music is great music. If rock is any good, then it doesn't date. Jazz doesn't. If movies are any good as an art form, then the good ones don't date too, do they?

I realize there are other younger bands that meant more to you when you were young and listening to a lot of rock music even as the Stones were going through a period of mediocre albums (which I never even bothered to listen to; I listened to their early and best albums when they were brand new). What you say about the other bands is interesting. I think the Stones can rock pretty hard at times, and can definitely be very funky. But you can name lots of bands that are more this or more that.

I just read an interesting news piece from an Australian paper quoting Keith Richards as recently saying Mick Jagger isn't very musical, and would make dumb mistakes like picking a string of songs all in the same key. But, he concluded, "he is very good at being Mick." In a simple way that says a lot. Jagger is a compelling and complete performer and always accessed the fantasy of rock and roll, the Sympathy for the Devil. It's good for that. Mick's singing is not very musical. But he's always been uniquely compelling to watch as a lead singer and he accesses the fantasy.

According to the Stones in interviews, there are always very young members of the audience right up front. According to some young comers to a concern in another film, most of the attendees are people, no matter how young, who have been and are influenced in some way by the Stones. I don't think it's my job to defend them against this or that other band. However, I don't think the fact that they're rich makes "what else can a poor boy do/ but sing for a rock and roll band?" somehow fake: all famous rock musicians are rich, and they're really lots of them. You know when a band still means it and they still mean it when they preform. They're not just going through the motions. They've always loved performing and still do. The ironies of a U2 concert are greater. See U2 3D. I should have written a review of that. I still might. There, you have a band singing about peace and love and freedom and one world, and doing it with all the techniques of a fascist political rally. And they're pretty rich, though maybe not as rich as the Stones.

I assume you meant "As Tears Go By"? On that comment you make: I'm not sure Mick ever was very sincere. Sincerity was never his forte. But I agree he doesn't do slow songs as well as he used to. I think it's because he's lost the softness he used to have. Here is Mick singing ATGB in 1966. Tell me how sincere you think he is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46lZROFVzIM&NR=1

I suspect you are right that as you put it "the sound mix is very clear and loud"; however, there was something wrong with the speakers in the auditorium where I saw the film. In particular the voices were not loud enough, which is why I would like to see it again in IMAX and hope it will be shown locally in that form.

[Johann]

Oscar makes some strong points.
But even though there were better bands in the 70's, (and 80's, 90's, etc..) this concert is pretty inspiring.

I said to myself going in that I'm not the biggest Stones fan in the universe but if it's half as good as I think it can be (and with Martin Scorsese directing how can it not destroy all comers) then I'll feel I got my money's worth. I was hoping they'd do a version of Sympathy For The Devil and they did.

I just read some interviews with Terry Gilliam and he was talking about Hunter S. Thompson and why he didn't use that song in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and he said he wanted to start with a bang, so he used Combination of the Two, by Big Brother and the Holding Co.
So was Janis Joplin better than the Stones?

I love what he said about HST and his times:

He hijacked the likes of Tom Wolfe,
He wrote like a war correspondent.
Fear and Loathing was the intelligent's last chance to say FUCK IT! It's The Last Hurrah!
It's very intelligent behavior, actually.


The Stones & Scorsese have done something of the same thing here..

[oscar jubis]

The concert is indeed very inspiring. As long as they're having fun and rockin' hard they should continue doing it. I do wish the creative genie in them would wake up and they would put out another Some Girls or Dirty Work. I just attended a New York Dolls concert at the Culture Room. Listening to live versions of songs from their seminal 70s albums makes it clear they miss Johnny Thunders (only two of the original five members are alive: singer/songwriter David Johansen and rhythm guitarrist Syl Sylvain). The Stones don't miss Brian Jones. Those 60s songs sound as good as ever even when Jagger doesn't care to make the lyrics signify. The difference is that the Dolls' last album is much better than any album of original material released by the British band in the past 20 years. Johansen, Sylvain and three young cats added to the group constitute a vital, creative entity (the new batch of songs is ready for the studio, says Johansen, and I can hardly wait).

[Chris Knipp]

It may be, though, that the (now decimated) Ne York Dolls' songs have less wide appeal, precisely because of the wit and self-conscious, tongue-in-cheek camp that makes them appealing to your more sophisticated sensibility. They also have more of a punk flavor, which comes later (post-Stones), and to me links them with the Clash, who you said you consider "harder rocking" than the Stones, which may be so in some sense, but also means they are monotonous and grating. I would give the original New York Dolls credit for being more outrageous than the Stones.

Johann: "So was Janis Joplin better than the Stones?" Surely, she could do more with a song than he could. But watching all those videos of the Stones from the '60s,and '70s, there were moments when he almost equaled Janis. But one should never underestimate the importance of the other band members. It is a band, and still has its key members, the loss of Brian Jones not felt, as Oscar points out.

[Chris Knipp]

It's hard not to feel ambivalent about a band playing the same music as 25 years ago, and performing their music in the same style for over 40 years. You could compare this with classical music; it is a performing art and it is valid to keep performing it . However, a great classical pianist will bring new nuances to every piece every time he performs it, and if you compare with jazz, jazz musicians evolve more constantly and radically, and always perform things differently, altering instrumentation, adding new riffs. Anthony Lane in The New Yorker criticizes first Scorsese's editing, then the Stones in general. He implies the cameras should show more of Mick for more extended periods to appreciate his act. This is trure, and is a weakness of much film of dancing and performing. Film works in getting you up close to the stage, but then it keeps you too close. You can't appreciate a ballet watching parts of individual dancers, yet films of ballet often do that. Lane says the Stones fall short because then have not found a way of making art out of growing old.

I'd say rock and roll still itself has not found a way of making art out of growing old. It's remained a young man's art form. Blues very, very obviously never was, and jazz very, very obviously never was; they accommodate all ages; indeed the blues is a form that you have to do some living to grow into. Rock is a wail of the young man primarily. Hence the only way to keep performing it is to pretend to be young. Not Neil Young. He doesn't.

This is an interesting video of Hot Stuff from 1976, in a studio.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDZHMvBPYsI&feature=related

The editing is an example of some of the worse excesses of the genre, but paradoxically, the camera doesn't move around very much, toward the end anyway, so of you keep watching you can observe Mick's wonderfully flamboyant performance quite well. Scorsese with all his expert cameramen and editing to keep us watching everybody at once does not give us this kind of clear picture of the band, how it looks to somebody in the audience, and what Mick's performance is like. Scorsese is indifferent to the audience--he ignores its point of view and the faces in the crowd.

[Johann]

re: New York Dolls


It seems clear to me that Johnny Thunders was the glue that held the Dolls together. I've been trying to find for a long time the film Born to Lose, which a friend told me about when I was in Van. It's long out of print and it's apparently a really really sad document of Johnny in the downward spiral.
He chased the dragon, yes, but he was also a pure performer.
An innocent performer, if you ask me.

"Blame it on Mom" is one of the greatest rock and roll songs ever recorded, and since this is a Scorsese thread, try to track down the soundtrack to Bringing Out The Dead- it's got "You Can't Put Your Arms Around a Memory" by Thunders.
Don'T Try



RE: The Stones

The Stones seemed to stop caring about how good their records were when the Beatles broke up.
No Beatles, no competition? The sixties had an all-out chart war on a weekly basis, with the fabs & rolling rocks trying to one-up and out-do each other.
"Sticky Fingers" and "Exile on Main Street" seem to be the last great Stones albums, but I admittedly haven't heard all of their 70's output. "Goat's Head Soup" only has one good song on it (Angie).

I love this concert. I was really entertained.
That's all I needed.
If it sucked, I would say so and why.

[Johann]

Also, a while ago I saw that doc on Arthur "Killer" Kane where Bob Geldof talks about his kids and how they didn't know who the Dolls were and didn't want to see the NY Dolls reunion show, just before Arthur died.

Bob says: Excuse me??! The fucking New York Dolls?! You don't want to see the New York Dolls? Time to disown the children, Bob.

The Dolls were probably the best band of the 70's. (gasp!)

Hey, I love Led Zeppelin. I love Pink Floyd, Supertramp, Abba and all the rest. It's just that there was something a little more real about those guys. Something a little more gutsy and raw that grabs your cack under your dress man...

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Johann
It seems clear to me that Johnny Thunders was the glue that held the Dolls together.
Well they didn't stay together for long and Johnny's excesses didn't help. Johansen was the lyricist and the leader. But Thunders buzzsaw guitar sound was absolutely unique hence irreplaceable. He absorbed what Ron Asheton did for The Stooges and just took it to another level, man. The young man playing lead for the revamped Dolls tries best he can and fails. He sounds much more comfortable, as should be expected, with the songs from the new "One Day it Will Please Us To Remember Even This".

I've been trying to find for a long time the film Born to Lose, which a friend told me about when I was in Van.
Skip it. Go for All Dolled Up which is much better and available and you won't have to put up with Jayne/Wayne County (don't ask), boring stretches that shoulda been cut, poor sound, etc.

He chased the dragon, yes, but he was also a pure performer.
An innocent performer, if you ask me.
Indeed. Thunders was untutored genius. Listen to what he does in "Jet Boy", "Subway Train", or "Chatterbox" (which he wrote all by himself) and marvel at the sheer inventiveness of his playing.

try to track down the soundtrack to Bringing Out The Dead- it's got "You Can't Put Your Arms Around a Memory" by Thunders.
Don'T Try
Amazing song! The Dolls still cover it live. Besides the two unbelievable Dolls studio albums, the two CDs every Johnny Thunders fan must own are: The solo album So Alone (available) and Live at Max's Kansas City '79 (collector's item) by Johnny Thunders and the Heartbreakers.

Also, a while ago I saw that doc on Arthur "Killer" Kane where Bob Geldof talks about his kids and how they didn't know who the Dolls were and didn't want to see the NY Dolls reunion show, just before Arthur died.
Yes, I watched New York Doll too and my main impression is: what a sweet, down-to-earth man he was. In a way, he was "the" punk rocker of the Dolls members in that he really didn't know how to play when they formed the band. In that do-it-yourself or anyone-can-do-it punk spirit, he taught himself how to bang the chords. In the first Dolls album, Arthur basically resorts to the old "thunderthud", following Syvain's rhythm guitar, or the bass drum. By "In Too Much Too Soon", the second album, he knew how to sound funky or bluesy. His playing became distinctive. Life can be a motherfucker. Guy spends 30 years dreaming of a reunion. Then it happens. They play one gig. Then, within a month, he gets diagnosed with leukemia and dies.

The Dolls were probably the best band of the 70's.
The only contender in my book is The Clash. Chris might be surprised to learn they incorporated reggae and slower tempos beginning with the very first album. Then ballads, and funk, and all kinds of stuff.

RE: The Stones
"Sticky Fingers" and "Exile on Main Street" seem to be the last great Stones albums, but I admittedly haven't heard all of their 70's output. "Goat's Head Soup" only has one good song on it (Angie).
All true. Except I think Some Girls ('78) is really special.

"Scorsese with all his expert cameramen and editing to keep us watching everybody at once does not give us this kind of clear picture of the band, how it looks to somebody in the audience, and what Mick's performance is like. Scorsese is indifferent to the audience--he ignores its point of view and the faces in the crowd." (Chris Knipp)

That's an excellent point, about the indifference to the crowd. As for Jagger, I got enough of him. I'm more a fan of Richards myself, whose guitar style is mostly an updated version of Chuck Berry's. Just great stuff. I didn't get enough of Charlie Watts hitting the skins though.

[Johann]

I know it's risky to declare a "best band of the 70's", but the sheer integrity of the Dolls puts me in their corner.
But I will be quick to say that The Clash and the Ramones and Patti Smith and the Stooges, Talking Heads and on and on all have a shot at that title.

I just favor the Dolls more than the others.

How does Pills go?

To my head
To my head
A rock and roll nurse goin' to my head
Hold out your arm BOY, stick out your tongue- I got. some. pills. gonna give you some


hell yeah.


Hey Ho:
She went away for a Holiday/ Said she's goin' to L.A.

[Chris Knipp]

Having watched a lot more videos of Stones performances lately I can say that in terms of showing the band members and the act, Scorsese has nothing on many other less famous lensers. I never tire of watching Mick. Sometimes his singing is great, and it's essential to the Stones sound, but it's more his flamboyant movements that I enjoy and that contributed to the pleasure of their performances. . He himself once said he is like a stripper. But I am becoming more a fan of Keith Richards myself now after many videos and interviews, not only for his down and dirty and soulful playing (a poll, maybe in Rolling Stone?, said he was rated #10 of rock guitarists) but for his personality, which I find immensely appealing. He is absolutely authentic and always a kick. Mick too however is not only smart but shrewd when he talks. And typically English in being essentially modest.

No doubt about the fact that the Stones high point was during a five-year period of the 70s. However, a lot of their most important songs were already written in the 60's. Mick's singing sometimes comes through much better in the slow tempo songs. Here is a great one, LOVE IN VAIN, from 1972, with a classic lineup including Mick Taylor on bottleneck guitar and Bobby Keys on sax. What a lovely sound.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmVW94UWgBg&feature=related

Another thing I've learned is that there are tons of films of Stones concerts, including one from 1983 by Hal Axhby, not a great moment, but still good footage.

Did not realize The Talking Heads were a 70s band. They seemed to come into prominence in the 80s. Also did not realise the Dolls were still so active. The only relevant movie I have seen is New York Doll which disappointed me because I wanted to see early performance footage and it was mostly about Kane's story.

I realize the Clash incorporated reggae and slower tempo numbers but when they do the majority fast tempo numbers I find them monotonous, grating. Let's face it: I have always been primarily a lover of classical and jazz music. But from the early days I also appreciated the excitement and sexiness to be gotten out of rhythm 'n blues, soul, and white rock.

[Johann]

OK, for two years now I've been listening to this punk tape that a friend made me and on it he put "Blame it on Mom" by Johnny Thunders, only it's not Blame it on Mom.
He wrote the wrong song title down!
The song is actually I Was Born to Cry, a cover of Dion's.
THAT is the Ultimate Johnny Thunders song.
Blame it on Mom is awesome, but "I Was Born to Cry" is way way better...
Sorry about the mix-up.

I hate it when that happens. 2 fuckin' years I'm referring to the song as "Blame it on Mom". Oh well shit happens. My sincerest apologies.

[Johann]

RE: Scorsese ignoring the audience.

I found myself looking at the crowd a lot at that Imax screening.
I swear I saw Bruce Willis near the front row- did anybody notice?

[Chris Knipp]

You're lucky you saw it in iMax--better I'm sure. Didn't see Willis but maybe he was there.