PDA

View Full Version : TAKING WOODSTOCK (Ang Lee 2009)



Chris Knipp
08-31-2009, 10:43 PM
Ang Lee: TAKING WOODSTOCK (2009)

Getting inside by hovering on the outskirts

Review by Chris Knipp

Building a sweet coming-of-age comedy around a major American cultural event of the Sixties, Taking Woodstock is lodged on the periphery of the legendary half-million strong August 1969 "peace and love" rock concert held on Max Yasgur's 600-acre dairy farm near the hamlet of White Lake, in the town of Bethel, New York. While director Ang Lee gives perhaps the most vivid sense on film yet of what it might have been like to witness the event unfolding as a "townee," he approaches it crab-wise, getting inside it as an experience better by hovering on the outskirts.

In a recent interview with Charlie rose Quentin Tarantino remarked at how hackneyed biopics are. He suggested the best way to depict the life of Elvis would be to make a movie about one day in the life -- say, the one that ended when The King walked into Sun Records the first time. Lee takes a similar approach to the enormous muddy happening of August 15-18 1969 (this film is a 40th-anniversary celebration). After all it's been thoroughly covered by documentary filmmakers, and most of the acts were filmed and recorded. But Taking Woodstock partly trumps that real footage by depicting how the happening built like an invasion, focusing on some of the locals and the promoters and a couple of the acid heads but never even focusing on the stage at all.

This might sound like a Robert Altman knockoff, but it's really quite different. Lee isn't trying to build up Woodstock through lots of vignettes and pieces. This is more like Tolstoy's vision of the Battle of Waterloo, but instead of the battle itself, the distant noise and tumult is that of a concert with thousands swarmed around it. That's true for a moment or two, at least, and those moments are haunting. But Ang Lee is no Tolstoy (though he did his own peripheral (Civil) war picture in Ride with the Devil). In the end he doesn't focus on the battle at all. Though Lee's young protagonist, Elliot Teichberg (Demetri Martin), a gay Jewish every-youth and the dutiful son of an impoverished middle-aged couple whose decrepit motel has useless pretensions to being a Catskills resort, is depicted as making it all happen by, as head of the minuscule township's Chamber of Commerce, linking up charismatic, bushy-haired young promoter Michael Lang (Jonathan Groff) with enterprising dairyman Max Yasgur (Eugene Levy), Ellie remains a peripheral figure of the concert, not even the witness of any of the 32 acts performed on stage. Ang Lee's new film lacks the somewhat hackneyed solemnity and pretension of his (admittedly far more emotionally powerful) Brokeback Mountain or (much more stylish) Lust, Caution, but his idea of depicting a great event, like Breugel, by magnifying peripheral figures, is a nifty one.

Elliot Teichberg is the main such Breugel figure, but his parents, the long-suffering Jake (Henry Goodman), and the rigid, paranoid Sonia (Imelda Staunton) loom large for him and us, humble laborers who make the crucifixion come to life. So do the damaged but charismatic young Vietnam vet Billy (Emile Hirsch) and Vilma (Liev Schreiber), the drag queen security guard who's a link with Ellie's New York life as a budding interior decorator, and with the Stonewall riots that had happened just a couple weeks earlier when Elliot was in Lower Manhattan. And there are plenty of others, notably the VW Guy (Paul Dano) and VW Girl (Kelli Garner), who start Ellie on a wonderful acid trip in their van, becoming his guides on an introductory tour of psychedelics. Yeah, "you had to be there," but as hackneyed as the Trip trope is, this is a good one: in its details as in its overall approach, Taking Woodstock often succeeds because it doesn't try too hard and is cozy, offhand, and humorous.

The Sixties aren't about heroics or style, but about getting down, smashing barriers, breaking free -- way-stations of the romantic experience and milestones in any coming-of-age. Woodstock didn't really happen on the stage but in the mud and vans and tents, and Lee shows it that way. Its realities also included an insufficient number of Porta Potties, and townspeople raging at Elliot and Max for making the event happen but then charging big fees for cabins or sandwiches or a drink of water. Elliot's own mother is one of these. But then, somebody gets Jake and Sonia high and they dance in the rain. The motorcycle cop comes to do crowd control and ends up wearing a flower and giving rides. It's corny, but it happened. On the other hand, the borderline caricature depictions of Jews, Schreiber's amiable but overly broad transvestite, and even Emile Hirsch's cliched, if lively, battle-scarred vet, all could have been thought through better.

Broaching such large events even peripherally, Lee and his writers, James Schamus, Elliot Tiber (author of the source memoir) and Tom Monte, owe us a bit more of the sex, the bad trips, and the music itself -- which can't be left outside the story of a great concert, whether its protagonist got to the stage or not. If you look at the real people -- Michael Lang, for instance -- they're a lot rougher and sexier than anybody in this movie. The images of Elliot Teichberg's coming-of-age are as lightweight as everything else, and in the superficial sketching of his gayness the movie is as bland as the ditsiest biopic. Taking Woodstock is a sweet, gentle, easy take on events. But remember that it's a coming-of-age comedy that happens in the midst of a tumultuous event, and you'll see that the light touch is not invalid. This is not the great Bad Trip concert; it's the great Good Trip concert. And the light touch allows the film to feel comprehensive with delicacy and keep its focus on the young man's sensibility. Its peripheral approach is an interesting one. It deserves a pass. Why break a butterfly upon a wheel? This movie is touching and fun. Why demand that it be a historical treatise? It says right there: "Inspired by a true story."

cinemabon
09-01-2009, 11:34 PM
An old brag by some aging hippies...

"I sat on a speaker at Woodstock!"

Great review Chris. I'd love to see it. Had a chance to attend a similar festival held just a few weeks after Woodstock in (there were several that year)... can't remember now. Also had many rock stars. Two hundred thousand attended. No one talks about that one.

Saw the orginal "Woodstock" in 70mm Cinerama at the Cinestage Theater (which was not shown in the three projection format but used the name anyway) in Chicago with reserved seats. Despite warnings from the "fancy" theater management, who threatened they would close down the show if anyone smoked marijuana, several people lit up during the film's presentation (which included an intermission). By the time Hendrix came on, I think the whole audience was stoned. The group Ten Years After stole the show. Where are they now?

I figured Ang Lee (you loved "Brokeback Mountain") would give it decent treatment. I found your review mixed ("his [Ang's] notion is... a nifty one" - hardly an endorsement) but worth investigating. We reflect on nostalgia with a genuine sense of history or an interpretation of one.

Chris Knipp
09-02-2009, 12:15 AM
Thanks. And thanks for the memories of the stoned screening. The Woodstock docs are great. I have a copy on laser disk. It is a thoroughly documented event.

The joke is to say that if you remember Woodstock you weren't there.

True there are other big concerts that got less mention though they were big too. I can remember hearing about this, but to be honest most rock concerts i enjoy better on film, though I am glad I went to some actual concerts, such as the Stones and Earth, Wind and Fire, and (not rock, but big) Weather Report, and Stevie Wonder, and various others I've seen live. My real regret is that I never saw and heard Billie Holiday and John Coltrane live, and I could have done.

I think "his notion is a nifty one" IS an endorsement, but I this is not a rave because this is a little film, and not as big and impressive an effort as Crouching Tiger, Brokeback Mountain, The Ice Storm. I thoroughly enjoyed it though.

Some writer complained that the Sharon Tate murders happened a short time before and the movie doesn't mention that. How silly is that? But it does mention or allude to the Stonewall riots, and I didn't know they were two weeks earlier, and that is relevant because it's in the memoir, the original of Elliot may have been there (I have not read the memoir. I may read it now: http://www.elliottiber.com/. And so will others; there's a new edition).

Michuk
09-02-2009, 05:15 PM
Nice review. I'm looking forward to seeing it in a cinema (still not shown here in London).

BTW, Jeffrey put together another review (http://jeffreyvc.filmaster.com/review/taking-woodstock-finds-magic-behind-the-spectacle/) of the film on Filmaster.

Chris Knipp
09-03-2009, 01:05 AM
I like his title, "Taking Woodstock finds magic behind the spectacle," and I've posted a comment there.

oscar jubis
09-07-2009, 10:35 AM
If I was to write a proper critical review of TAKING WOODSTOCK, I would be among those critics recommending the film with reservations. Chris, I didn't read your review until after I watched the film. However, I had noticed the title "Getting inside by hovering on the outskirts" and I remembered it walking out of the theater after the screening. I had concluded that Lee did not manage to "get inside" Woodstock and the times that spawned it using the peripheral approach. I expected, based on the title, that your review would be somewhat more complimentary. In actuality, you point out many of the flaws and limitations I found in the film while simultaneously finding enough enjoyment in the film to suggest people should see it.

My main disappointment stems from Lee having diluted the pervasive schism within American society between progressive and regressive ideologies that continues to this day. Lee's conflict aversion has delivered a film more pleasant and less substantial than the events of its historical moment require. Having dispensed with my issues regarding the socio-cultural context, I still find significant inconsistency in terms of the quality of the script. It is a "mixed-bag", so to speak. For example, the scene between Eli and the VW couple is magnificently written and performed and that is before the outstanding visualization of Eli's altered perceptions and the perfect deployment of Love's "The Red Telephone". Then again, there are at least two scenes involving Billy that ring false. And one wishes for more depth in the characterization of Eli's lovable parents.

Chris Knipp
09-07-2009, 11:26 AM
I'm flattered you thought of my subtitle while walking out of the theater, but I'm not sure you quite grasped what I was trying to say. (Meditating on my subtitle without haveing read my review could have certainly thrown you off.) I don't think there should be any disappointment with what is a very enjoyable little movie just because it doesn't seem to grapple with grand themes. It succeeds because it doesn't, because it's unpretentious. It has flaws but it succeeds in evoking the event and above all its genesis with its peripheral approach. Ang Lee is not maybe a "deep" or even consistent director, though he can do great work when he's on his game. This is not one of his more ambitious efforts, or one of his most successful, but it's far from being a failure; I think critics here may have underrated it.

Clearly it's not a treatise on the Sixties or on political currents deep in American society. It's based on and I gather largely stays true to a memoir, which doesn't even focus as much on Woodstock as the movie. I'm not surprised you'd think at least two scenes with Billy "ring false" but maybe you ought to say what they are if you're trying to communicate your reactions. I'm glad you like the VW van sequence. It must seem cliche to some; there's nothing dramatically original about it. Yet it does seem to me also to play very well Even if it's a cliche it's Lee's accomplishment that it's a cliche that feels right, a defining cliche. I'm not sure if your phrase "Lee's conflict aversion" refers to other movies by him such as Broakback Mountain?

Saying that Lee "diluted the pervasive schism within American society between progressive and regressive ideologies that continues to this day" lays a heavy trip on him, way too heavy for this movie; using the phrase "regressive" for conservative lays a heavy trip on everybody. Taking Woodstock makes clear the hostilities and objections of locals, but this being a coming-of-age comedy with a benign take on a generally benign event, not dwelling on those hardly seems like "diluting."

We don't hugely disagree, but your reading is different from mine and despite your being surprised by my finding many faults, it sounds as if I enjoyed Taking Woodstock more than you did, maybe even a lot more Though I was subliminally aware of faults and obligated to note them in writing a review, the faults didn't ever mar my pleasure, possibly with the exception of the very broad way the parents and especially the mother is depicted, whichI found somewhat grating (but still amusing) in the early sequences. I was not bothered by Billy, partly because I like Emile Hirsch a lot from most of his previous roles. He was an excellent choice for this role, given the light tone of this film. An edgier casting wouldn't have been right. He is seen from the point of view of someone who knows he is there, but doen't fully understand his experience.

oscar jubis
09-14-2009, 08:15 AM
I should have characterized the film as suffering from conflict aversion, not Lee.

I think it is clear I liked the film less than you do but I liked it enough to wish it well. I am disappointed at its poor b.o. performance. The release was wide enough and the trailer was played often enough in theaters before the release. People just didn't show up. Barely over $7 million after 3 weeks for a film budgeted at $30 . IMdb user ratings suggest that people under 30 liked it more than those 30+, but not enough of them showed up because none of the actors were familiar to them (Emile Hirsch perhaps should be more popular than he is). The film had a huge 57% dropoff after debuting at #9, which clearly means there was no word-of-mouth and that happens when a movie fails to leave a strong enough impression. That is precisely what I think it is wrong with the movie. It is written or conceived NOT to leave a strong impression at all. It's breezy, light-hearted fun. And still, better than just about any movie on wide release raking in money.

Chris Knipp
09-14-2009, 11:36 PM
Emile Hirsch does deserve to be better known.

Johann
09-22-2009, 10:24 AM
I saw this quite a while ago and I liked it very much.
Ang Lee made a great tribute to the Woodstock festival.
The scenes of being amongst the exodus were brilliantly staged.
I really liked the "van" sequence. That seemed like a dream and at the same time, a totally plausible thing that could've happened.
It probably did...
Ang Lee knows his culture, and he has a great way of filming/staging it. I gave it up for Taking Woodstock, even though I can admit that it was not really needed.
The Michael Wadleigh film is all you need to understand that event. But Emile Hirsch was great in it.