ElMaruecan82
Approaching the age of 35, I wonder what exactly defines my generation, what am I going to excitedly tell my children when they will ask me how it felt to grow up in the 80's or 90's, when years started with 19-. Sure, I can describe the shapes of videocassettes, I can also hum a few tunes of my childhood or hit songs from the teenage years, but again, what does define my generation?They had musical and spiritual communion in "Woodstock" and what do we have: bum-bum contests in Cancun? Give me a break (and not a spring one)! Watching "Woodstock" made me realize the extent of what I missed by being born too many decades later, I missed a youth, one that really captured values youth stood for: peace, unity and community, fun, innocence and love. This sounds corny but imagine Woodstock happening today: everyone would see it live on TV or Youtube, stars would come with armies of bodyguards, there wouldn't be one but dozens of helicopters buzzing around the area, imagine the security guards, the anti-terrorist controls, imagine all the i phones being raised to the air. Woodstock wouldn't be Woodstock, in fact, we wouldn't even have a Woodstock.The Woodstock Nation people, as they called themselves, didn't even know it would be filmed; they came, listened and lived the music, experienced to the bone whatever this new counterculture meant. We remember colorful details such as skin-dipping, naked girls dancing in the mud after the rain or naturally, pot-smoking, but from the standpoint of these young baby-boomers, it was the experience of a lifetime, one their parents could never understand, a moment of communion that would have at least existed for three days, for peace and music, like the subtitle says. They didn't know they were filmed but they knew they were part of a historical moment, no doubt.And Michael Hadleigh had a hunch that this wasn't going to be any rock concert, with sixteen cameras, an editor and a young assistant named Martin Scorsese (and how appropriate that it had to be Marty's, of all the filmmaking debuts), they went to that deserted farm of upstate New York and started shooting. The film opens with green lands, far from the crowded visions rooted in pop-culture, local townspeople commenting the incredible sights, it feels like an invasion, too many youngsters, but the tone is surprisingly easy-going, it seems that for once, peace would be more than a slogan. And it happened, people came for the music and apart from the rain, nothing ever interrupted the festival, the concert was free, in every possible way.Freedom, indeed, that was even the first song to open the concert, by Richie Havens. Look at him, he struggles with his guitar, he wears shoe-sandals, he interrupts his song, this is not a 'star', this is a singer with all the noble and spiritual craftsmanship the word carries.I said Woodstock wouldn't be possible today but even if we dared to spend three days without our precious electronic devices, we don't have artists like Havens. I'm not even sure we had them ten years ago, listening to the voice of all these J-named singers: Joan Baez, Joe Cocker, Janis Joplin and Jimi Hendrix' electrifying rendition of the national anthem sent shivers down my spine, same with The Who, Santana, and even the names I didn't know about before watching "Woodstock". Every single one of them proved me that there was just something incomparable about music between the late 60's and early 70's.And the epic documentary finds the perfect balances between musical sequences and shots from the crowds when participants or cops give their two cents. One toilet-cleaner does it with a smile, he has a son in the festival and another in Vietnam, two visions of American, everyone has a saying about the event, sometimes, just a smile, a wink, say no more, there's the firm awareness that it is a significant moment of American history, one that became past when Hendrix and Joplin died in 1970, followed by Jim Morrison. Nixon resigned in 1974, and in Reagan's 80's, Woodstock would become a parenthesis… not to be forgotten though.I felt young again watching the documentary and listening to these songs, it was edited in such a way, with all the split screens, that I felt I was there, there was something really intimate as you could mix the experience with your own memories, a teen in the film is probably older than my father but for me, he was a kid. I wonder how many of them are still alive, I only hope they've watched the film again and realized that they were privileged people, they might not have had the adulthood they wished for but boy, they had the youth.Some generations can't afford this luxury, I don't think anything would defines the 80's generation, maybe it's a one-in-a-century phenomenon, but I wish I could feel part of something. Maybe this feeling of belonging to a community was integral to the success of Woodstock, but we also have communities right now, except that they are self-centered and antagonistic, there was an IMDb community but remember, they removed the boards, so… I don't think there would ever be a haven of peace like Woodstock in August 1969, it was too good to be true. But it was nice while it lasted.Now, I don't think the world was a more beautiful place by then, at the time of the events, Hollywood was stricken by the savage assassinations induced by Charles Manson and people died in Vietnam, and we don't live in a world devoid of beauty either, but "Woodstock" immortalized an era in one film and defined a generation.It all comes down to one thing, if anyone wants to know what was so great about the late 60's, watching "Woodstock" is enough.
MartinHafer
Although I am sure most of you don't use captions, you might want to use them here so that you can follow the lyrics as folks are performing their songs. Plus, if your kids are around, you can then sing along with the musicians--and really annoy the young ones in your house!This is a VERY lengthy documentary about the famous music festival held in 1969. It ranges from 184-228 minutes (depending on which of the MANY versions you see--I saw the 45th anniversary edition). This is important to note because depending on which one you see will depend on just how good the documentary is. I was annoyed when I read after I was finished watching the movie that in SOME versions (and NOT the one I saw), Creedence Clearwater Revival does not appear even though they DID appear at Woodstock*. Considering they were the top group (albeit briefly) in the country at the time, you'd THINK they'd include them on the DVD!!! Additionally, because there are so many acts, you only get a small bit of most of the performers you see. I really love The Who--but most of their songs, for example, you don't get to hear. Likewise, you don't get to see Pete Townsend attack the director or toss Abbie Hoffman off the stage during their performance! Now I am not saying you should get to hear and see every act, but a few simply are inexplicably absent...and a few times interviews and other non-instrumental bits are included instead of more music. So, understand that this is the director's idea of a greatest hits account of Woodstock and may or may not meet your expectations. As for me, I hated a few of the acts and would have loved if they'd chosen a bit differently. After all, Sha-Na- Na DID appear in the film (although they were quite atypical of the rest of the music and they really sucked) but other acts performing (CCR, The Band and a few others) were omitted.*By the way, apparently when the Grateful Dead performed on the very wet stage, the band kept getting electrocuted and their songs were not surprisingly bad. They sued to prevent their inclusion in the film, though you see a few clips of Jerry Garcia near the beginning.
Boba_Fett1138
The 1969 Woodstock concert might very well be the most legendary concert of all time. Not just only because who all performed but even more so the stuff and atmosphere surrounding the entire event. It was held at the height of the flower power craze and the entire event became much bigger and longer than eventually anticipated, resulting in some crazy events, as can be seen in this documentary.Yes, it is a documentary but it doesn't really feel like one. This sounds like a bad thing but it really isn't. It isn't a documentary that gives you any insightful information about the planning and execution of the whole event, with lots of backstage footage but it more is one that simply shows all of the stuff, as it happened. This gives you more the sort of feeling of what it must had been like, on and around the farm fields, the concert was being held on. Nothing about this documentary feels planned, as if they were just simply shooting away as much material as possible, which later got put together in the editing room by none other than Martin Scorsese, among many others.But the main emphasis is really put on its music and artist, with occasionally some footage of the festival attendees and the people living in the area, responding to all of the events. I liked it that it showed all of the events from many different perspectives and wasn't only just focusing on the beautiful and positive things that went on.But really, when the music plays, there are absolutely no distractions from it. The camera is filming the artist from the front only and doesn't ever cuts or swirls away from them. I liked this approach, which is quite different from normal other concert movies that often tend to focus on the audience as well. And there truly is some great music in this movie, played by some big name stars. I was actually surprised how I was able to recognize pretty much all of the artist that were on stage, even though all of them and their biggest hits were far before my time. It should tell you something about how legendary some of the persons that perform at Woodstock were. Janis Joplin, The Who, Santana, Joe Cocker and of course Jimi Hendrix, just to name a few, all make their appearances.The documentary is also really a testament of its time. It shows the atmosphere and the whole state of minds and mentality of youngsters, around that time. Searching for love and peace, with the help of some music..and lots of illegal substances! I can imaging how this bothered some 'older' people and different people around that time but now days, it's actually quite fun to watch all. It putted many of the festival goers into a certain mood, which also made them do some crazy things. One of the craziest things I saw in this documentary was a naked man dancing with a real sheep in his arms, in the middle of a big crowed. Why? Because he could of course! No one that looked surprised or bothered by it, just because it fitted in with the whole ideology and mentality of certain youngsters around that time. Everybody was allowed to do what he wanted and whatever made him or her happy, as long as it didn't involved any aggression.It's a really long and extensive portrayal of the Woodstock events. Depending on which version you are watching, the running time is close to 4 hours. And not only that, it often is using split-screens, so basically there is about 6 or 7 hours of footage to be seen in this documentary. It probably also helps to make it good and suitable for repeated viewings.Simply a must-see for the movie lovers and for those who enjoy a good concert registration, or are curious to find out what all that buzz about that 'old' Woodstock concert event was all about.8/10 http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
