14. "RE: well, because we're talking about a doc on a rock band " In response to In response to 13
>>>i would say they were intentionally sterile; it was an >>>artistic choice that fit thematically for those bands, >which >>>clearly lack the fireworks of a rolling stones. >>> >>'intentionally sterile' because there's really not much to >say >>there in either case. > >again, to each his own, but as i said, there are multiple >modes of film making that can be applied. i love meeting >people is easy, and i wasn't and am still kinda not a wilco >fan but really enjoyed i am trying to break your heart, so >that aesthetic works for me because it felt true to the bands >and what they were going through. > I like Wilco but I have to admit the funniest & most memorable thing to me was not the movie but the Isaac Brock quote about it back around the time 'Good News' came out. Dude was like: Y'know, I watched that Wilco movie that's supposed to be all traumatic, and I was like, boo-hoo-our drummer got put in a *mental institution*
That one line from an interview cracked me up enough that I still remember it a decade later. > >>see it, it's worthwhile but more as a 'King Of Kong: Roll >Full >>Of Quarters' style human-interest story than as a music >>documentary. > >great doc and another example of going to subjects that may >not be obvious (like an umpteenth stones or dylan pic). >talented film makers can present them in an interesting and >entertaining way, and a lot of musicians deserve the >treatment.
It needs to be an engaging narrative tho along with being a musical one unless it's going to be a pure concert film like Sign O' The Times, so far a lot of the attempts on more 'contemporary' acts have fallen short of that.
I heard the Metallica one is great in sometimes unintentional ways because of that band's extremely high douche factor.