Taking Woodstock

What a riot

Diary of a Woodstock 99 survivor.

  • more
    • All Share Services

Topics: ,

8 p.m. Friday

The main stage at Woodstock 99 in Rome, N.Y., looks like something between a pop art rainbow and a massive arts and crafts quonset hut. The stage is at the far west end of the sprawling festival site, a former air base with military industrial charm, located 100 miles away from the farm where the most famous festival in music history took place 30 years ago. The sun is starting to drop, and the crowd, supposedly numbering around 200,000 looks pretty bad. They’ve paid $150 per ticket, weathered the first day’s heat, escaped mud slingers and now have to clear trash just to sit down on the matted grass or hot concrete. There are three nights in front of them, and those who stick around through Sunday night will witness — or maybe even participate in — something resembling a riot.

The stage is flanked by two camera platforms on each side and a huge light tower smack dab in the center, blocking out any unimpeded long-distance views and forcing anyone beyond the tower to watch one of two Jumbotron video screens. A gully runs perpendicular to the stage, back about 400 yards or so, with sets of speakers on the right and left.

Right now, the crowd is pretty thick, lined up in throngs and waiting for the Offspring, the L.A. pop punk band that mines the Social Distortion catalog for sound and the teenage anguish of the Descendents and Suicidal Tendencies for storytelling content. It’s a completely disassociative moment when the band hits the stage. From about halfway down the gully you can see the faces or hands on the huge screen, but it’s so far away that there’s a lag between the picture and the sound. Up on stage, the scrubbed and hairsprayed stars appear in fine threads. Down below, cavorting in the mud and dirt and garbage, the dirty, sunburned schlubs pump their fists in the air and sing along.

8:02 p.m. Friday

Someone throws a plastic bottle. Someone else retaliates. Within seconds, the entire valley is popping with 20 ounce soda bottles, like a plague of plastic grasshoppers leaping from one blade of grass to another. Offspring front man Dexter Holland smiles in awe. It’s an impressive spectacle, even more frenzied than a cup fight at a sports arena. The only thing that I can think of as the bottles rain down on me is that each one cost $4 at the concession stands.

8:45 p.m. Friday

Cardboard sign: “Show me your tits.”

9:12 p.m. Friday

Jimmy doesn’t look so good. He’s fighting to keep his head up, but gravity is besting him. He exhales out a quick, violent stream of vomit into his lap. His wife pats his back. “There you go,” she says. A few minutes later, Jimmy feels much better. He’s up on his feet and lip synching the words to the Eddie Grant song playing on the P.A. system: “We’re gonna rock down to Electric Avenue/And then we’ll take it higher.”

9:30 p.m. Friday

My neighbors in the nearly impenetrable chaos of tent stakes and tarps in the “campground” include eight Korn fans from Boston, two Korn fans from Connecticut and two more Korn fans from Indiana. They huddle in a tight scrum in a small circle cleared between their pup tents and dip into a seemingly bottomless bag of weed, recounting Korn shows they’ve seen in the past, what the new Korn record will sound like, what Korn might do at Woodstock and what bands sound like Korn. They’re here to party and see only a few bands, the heroes of the “Korn Family Values” tour. They’re young, around 19 or 20 mostly. “Hey, listen,” he says when Dead or Alive’s “You Spin Me Round (Like a Record)” echoes over a P.A. system. “It’s that song from “The Wedding Singer.”

“ARE YOU READY?” the massive crowd chants along with Korn the moment the set opens, an hour or two after my neighbors and I leave the camp. Fists pump in the air and 100,000 or so heads crane to look up at the video monitor. Front man Jonathan Davis wears a rubber shirt with studs running down the arms and what looks a lot like a kilt bought in a bondage shop. The kilt makes a little more sense later on when he marches out with a set of bagpipes.

The rest of the band hunches over their instruments, rocking. I’d always thought that raw sound was the essence of most Korn songs. The California five-piece does essentially the same thing with rap that Nine Inch Nails does with old industrial, melding cheap angst and emotional trauma to a cathartic mix of metal riffage and sonic crush. Turns out there are a surprising number of singalong, or shoutalong, moments. “I don’t know you/So what? Let’s fuck,” is a big one with the crowd. So is “All day, I dream about sex,” repeated ad infinitum.

Korn have been in the studio recently, and bravely debuted two songs from their new record, split by their singular radio hit, “Freak on a Leash.” I’m proud to be the first to report that the new stuff sounds exactly like the old stuff. “It’s going to be awesome,” my Korn-fed neighbors tell me later.

11:25 p.m. Friday

An hour or so into their set, George Clinton and Parliament/Funkadelic are working their way through their fifth song over on the west stage, which is flanked by huge scaffolds and brightly lit Roman columns with an inflatable Woodstock peace dove resting atop one of them. (Both main stages run simultaneous programs and it’s nearly impossible to walk back and forth between them to catch two bands in a period of 50 minutes.) There are about 30 members on stage, in diapers, a yellow jumpsuit, a Chinese guard jacket, a batiked mumu and cowboy leathers. Bootsy is there. Bernie Worrell is there. Digital Underground’s Humpty Hump is there for a few songs. Clinton’s job is to look crazy and conduct his freaky orchestra on a trip though funk’s past. Two band members have thick markers and write messages to the audience on white tablets. “Long-ass song, huh?”

1:17 a.m. Saturday

After Bush’s set on the east side closes, throngs of fucked-up sweaty guys still high on Korn begin jamming into the airplane hangar housing the nightly 1 a.m.-to-sunrise raves. The DJ on the side of the room is working a serviceable techno warm-up for Moby, but right now the stage is empty and the fucked-up sweaty guys are looking for a focal point. Two women climb atop some broad shoulders and peel off their tops. The men swarm toward them, shine their flashlights on their breasts and stare as if they’ve never seen a naked woman in their lives. They’ll pull out their cameras and click a few frames. And then they’ll stand there and stare some more. The women appear to enjoy the attention.

1:30 a.m. Saturday

In the dance music world, Moby, the Chemical Brothers and Fatboy Slim are considered boring frauds who have dumbed down and corrupted a thriving underground scene. That might be true for the kind of people who hunt down white label vinyl and listen to Squarepusher and Photek, but in the pop world, all three are adventuresome geniuses. Their rhythms are complex, their beats are constant and they’re all willing to push beyond traditional pop song structures. All three employ elements of rock — the break-beats, bridges and refrains — but none of them lean on three-minute three-chord monte.

Moby, backed by a three-piece band that includes a bassist, a live drummer and a keyboardist, shifts from old-school rap samples in “Bodyrock” to soulful African-American spirituals in “Honey” and pretty disco in “Feeling So Real.” He’s good enough to successfully distract the tit gawkers for his entire set.

Part of the problem that electronic music enthusiasts have with Moby is that unlike their beloved DJs, he’s willing to stand up and command a crowd. They hurl their ultimate epithet: rock star. Moby, who’s really a contrarian if anything, appears to embrace the insult, ending his show with a perfect rock star gesture. He dismisses his band for the last song, punches a few numbers into a computer. As the beats grow faster and faster he hoists himself atop his keyboard, standing tall and raising his arms into a Jesus Christ pose. Any club kid would have spit out a hit of acid in disgust. The Woodstock ravers ate it up.

11:29 a.m. Saturday

The Independent Film Channel is sponsoring a series of art house standards in a large hangar adjacent to the rave building. During the day, it’s hot and woozy inside, but outside it’s absolutely torturous; the roof at least cuts out the mean sun. The floor is filthy and splattered with all sorts of people crashed out, some resting their heads on sleeping bags, others on pizza boxes. On screen, Sueleen Gay had just stripped in front of the lecherous bar crowd in “Nashville,” nervously removing her bra and stepping out of her panties before scrambling off into the wings. “This is the worst movie ever,” I overhear one kid tell his friends. “It’s so long and nothing ever happens.”

12:12 p.m. Saturday

Cardboard sign: “Ladies: Ask to see my ring.”

12:45 p.m. Saturday

On the pavement outside the rave stage and the movie building, a dozen kids have overturned metal garbage cans. They beat on them with sticks with a pulsing, arhythmic clang. One guy is clearly motivated by the drang. He’s shirtless, and has a braided leather belt cinched around his neck. His black hair mats to his forehead and blood, sweat and filth smear across his torso. Beltless, his shorts are falling down, exposing at least four inches of vertical crack. He circles around the drummers and picks up a garbage can and slams it into the pavement, baring his teeth and grinning like an overgrown toddler enamored with a rubber ball that won’t bounce. He continues this for 15 minutes straight, chasing his lump of tightening steel around the circle. A crowd gathers to watch his feat of stupidity. At least they’re using the garbage cans for something, I think.

1:13 p.m. Saturday

There’s a “Superhemp blowout” in the counterculture mall called the East Village. “Lowest prices @ Woodstock,” the sign reads. Other items for sale: “killer beads,” glass beads, plastic bongs, glass bongs, metal pipes, aluminum one-hitters, floppy hats, bajas, butterfly pullovers, jeans “100 percent kind,” silk prices, lace camisoles, Indian bed spreads. It looks like someone set off a bomb on Haight Street in San Francisco and the debris landed in one mess of giant mass of shade tents and bearded vendors.

At the photo booth, a long trailer, guys line up to buy film and disposable cameras. Women stand on top of the trailer, stripping away their halter tops and tiny T-shirts. Down on the ground, the guys back away from the trailer to snap a few shots with disposable cameras. The trailer provides one-hour photo processing, so they can examine their amateur nudie pix on site.

1:25 p.m. Saturday

I’m melting.

2:03 p.m. Saturday

In the span of one tune, Kid Rock namechecks Heidi Fleiss and riffs “Sweet Home Alabama.” The song has something to do with cowboys. Before his last number, the foul-mouthed metal rapper from Detroit introduces a special guest, his sidekick, a midget. “Ladies and Gentlemen, little Jimmy,” he says. The sidekick wears a large afro wig and an American flag. Rock’s guitarist hits the electric notes to “The Star Spangled Banner.” The sidekick flings off the flag. He’s wearing a T-shirt. “I am not a fucking midget,” it says. Which makes him what? A mascot?

2:42 p.m. Saturday

The Woodstockers don’t look happy. They wander with their eyes on one place or another, trudging between stages or the concessions or the beer gardens. They clear away piles of trash to sit on the ground. They fall over in the heat. Girlfriends stroke their boyfriends heads, passed out in their laps. The only thing that earns big screams and healthy smiles every time is the camera crane at the side of the stage when it dips down over the audience. I wonder if they look happier on pay per view.

3:04 p.m. Saturday

Wyclef Jean, of the Fugees, plays “The Star Spangled Banner,” tosses down his guitar, and lights it afire. The sun is far more intense.

3:57 p.m. Saturday

“People are really giving us a hard time,” one of the blue-shirted medical team tells me. “I’m stationed down there by the light tower. They throw shit at us, steal our stuff. We had to take a woman out yesterday. I’m pretty sure her neck was broken. You can tell because her hands were starting to curl up. Her heart rate was almost non-existent and she was hardly breathing. Her boyfriend didn’t want to let her go. I can’t wait for Metallica tonight,” he says dryly.

5:21 p.m. Saturday

Dave Matthews might be the most intelligent frat-rock band to ever fill a summer shed. His music is full of complex tempos and more or less unique instrumentation. But in the middle of “All Along the Watchtower,” I realized that it’s really just bland frat rock jazzed up with an electronic violin. And his voice bugs the hell out of me. Despite the crowd’s enthusiasm, I’m apparently not alone. I’m standing next to a reporter from MTV radio, who is communicating to a small team covering the event. “I just want to be clear,” a voice crackles over her walkie-talkie at the end of Matthews’ set. “I fucking hate that guy.”

6:27 p.m. Saturday

Alanis Morissette is prowling the stage in a skirt/pants combo, a long braid down her back. Canadian flags unfurl. Somewhere in the middle of “Hand in My Pocket,” I look around and every single woman I can see is singing along and in a synergistic moment, they all raise peace signs in the air. The boys look uninterested, complacent next to their girlfriends.

8:35 p.m. Saturday

Irresponsible: There’s no other word for Limp Bizkit front man Fred Durst. He’s goading the crowd, pumping them up, higher and higher. It’s beyond working them into enjoying the show. He’s encouraging the pit, working them into a frenzy. He wants people to “smash stuff.” “C’mon y’all, c’mon y’all,” he shouts. Below him, the pit is a war zone, a sweaty, dirty, roiling mass of vicious guys knocking the fuck out of one another. It’s not a fun scene. It’s nasty, and people are getting hurt — bad. Bodies on cardboard stretchers emerge from the audience a couple of times per song.

After the last metal-rap hybrid song, the MC comes up onstage to make an announcement. “Please, there are people hurt out there,” he pleads. “They are your brothers and sisters. They are under the towers. Please, help the medical team get them out of there. We can’t continue the show until we get these dear people out of there. We have a really serious situation out there.”

A few minutes later, the crowd parts. The kids are hauled off. Tomorrow, at the morning press conference, the staff will announce that 10 people were taken away in ambulances with head injuries. I’m shocked that no one died.

9:27 p.m. Saturday

Overheard from some big beefy guy: “Dude, you figure [the pit is] the closest thing to assault and battery that you’re going to get without getting arrested.”

9:39 p.m. Saturday

Rage Against the Machine opens. They work through a set of ideological anti-songs and burn the American flag at the end of their set. Some guys get pissed.

10:05 p.m. Saturday

Cardboard sign: “Tits big or small, show all. Will work for sex.”

11:00 p.m. Saturday

The Chemical Brothers save my weekend. The crowd at the west stage was far thinner since Metallica was playing on the other stage. You could walk right up to the speaker towers. There were women and girls in the very front. The duo opened with “Hey Boy Hey Girl,” and nearly everyone from the stage to the light tower jumped up, bouncing together to the beat. The screens behind them and jumbo monitors flashed with quick-cut videos.

Within three songs, the security guards at the front of the stage are dancing, leading the crowd to jump up and down, wave their hands side to side. The relentless beats build into huge crescendos and the exultant audience bursts into one giant bouncing mass. A grizzled hippie dances next to a 16-year-old body-popping to the beat. The rhythm overtakes a stoic guy with slicked back hair and a Hustler T-shirt. His head begins to nod, his knees loosen and pretty soon he’s waving his hands in the air with the rest of us. Five kids build a go-go platform out of two trash barrels and a piece of plywood. They dance, and no one pulls them down or rushes their stand. Musically, the old-school futurism plays between big beat and break-beat. Vocal snippets from the Bryds and New Order’s Bernard Sumner swirl around and fold back into the mix.

An hour and 15 minutes later, the Chemical Brothers come back to the stage for an encore. As the opening notes of “The Private Psychedelic Reel” ring out, the weekend’s first raindrops fall out of the sky. All at once, all arms lift and the dancers let out a collective yowl. The Chemical Brothers, sheltered by the stage and blinded by the lights, can’t have any idea what’s going on. They drop the song. The audience looks up at the dark clouds and warm rain falls on smiling faces.

1:15 a.m. Sunday

Just before Fatboy Slim went on in the rave hangar you could hear the fireworks bursting above Metallica. Within 15 minutes, the Fatboy Slim set turns into another naked girl woo fest.

10:27 a.m. Sunday

Over at the Common Ground cafe, a bunch of beards are passing out blueberry pancakes with real Vermont maple syrup and hibiscus fruit coolers. The prices aren’t ridiculous and they have a guy patrolling the area in front of their shack with a broom and dust pan, which makes their space one of the only areas at the entire festival that you don’t have to clear a spot just to sit down. A quartet of folk musicians serenades the line. It’s an altogether pleasant experience.

I pick up a small menu on cheap newsprint. Turns out that the entire operation is run by a group called Twelve Tribes, who have 14 “communities” in places like Hyannis, Mass., and Warsaw, Mo. Their literature proclaims Yashua the prophet. “If you are looking for a nice community where you can do your own thing, you would certainly be wasting your time to come here,” their literature reads. “But if you desire to live a life of self-sacrificing love, to experience the deep soul satisfaction of doing what you were created for, we invite you to come for a visit.”

I get spooked and leave.

11:05 a.m. Sunday

Message on graffiti wall: “Keep corporate hands off our music.”

12:42 p.m. Sunday

Shuffling, loose and mild, Willie Nelson is about the best hangover medicine you could ask for on a Sunday afternoon. Nelson tosses off a weak version of “Amazing Grace” and he gets away with it because, well, he’s Willie Nelson. His bluesy six-piece band plays old mountain songs, covers of Hank Williams and Townes Van Zandt tunes and a couple of numbers off “Teatro.” Not surprisingly, he doesn’t have much of a draw. Woodstockers are sleeping off the rave, or packing their tents. Nelson doesn’t seem to mind.

1:14 p.m. Sunday

A local politician, speaking from the main stage: “Let me tell you. From Oneida County, we love you. Out there, you’re making history.”

A guy with long, stringy hair and a tie-dye shirt: “We’re making you money.”

8:30 a.m. Monday

Like at least half the people at Woodstock, I scrammed mid-day on Sunday. I figured it was conceivable that Jewel or Megadeth or the Red Hot Chili Peppers would muster a signature transcendent generational moment, like Hendrix playing the finale in 1969, but I wasn’t willing to bet a night of sleep on it. Turns out, I might have missed more than I thought. When I woke up, NPR reported a Sunday night riot, complete with bonfires, overturned trailers and looting at the merchandise stands. I tried to imagine where any Woodstocker would have found the energy for it. And then I thought of the scene in “The Day of the Locust” when the sad Angelenos burn through Hollywood. “Their boredom becomes more and more terrible,” Nathanael West wrote in 1933. “They realize they’ve been tricked and burn with resentment. Every day of their lives they read the newspapers and went to the movies. Both fed on lynching, murder, sex crimes, explosions, wrecks, love nests, fires, miracles, revolutions, wars. This daily diet made sophisticates of them. The sun is a joke … They have been cheated and betrayed.”

Continue Reading Close

Jeff Stark is the associate editor of Salon Arts and Entertainment.

Peace, love and sexual awakening

Can Ang Lee's gentle "Taking Woodstock" possibly capture the madness and mud of the legendary music festival?

  • more
    • All Share Services

Topics: ,

Peace, love and sexual awakeningDemetri Martin in "Taking Woodstock."

Ang Lee’s “Taking Woodstock” is a gentle film that tells the story of how one Elliot Tiber — born Elliot Teichberg — helped a group of ambitious festival organizers find a site for their concert and a place in history. It’s a nice little story, all right. But “Taking Woodstock” is so gentle it barely has enough vitality to stick to the screen. It’s harmless enough as a snapshot of a young man’s awakening to the grand possibilities of adult life, but not particularly effective at capturing the spirit, the thrill or even the mud of this culturally monumental event.

 Of course, if that’s what you’re after, Michael Wadleigh’s 1970 documentary “Woodstock” is the place to go. Lee seems to know he can’t compete with it, so he doesn’t try (although he does borrow some of its key elements, particularly Wadleigh’s use of split-screen effects). Yet his low-key, free-spirited approach feels dispassionate and disconnected. The movie’s uncharismatic center is Elliot (Demetri Martin), who’s already left his parents’ home in the Catskills to avail himself of the freedom and excitement of Greenwich Village. Or, rather, he has almost left home: He’s called back one summer to help save the family business, a decidedly unglamorous “resort” — in other words, motel — that his parents, Jake and Sonia (Henry Goodman and Imelda Staunton), have allowed to fall into disrepair over the years. Facing several months, perhaps even a lifetime, of stifling boredom, even as he’s striving to put his family’s finances in order, Elliot finds a welcome window of opportunity when he learns that the promoters of an upcoming music and arts festival, scheduled to be held in nearby Wallkill, New York, have lost their permit for the event. He calls its producer, Michael Lang (Jonathan Groff), to offer his family’s motel as a base for his staff. He also introduces Lang and his groovy colleagues to a nearby dairy farmer, Max Yasgur (Eugene Levy, in a characteristically deadpan, and wonderful, performance), who meets with the kids, deems them A-OK, and agrees to let them use his land for their show — provided they clean up after themselves and, of course, pay a small fee (which he later increases).

And so this peace-and-love happening that almost wasn’t comes together rather quickly. Meanwhile, Elliot grows up, loosening his connection to his parents, which threatens to strangle him. He even meets a nice boy, a hunky jack-of-all trades type (played by Darren Pettie) who’s come to help make preparations for the concert. They meet each other’s gaze over a Judy Garland record, and it’s love (or at least lust) at first sight.

In “Taking Woodstock,” the concert itself is pretty much an afterthought, which would be OK if it were easier to muster more sympathy for Elliot. But he’s a bland, watery character: Supposedly, he gets hipper after an encounter with two acidheads in a painted VW bus (played by Paul Dano and Kelli Garner), but it’s too little, too late. The screenplay is by Lee’s frequent collaborator James Schamus, adapted from Tiber’s memoir, “Taking Woodstock: A True Story of a Riot, a Concert, and a Life,” and though Schamus has captured a little bit of the life and a tiny portion of the spirit of the concert, there really is no riot in evidence. Lee’s filmmaking is both overly fussed-over and listless. When he splits the screen, you wonder why he’s even bothering: Instead of using the effect to put all our senses on alert as we do the extra work of looking in two places at once, he fills each frame with stuff that’s hardly worth looking at — someone’s bent elbow here, a half-obscured face there.

Martin doesn’t have enough appeal to anchor the film, and Staunton, as his hard-bitten, long-suffering mother, is exhausting to watch. (At one point she glares out through her hard little eyes and offers a self-pitying speech that begins with “I walked here all the way from Minsk” and ends up at “with nothing but cold potatoes in my pockets.” I began to laugh at what I believed was an intentionally comical exaggeration, but I wasn’t sure I was supposed to — Lee frames the moment blankly, as if not even he knows what to make of it.)

But Lee does capture a few good performances here: Groff is charming as the almost-bare-chested free spirit Lang, and Liev Schreiber shows up as a big-hearted, plain-talking, cross-dressing bodyguard. Goodman, as Elliot’s father, has the best moment: An exhausted, beaten-down man (that Sonia sure is a handful), he blossoms, and even has actual fun, when his land is invaded by so many friendly, open young people. At one point, just as the concert is beginning a few acres away, he and Elliot hear strains of music drifting across the pond on their property (in which a bunch of carefree, long-haired kids are happily skinny-dipping). Jake looks at his dutiful son and urges him to go over to Max’s field to hear the music, to be part of something. Goodman fills the moment with just the right amount of emotion, and no more. He’s packed three days of peace and music into one glance, which is more than Lee manages to scrape together in more than two hours’ worth of film.

Continue Reading Close

Stephanie Zacharek is a senior writer for Salon Arts & Entertainment.

Woodstock never dies

A new VH1 documentary by Barbara Kopple suggests that the festival's legacy carries on and on

  • more
    • All Share Services

Topics: , , ,

Woodstock never dies

Forty years ago this weekend, over 500,000 people descended upon Max Yasgur’s farm in Bethel, N.Y., for a three-day music festival. Miles of ink have been spilled in the years since then mythologizing the mud, the bad acid trips and the music, and creating something fresh out of this cultural legend is not an easy task — even for an Academy Award-winning filmmaker like Barbara Kopple.

Nevertheless, this week VH1 is airing Kopple’s new documentary, “Woodstock: Now & Then” (premieres Friday, Aug. 14, at 9 p.m. on VH1 and VH1 Classic, and Monday, Aug. 17, at 8 p.m. on the History Channel), a historical portrait of the festival interwoven with a look at its impact on young musicians today.

For the “Now” portion of the movie, Kopple focuses on a group of young musicians from Paul Green’s School of Rock. Their musical skills are impressive, and their nerdy knowledge of Janis Joplin and Keith Moon suggests that Woodstock’s legacy stretches beyond aging hippies.

As for the “Then” segments, Kopple interviews many of the key figures of Woodstock, including festival producers Michael Lang and Artie Kornfeld, who conjure a compelling picture of the hectic days before, during and after Woodstock, when it seemed like everything was hanging on a thread of pure happenstance. Kopple also uses memorable footage from Michael Wadleigh’s Oscar-winning movie “Woodstock” in her film. The iconic scene of Jimi Hendrix playing his version of the Star-Spangled Banner to 40,000 people and fields of deserted trash never gets old, and Kopple uses it with resonant results. The guitar’s wailing solos and frenzied feedback represent a decade of sadness and chaos, marked by assassinations, segregation and the Vietnam War.

Salon spoke with Barbara Kopple over the phone about the ongoing interest in Woodstock, current-day festivals like Burning Man, and her documentary.

Why did you make this movie?

What could be cooler than to do a film about Woodstock? It’s got the greatest music, the best stories, and fascinating characters, and always an unexpected turn of events. Little miracles and moments that are funny or pure inspiration.

Where were you during Woodstock?

I was studying and working. I was not at Woodstock, but I feel like I was. 

Why did you choose the “now and then” angle for this particular film?

Music, I think, is what bonds everybody together, and here were kids who just totally embraced the music of Woodstock — [the students of] School of Rock knew everything about it , loved it, and idolized Keith Moon. Loved Janis Joplin. It just seemed so natural that you would want something to happen with the next generation.

Why do you think Woodstock is still relevant today? Why should kids who weren’t born yet care about it?

I think Woodstock is still relevant today because people really care about what’s happening in our world. People want to be part of something. People want to be part of a community. People want to have that same kind of ritual that everybody has, and to be able to see it with people who were really fighting for something. They were fighting against the war, they were fighting to have life be much better. They wanted to be free, they wanted to get away from their jobs, and to be able to stand in the mud and enjoy themselves and listen to great music. What can be more relevant than that? Because I think all of us want that in our lives. We still have some of the very same issues that we’re dealing with. We’re still dealing with war. We’re still dealing with many of the same kinds of things that the generation of 1969 was dealing with.

Video: Young musicians reflect on Woodstock

There’s a section in the movie where you focus on the women’s sexual liberation at Woodstock, and at one point, it’s referred to as a “women’s festival.”

Yes, Greg Jackson, who was the reporter from ABC, called it a “women’s festival.” To me, it’s like “yes!” That’s what it made it so much different than Altamont and a lot of the other festivals that followed it. It was gentle, it was soft. Michael Lang and Artie Kornfeld and others picked the Hog Farm [commune] as the people who were going to take care of the security. People would just come up to you and talk to you and hug you and stop any fights they could with laughter and with love. That’s just a whole different way of thinking.

What do you think the ripple effects of that were? How did it play into the political, social and cultural realm after Woodstock?

I think every generation really searches for that common understanding. You know, to be able to shake off the rules, to be able to be together in a real community, and to take care of each other. I mean, in the way the film really talked about the drugs, and Wavy Gravy would help with one person, and that person, when he felt better, would help the next person. And it just kept going round and round, that whole sense of caring for your brothers and your sisters. And that’s very rare, particularly when seeing 400,000 people together.

I thought it was interesting that you included the election of Obama in the film. Are you saying that Woodstock set the stage for that?

Well, I think once again, we have that feeling of hope, that things are going to be OK. We had a really bad period. And now that Obama’s been elected, and so many people from all different facets worked on it, young and old. People gave up their jobs to be able to be part of it. I think you’re seeing something that’s very different, that people realize that they have to go out and they have to do things, and they have to make change in their lives for it to happen.

So why haven’t we seen something like Woodstock duplicated?

Well, I think maybe it’s happened in the Burning Man, and other festivals. But you know, it’s so hard to duplicate something that happened in such a magical and spontaneous way. Each festival and each generation — I mean even think about [the Woodstock revival festivals of] ’94 and ’99 and how different they were. The amazing part of it was that each person said, “This is our Woodstock, this is our festival.” And they took possession of it. People would pull up on a bus, as they were entering the grounds, and they would just yell, “This is our Woodstock! This is the one that we care about!” It’s great to take possession.

How did the original “Woodstock” movie, directed by Michael Wadleigh, fuel the continuing mythology of Woodstock?

Well, i think “Woodstock: The Movie” was one of the finest, grandest movies imaginable. And if that movie had not been made, none of us would really know that this event happened. We wouldn’t have felt the people, we wouldn’t have seen the mud. We would’ve heard about the groups that played, but we wouldn’t be up close and personal, right under them. I mean, Michael Wadleigh filming as well as the other DPs on the film — it was so intimate, it was so extraordinary.  It just propelled you on a journey.

Continue Reading Close

Jacqueline Linge is an editorial fellow at Salon.

Cannes roundup: Lars von Trier and Jane Campion … they’re ba-a-ack!

Danish bad boy's gruesome horror venture outrages some, thrills others. In other news from 1995, "Piano" director debuts a poetic period piece, Francis Coppola goes indie and more.

  • more
    • All Share Services

Topics: , , ,

Cannes roundup: Lars von Trier and Jane Campion ... they're ba-a-ack!

Courtesy Cannes Film Festival

Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg in “Antichrist.”

Ah, Cannes! After a rainy weekend, the sun came out over the Boulevard de la Croisette. Monday’s temperature hit the mid 70s, and all the horrible and beautiful people in town for the film world’s biggest event hit the beachfront restaurants and hotel bars.

Or so I gather. The weather report comes from the Internet, the horrible people is an educated guess, and I’m writing not from the Festival de Cannes press room, with its ocean view and its phalanx of alienated, short-shorts-clad baristas staring resentfully into the middle distance, but from central New York state, where the so-called spring feels more like late November and Monday’s temperature barely cracked 50. In a season of global economic meltdown and the disintegration of journalism as a viable business model, it seemed the teensiest bit extravagant for Salon to send me to the south of France for two weeks of sleepless movie-watching and partygoing. I mean, yes, it was extravagant in the best of times. More to the point, it seemed foolish for me to try and insist on it this year.

Beyond the widespread grief at my absence, how is Cannes faring? It sounds like an exciting festival so far, economic woes and the absence of a prospective worldwide hit aside. (Actually, the opening film, Pixar’s “Up,” sounds like damn close to a sure thing, but that’s a case where Cannes needed that movie more than the other way around.) I would say that the level of bitching and moaning about the death of cinema, the non-viability of auteurism, etc., etc., is par for the course. (Let’s remember that 41 years ago, Cannes was seen as outmoded and unnecessary by the Parisian revolutionaries of ’68.) My short answer to the question of whether Cannes will still be relevant to somebody in five years is absolutely yes, but we’ll also still be afflicted with the same damn navel-gazing about whether it will be relevant in five more.

Here’s the news as I see it, with relevant links to some respected colleagues, comrades, foes and friends:

Lars von Trier’s comeback vehicle “Antichrist,” starring Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg as a couple who delve into some unsavory sexual and/or sadomasochistic practices after the death of their son, seems like the first scandalous offering, and hence the first real vehicle for buzz, at Cannes this year. It features full-frontal sexual intercourse and an already infamous scene of female genital self-mutilation, along with a scene described by one critic as a “bloody hand job.” I don’t know what that means, or how it is performed.

Variety blogger Anne Thompson reports that Trier was accosted by a reporter from London’s Daily Mail at the post-screening press conference, demanding that he justify himself. “‘I cannot justify myself,’ said Trier. ‘Because I make films and enjoyed it very much … I feel that you are all my guests, it’s not the other way around … I work for myself, and I do this little film that I am now kind of fond of. I don’t owe anybody an explanation.’”

How’s the movie? Thompson describes it as “powerful filmmaking,” comparing it to Ken Russell’s hallucinatory “The Devils,” and adding that Trier may have psychological problems, but hasn’t lost his directorial chops. Elizabeth Renzetti of the Toronto Globe and Mail also seemed to like it, or at least be wowed by it, writing that “Antichrist” is “loaded with a big trunkful of crazy… Ingmar Bergman meets ‘Saw,’ let’s say.”

Lisa Schwarzbaum of Entertainment Weekly goes in an analytical, no-comment direction, suggesting she isn’t sure what to make of it. “So it’s one good-looking, publicity-grabbing provocation, with an overlay of pseudo-Christian allegory thrown in to deflect a reasonable person’s accusations of misogyny,” she writes. Roger Ebert engages in a burst of semi-sympathetic lyricism, declaiming, “Whether this is a bad, good or great film is entirely beside the point. It is an audacious spit in the eye of society … Von Trier is not so much making a film about violence as making a film to inflict violence upon us, perhaps as a salutary experience.”

For Hollywood Elsewhere blogger Jeff Wells, on the other hand, “Antichrist” counts as “easily one of the biggest debacles in Cannes Film Festival history and the complete meltdown of a major film artist,” while Variety’s Todd McCarthy sums it up as “a big fat art-film fart.”

There are longer and more thoughtful pieces by Peter Brunette in the Hollywood Reporter and Jonathan Romney in Screen. Both are generally positive and well worth reading in toto. The net effect is that this is the first film of Cannes ’09 that I really wish I had seen myself, although it sounds by far the hardest one to sit through.

Other semi-major premieres over opening weekend have sparked debate, but nothing close to that degree of controversy. Ang Lee’s “Taking Woodstock,” a backstage story set at that iconic music festival, has been met with a collective shrug. Alison Willmore at IFC.com dubs it a “middling, conventional” comedy filled with narrative mistakes, while McCarthy says it’s a “let’s-put-on-a-show summer-camp lark … too raggedy and laid-back for its own good.” Anne Thompson seemed to like it, mostly because it conjured up wistful memories of her near-miss non-attendance of the legendary event.

Everybody has seemed to enjoy onetime Palme d’Or winner Ken Loach’s comedy “Looking for Eric,” which co-stars ’90s soccer god Eric Cantona (a former star for Manchester United). Derek Elley of Variety dubs it “a curious hybrid: Three movies — boilerplate, socially aware Loach; personal fantasy; romantic comedy — wrap around a central core of a hopeless soccer fanatic who’s given a second chance to sort out his life.” Similarly, Dave Calhoun of Time Out London sees it as “a tender comedy about modern male alienation and disappointment that sprinkles a little fantasy — and not a few laughs — into the harsh real world that Loach has been exploring over the past five decades.”

I’m not sure anybody’s still waiting for a big comeback from Francis Coppola, perennial winner of the Wim Wenders Memorial What-the-Hell-Happened-to-This-Guy? award, but “Tetro,” which Coppola wrote himself (his first screenplay since “The Conversation” in 1974), has failed to provoke much excitement. Shot in black-and-white in Buenos Aires, the movie reportedly looks great, but Variety’s McCarthy calls it “a passably talented imitation of O’Neill, Williams, Miller and Inge.” At IndieWIRE, Kohn damns with faint praise: “If a first-time filmmaker had directed this stylish black-and-white-and-sometimes-color melodrama, it might gain some notice for suggesting great things to come.” On the other hand, Patrick McGavin at Stop Smiling writes that “‘Tetro’ pulses with a manic energy and over the top garishness that makes the movie alternately disturbing, demented and compulsively watchable.”

Speaking of long-hibernating art-film directors, reticent New Zealander Jane Campion is finally back in action at Cannes with “Bright Star,” a lush period piece (surprise, surprise) which stars English pretty boy Ben Whishaw as doomed pretty-boy poet John Keats. Peter Bradshaw of the Guardian sees it as a likely Palme d’Or winner: “Campion brings to this story an unfashionable, unapologetic reverence for romance and romantic love, and she responds to Keats’s life and work with intelligence and grace.” Jeff Wells, however, describes it as “basically a Masterpiece Theatre thing that my mother will love,” and GQ’s Tom Carson found it fatally boring, quipping that one might be tempted to clap when Whishaw’s Keats began spitting up fake blood, as “a welcome reminder that eventually the credits will roll and life — yours, not his — will go on.”

For fans of Asian genre films, nothing at Cannes had the pre-fest buzz cranked as high as “Thirst,” the crazy-sounding vampire film from Korean master Park Chan-wook (of the “Vengeance” trilogy), but that too has gotten a mixed response. Derek Elley calls it “Emile Zola meets New Age vampirism,” and I only know what he means because he goes on to explain that the plot is partly borrowed from Zola’s “Thérèse Raquin.” Getting off one of the festival’s best lines to date, Mike D’Angelo of the AV Club writes that “‘Thirst’ moves like it’s just remembered the parking meter is about to expire 10 blocks away and can’t find anything but flip-flops to wear. New settings and characters are introduced so willy-nilly, and consecutive scenes have so little formal or tonal consistency, that you’re generally floundering even as you’re gasping.” My friend and sometime Sundance roommate McGavin was more generous, and made me want to see it: “The mise-en-scène, editing, rhythm and camera movements are beautifully designed and choreographed, creating a baroque mélange of the perverse. At 135 minutes, the film is too long, and in need of more pop and a quicker pulse in the second half. It’s a horror movie that never really frightens, but instead reaches for a poetic fatalism.”

As usual, this sounds like a Cannes rich in foreign films most Americans will never even hear about, and during the months ahead deviants and devotees like you and me will get our crack at most of them. Several of the festival’s biggest premieres still lie ahead, including Quentin Tarantino’s “Inglourious Basterds” and Terry Gilliam’s “The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus,” which features Heath Ledger’s final screen performance. Word on both — from those who’ve seen them in the Cannes market and are supposed to remain mum — is strong so far, and I hear that contrary to rumor Ledger makes far more than a token appearance in the Gilliam film.

Continue Reading Close

“Woodstock”

More Hendrix, some Joplin, but would it have killed anyone to add a few extras to one of the greatest rock-doc and propaganda movies ever?

  • more
    • All Share Services

Topics: ,

“Woodstock: The Director’s Cut”
Directed by Michael Wadleigh
Starring the Who, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Santana, Sly Stone, many others
Warner Home Video; widescreen; aspect ratio varies from 1.33:1 to 2.36:1
Extras: Eight new scenes and performances

“Woodstock” the movie is, of course, a piece of propaganda for itself: Like “Triumph of the Will,” its maker sees in its large assemblages of people, in their totems and rituals, a significance possibly out of proportion to their actual political or social meaning. Director Michael Wadleigh and his team (including, most notably, Martin Scorsese and Thelma Schoonmaker) flood the screen with images, using double and triple split screens, irresistible music and almost hallucinogenic crowd scenes to limn a convincing portrait of ecstatic chaos.

Given the continuing resonance of the title word and the film’s entirely unexpected reportorial rigor, one can make the argument that “Woodstock” flirts with the realm of great documentary art. In the end it is hard to come away not overwhelmed by both the events it pictures and the titanic filmmaking that brings it to the screen.

Younger readers will want to know that the festival, held in upstate New York in August 1969, featured not one of the rock titans of the time; the Rolling Stones, the Beatles and Bob Dylan were absent. But it did have almost every one of the great artists bubbling under: Sly Stone, the Who, Creedence Clearwater Revival, Janis Joplin and Jimi Hendrix. And even the comparatively lesser lights caught in the movie — Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young; Alvin Lee and Ten Years After; Santana; Country Joe and the Fish; and Joe Cocker — deliver riveting, career-defining performances.

The DVD criminally lacks extras. Would it have killed someone to get a couple of the camera people and Wadleigh to give us some insight into the logistics of this gargantuan effort? The disc’s “director’s cut” subtitle merely means that there are about 40 extra minutes of scenes and performances, most notably more of Hendrix and some footage of Joplin, who didn’t appear in the original movie. But the DVD is still valuable to finally make available to a general home audience the widescreen, multiview format that it demands to be seen in.

The performances, of course, are merely the foundation for the larger ambitions of “Woodstock.” The new footage is fine, but it doesn’t add anything to what really makes the film, because, in the end, “Woodstock” is not about music. What Wadleigh and his team created, perhaps accidentally, is one of our most pungent social documentaries: They find humanity in the absurd declarations of this or that hippie boy or hippie chick; in the interactions of the kids and the townspeople; and, finally, most absurdly, and most heartbreakingly, in a massive, three-hour film’s human heart: a chat with the guy cleaning the portable toilets.

Here, an opportunity for cheap laughs becomes instead a quiet catharsis. The man is questioned neutrally, and he responds in kind, not apologizing as he swishes out crap from the stalls. He’s there to tell us one thing. He has two sons: One is in the crowd at the show; the other is flying planes in Vietnam. “He’s in the DMZ right now,” he tells the camera gamely, his face a sudden wash of pride, fear and confusion. It’s a sudden, shocking glimpse of what an unsung stratum of America was going through at the time — something you might not have expected at this time or place, or in this movie.

Continue Reading Close

Bill Wyman is the former arts editor of Salon and National Public Radio.

“Jimi Hendrix Live at Woodstock”

Reexperience "The Star-Spangled Banner" and more in this hourlong document of one of the greatest-ever live performances.

  • more
    • All Share Services

Topics: ,

“Jimi Hendrix Live at Woodstock”
Edited by Chris Hegedus and Erez Laufer
MCA; full frame
Extras: None

As incredible a document as it is, Michael Wadleigh’s three-hour epic “Woodstock” contains too much of some bad things (a little of that Ten Years After goes a long way) and not enough of some very good things. “Jimi Hendrix Live at Woodstock,” consisting of footage shot by Wadleigh’s team at the festival, much of it not shown in “Woodstock” and not previously available, goes a long way toward redressing one of those wrongs. The 57 minutes of performances — in which Hendrix and the Band of Gypsies (making their debut) appear so relaxed and loose you can almost forget they’re playing to a small city’s worth of people — is mesmerizing for guitar wankers and Hendrix nerds alike.

One of the great pleasures of “Jimi Hendrix Live at Woodstock” — compiled by editors Chris Hegedus (co-director of “The War Room”) and Erez Laufer — is being able to simply drink in the man’s presence: He’s charismatic and impossibly beautiful, with an understated physical grace that few contemporary musicians have even come close to matching. And he’s funny, too, perhaps unintentionally so. In the segue between “Voodoo Child (Slight Return)” and “The Star-Spangled Banner,” he tells the crowd, “You can leave if you want, we’re just jamming, that’s all.” It doesn’t look as if he has sensed restlessness in the crowd; he’s just being almost inexplicably polite, knowing that many, if not most, of them had been hanging around for several days before he, as Woodstock’s closing act, had even taken the stage.

And even though Hendrix’s “Star-Spangled Banner” is, of course, included in the full-length “Woodstock,” for Hendrix fans there’s something nice about having the performance preserved in one easy-to-access place, particularly since the focus here is on the music more than the scene. (“Jimi Hendrix Live at Woodstock” contains a bit of footage of the Woodstock crowd for color, but far fewer floppy breasts than does Wadleigh’s film.)

The DVD and the VHS version are companions to a recently released two-CD set culled from the show, which is far more comprehensive. (And the DVD, disappointingly, includes nothing in the way of extras or liner notes.) But as a visual record, “Jimi Hendrix Live at Woodstock” is still invaluable. And even if you’ve seen it dozens of times before — and maybe even if you were there — there’s something inescapably touching about the Woodstock “Star-Spangled Banner.” Bruised, fractured and beautiful, it springs directly from the tradition of call and response: Hendrix frames his phrases like elegant question marks hanging in the air, but their corresponding responses, some of them molten and mournful, others jagged and impatient, can’t even begin to answer. The piece is a meditation on uncertainty that’s anything but uncertain.

Continue Reading Close

Stephanie Zacharek is a senior writer for Salon Arts & Entertainment.

Page 1 of 2 in Taking Woodstock