In this interview and podcast, Julien Temple talks about his new film, "Joe Strummer: The Future Is Unwritten" -- this year's most powerful documentary.
Look, I’m the wrong person to bring any objectivity to Julien Temple’s movie “Joe Strummer: The Future Is Unwritten.” It partly concerns the pop culture of my own teenage years, always a treacherous zone for any critic (or any other human being). Furthermore, it’s about a rock musician I once worshiped and then abandoned, and discovered again much later, who is now dead. So Temple’s film will inevitably be viewed by people of roughly my age and with roughly my background as a kind of generational myth, which is likely to irritate the crap out of everyone else.
To listen to a podcast of the interview, click here.
To subscribe: Click here to add Conversations to iTunes or cut and paste the URL into your podcasting software:

Still, insofar as I can drag myself back from raving fandom to some kind of detachment, I think “The Future Is Unwritten” — which is Temple’s preferred title; the distributors have added “Joe Strummer” over his objections — is the most powerful documentary I’ve seen all year, and one of the two or three best films ever made about an artist or musician. It marks both the high point and something like the moral justification of Temple’s career, which includes big-money music videos for the Rolling Stones, David Bowie, Janet Jackson, Tom Petty and many other artists, as well as a pair of splendid documentaries about the Sex Pistols and the 1977-78 punk revolution (“The Great Rock ‘n’ Roll Swindle” in 1980, and “The Filth and the Fury” in 2000).
Strummer, of course, was the lead singer and rhythm guitarist of the Clash, the Pistols’ biggest rivals on the London punk scene. As Temple explained when I met him at Sundance last winter, he met Strummer in 1976 when the band was formed, and shot black-and-white footage of their first recording session in a studio at his film school. (That session produced the single versions of “White Riot” and “I’m So Bored With the USA,” among other Clash songs.) One of the first things we see in “The Future Is Unwritten,” in fact, is the 23-year-old Strummer spitting the lyrics to “White Riot” into the mike, without the musical track attached. It’s an electrifying moment, rock history in the making.
Although Temple’s movie is indeed a history of how Strummer, his songwriting partner Mick Jones, and the rest of the Clash rose from being London punk avatars to international superstars — and then fell into the gradual, bitter and ironic decay that goes along with that — it’s also something much more important. Always a master of discovering and manipulating footage from various sources, Temple has assembled an extraordinary archive of film and video that documents and illustrates various aspects of Strummer’s life and career.
Temple has found home movies of the London squatter scene where Strummer, then known as Woody Mellor, first made his reputation, and early, grainy videotapes of Strummer’s pre-Clash band, a hippie-ish R&B assemblage called the 101′ers (who had gotten pretty damn good before he abruptly broke them up and turned his back on his squatter pals to become a punk icon). To capture the decrepit and claustrophobic atmosphere of England in the years of Strummer’s childhood — he grew up as John Graham Mellor, the privileged kid of a British Foreign Office diplomat — Temple borrows bits of a legendary BBC adaptation of George Orwell’s “1984″ (starring Peter Cushing) and the animated version of Orwell’s “Animal Farm.”
Several of the doodles and cartoons with which Strummer filled his notebooks are turned into charming little animations, demonstrating that this driven and almost monomaniacal character had a whimsical side. Even the central weakness of most documentaries concerned with recapturing the past, the inevitable talking-head reminiscences, are handled marvelously. Temple assembles many of Strummer’s old friends and colleagues from various periods of his life around campfires in London, New York, Los Angeles and elsewhere, in tribute to the campfires Strummer himself hosted at British raves late in his career.
At first, it bugged me that Temple never identifies these interviewees on the screen. Sometimes it’s obvious, as when a decrepit-looking Mick Jones cheerfully admits to being a massive pothead, or when Clash drummer Topper Headon, looking like an aging accountant in a dusty-pink pullover, discusses his lengthy heroin addiction and his ejection from the band. And you’re probably going to recognize Bono and Johnny Depp and Martin Scorsese. But there are moments when you sit there wondering: Isn’t that that British artist who saws pigs in half, whatever his name is? (Damien Hirst, and yes, it is.) Is that Anthony Kiedis of the Red Hot Chili Peppers, or just some schmo who resembles him? Is that really what Steve Jones of the Sex Pistols looks like today?
It’s still a debatable decision, but I relaxed about it. I don’t actually think Temple is challenging his viewers: Are you hip enough to identify some minor rock celebrity of years gone by? His idea is more that Strummer’s hippie ex-girlfriends and 101′er bandmates have just as much to tell us as Jim Jarmusch and Courtney Love do, and in some cases more. There’s a tremendous dignity and pathos in the spectacle of all these middle-aged survivors, many of them quite a bit worse for wear, gathered together to remember a maddening, prodigious and contradictory person they loved very much.
Joe Strummer yearned for fame, and in the process of seeking it left many of his oldest friends feeling betrayed. He made some of the most memorable and influential records in rock history, although his musical talent was modest, at best. He yearned to use his fame and his bully pulpit to spread a political and social message, modeling himself self-consciously after Woody Guthrie. While he succeeded in doing that, far beyond what many people recognized at the time, he also fell into virtually all the familiar traps of rock stardom — and could only weep bitterly when he heard American troops blasting “Rock the Casbah” as they bombed Baghdad during the first Gulf War in 1991.
Temple’s film is a passionate testament to his own conflicting emotions about Joe Strummer, and the ultimate evidence of that emotion lies in its powerful combination of cinematic craft and honesty. “The Future Is Unwritten” never shirks from the less attractive sides of Strummer’s personality, nor from the petty hypocrisies and pseudo-Stalinist conformity of the punk revolution itself. It doesn’t look away from aging and death, which have begun to loom pretty large for those of us who can actually remember the 1970s. It doesn’t look away from the beautiful, ravaged faces of its interviewees, as they were and as they are.
I look at them and see fragments of myself, both as the middle-class dad I am now and as the 16-year-old kid in pursuit of something (I didn’t know what, and I probably still don’t) who once cut school on a California winter afternoon to go meet Joe Strummer in the import section of a record store, and have him scrawl his autograph across the sleeve to “White Man in Hammersmith Palais.” Not many other people showed up at Tower Records that day, and as I told Temple, Strummer spent several minutes chatting kindly with me and my friends. “Of course he did,” he smiled. “He needed you.”
Maybe he did, but as Temple’s wonderful movie reminded me, we needed him more. Whatever Joe Strummer’s flaws as a man, a musician and a political thinker, he tried to use the machinery of pop culture against itself, tried to invent himself as a new kind of celebrity who could be both useful and human. I still don’t know if it’s possible, but it was a good idea.
Also this week, we’ve got a surprising and delightful film about the wannabe actors who perform as superheroes on Hollywood Boulevard and a pseudo-punk artifact of quite another kind, the 25th anniversary rerelease of Jean-Jacques Beineix’s “Diva.” I’m not reviewing the documentary “Darfur Now,” but it’s another laudable effort to rouse the slumbering American conscience about the gravity of that disaster. I tried to watch Ash Christian’s ultra-indie high-school comedy “Fat Girls” and decided it just wasn’t for me. It’s done tremendously well with audiences at gay-oriented film festivals, though, and your results may vary.
Julien Temple on building a balloon in the backyard with Joe Strummer
Julien Temple has built a lucrative career making music videos and concert films for many of the biggest pop acts of the last three decades. But his heart has always belonged to the punk revolution of the late ’70s, which he experienced firsthand as a young man in London, where he was born and raised. Temple’s career as a director of feature films has been mixed. He made the cult-fave rock musical “Absolute Beginners” in 1986, but has never subsequently matched its success. As a documentarian of the punk era, though, he is without peer. Temple had already made the two most important movies about punk with his Sex Pistols diptych: “The Great Rock ‘n’ Roll Swindle,” made immediately after the Pistols’ implosion in 1980, and the retrospective “The Filth and the Fury,” made 20 years later.
I met Temple last January at the Sundance Film Festival, just after the North American premiere of “Joe Strummer: The Future Is Unwritten,” which was literally 30 years in the making. (You can listen to this interview here or watch my BTM/IFC video segment on the film here.)
I gather Bono was at the premiere last night. Did you talk to him?
Yeah. He told me he thought it was a work of genius. I’m not sure whether that’s good or bad.
It can’t really be bad, can it? I mean, as we all know, works of genius don’t always do so well commercially.
I don’t really mind about that. As long as it hangs around for about 100 years or so, I don’t care about the first weekend.
You’re joking, sort of. But I kind of think people will still be watching this movie long after you and I are gone.
I think they will. Not because of me. Because of Joe.
Tell me how you first met Joe Strummer.
Well, I knew of him in the mid-’70s, because I was squatting in the same part of London as he was. He had the 101′ers, who were the emblematic London-squat band. I used to see him around at various places. His second big squat was just around the corner from where I was squatting. There’s some footage in the film of him sitting outside on the steps of that house, loading up the van for a 101′ers gig. That was brilliant: Someone sent me an unprocessed roll of Super 8 film; they didn’t know what was on it. It turned out to be that bit: The 101′ers outside the squat, loading up the van. That was magic.
And then, when punk began in London, he quit the 101′ers and became the focus of the Clash. I was well into what the Pistols were doing. Then I saw the Clash, and I saw Joe. It was strange to see him in this other situation, but he was obviously fantastic. I was in film school at the time, and I hustled my way into making a film about the Clash. So I got pretty close to him in ’76. I shot all that black-and-white stuff you see in the film. I hadn’t done anything with it until now.
That’s just incredible footage. The beginning of the film, when we see him singing “White Riot” without the musical track.
That was the first time they recorded anything. I snuck them into the film school on a Sunday night. It was an illegal operation, which is good — how it should be. The film school didn’t know what the fuck was going on. There was no one there. We got into this old 1930s recording studio — it was [legendary Hungarian-British director] Alexander Korda’s recording studio. I smuggled them in and they laid down four or five tracks. It was the first time they recorded “White Riot,” “Career Opportunities,” “I’m So Bored With the USA” and “Janie Jones.”
God! That was rock history being made.
Yeah, it was. And it sounds good. Anyway, I was intensely involved with them at that point. But, you know, two middle-class guys in the same room, at that time, was not a good thing. You were all meant to be off the street, you know? And I could never fake it. I am who I am. Joe was all Cockney accent, you know: “I’m off the street.” So things got a little weird. Plus, Malcolm [McLaren, the Sex Pistols manager] was easier to work with than Bernie [Rhodes, the Clash manager]. He had less chips on his shoulder.
So I then concentrated on the Pistols. I was really in love with the Pistols. Both these movies were made with cameras stolen from the film school. It was a punk ideal. The whole thing was about that. But having moved over to the Pistols, that was like treachery to the Clash. It was all over. And I thought: They just became a fucking rock band; they should have self-destructed like the Pistols. Fuck the Clash, you know? I became a big Pistolian, a kind of propagandist.
So I never saw Joe, really. I saw him in New York or L.A., randomly, over the next 25 years. One day, after I was back in England — I lived in L.A. for quite a while, and then I moved back to England, to the middle of nowhere, in Somerset, where my dad’s from — my wife said, “Oh, my best friend from school is bringing her new boyfriend down.” Through the garden gates walked Joe Strummer.
I was trying to build a hot-air balloon with my kids, a big paper thing. I was making a real mess of it, and my kids were like: “Dad, you’re no good. You’re rubbish.” Joe said, “OK, let’s sort this out.” We got stuck in, building this balloon together, and we finally got it going at just about dawn, and woke up the kids to tell them.
Then it was typical Joe. He suddenly said, “I want to live here. Is there anywhere near here I can find a place?” He ended up buying a farm up the road, so I spent the last 10 years pretty much living with him, when he was at home.
Did you interview him during that period? Did you already have the idea you might make a film about him?
No, I wasn’t trying to make a film about him. He was just a friend, you know? We were hanging out. A lot of that interview stuff is from other sources. But when he died [of a heart attack, in 2002], it freaked us all out. I just couldn’t believe it. It took me three years to come to terms with that, and everyone was saying, “OK, it’s time to move on.” I thought, well, I can’t really move on unless I say something about him, because I loved him so much. Then I decided to try and make a film, because I knew I had this early stuff on the Clash which was sitting there.
Obviously Strummer’s fans will want to see this film. But it’s a complicated portrait of a complicated person. Your affection for him comes through clearly, but you don’t look away from parts of his personality that were less attractive. It’s very clear, for instance, that he was difficult to get along with, and that many of the friends who had supported him when he was nobody felt betrayed by him once he became well-known.
I didn’t want to make a fan movie. But I hope it’s a friend making a movie. I think his flaws were what made him great. He didn’t really cover them up. He was a man of many contradictions, but that was his fuel. We’re all flawed; that’s what being human is about. I don’t think it’s a betrayal of Joe to show that. I think, and I hope, that he wouldn’t like it unless you did that.
You also deal with the extraordinary arc of his life: He goes from being a London squatter in an R&B band …
A hippie band!
A hippie band, to being this punk avatar to being a major rock star and then, after the Clash broke up, basically disappearing into a depression for 10 years.
Yeah, he felt a bit of guilt about how the band broke up. I think he did it for the right reasons. He was trying to stay true to himself, and he didn’t like the clichéd commercial madness of being a global rock star, in the machine. But he did it in a kind of brutal way. It was pretty insane, firing Mick Jones, who was the Clash as much as Joe was. So he had to live with that, and I think he really didn’t know where to go for a while. I think that was quite a bad place, which comes through in the film.
What makes the film work is that he was able to crawl out of that, and access other parts of his life he had shut away, bring them back. He became quite remarkable at the end, I think, with the Mescaleros and the campfires. [The Mescaleros were Strummer's final band, and he spent time traveling around England hosting campfire gatherings at raves.] There was this sense of the circle completing in Joe’s life, even though it was cut short.
You use all this amazing archival footage to create a portrait of the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s in England. Some of it is footage directly related to Joe’s life, but a lot of it is more suggestive or evocative. It’s an extraordinary work of collage, this movie.
Yeah, well, I like ripping things out of context and forcing them to mean something else. I like that way of treating archive — brutally rip its neck off and stick it together with new feet, or something.
You’ve got footage from some film or television version of “1984″ that I’ve never seen.
Yeah, that was a legendary broadcast. It was done live, it was one of the very first dramas on British TV, when the BBC was just beginning. They had a very funny introduction, saying: “If any viewers have a nervous disposition, you should turn off now, because we’re going to show you something truly, truly chilling.” Now, of course, we live in that fucking world. [Laughter.] And we don’t bat an eyelid about it, so there you go.
There is a connection between Orwell and Joe, I think. It’s an English thing — well, it’s a global thing now. But he was very much concerned with freedom of speech, with the idea that people should have their voice heard and shouldn’t accept what they’re told by governments and authority figures. We also used images from the animated film of “Animal Farm,” which was used for a Clash single cover, for “English Civil War.” It all kind of makes sense, I think.
I really hope this film will reach beyond the generation who grew up with the Clash. One of the things that was distinctive about Joe was the way he embraced all these different musical and cultural elements: dub and reggae, techno, Latin music, various kinds of world music. That was pretty unusual for a guy of that generation and background, even if it seems normal today.
Some of that comes from his childhood, which was very bizarre. Before he was a hippie, he was part of the British Foreign Office establishment as a diplomat’s son. He was born in Turkey, he lived in Egypt, he lived in Mexico, speaking Spanish in school. He lived in Germany, he lived in Malawi, he lived in Tehran. This kid saw the world; we had his passport with all these mad stamps. That is bound to influence your take on things. So when the Clash got out of the first flush of the purist punk thing, they started bringing in different musical influences, not just reggae and rockabilly. Joe was a real pioneer, long before people were hip to world music.
You talked earlier about abandoning the Clash for the Sex Pistols. I couldn’t deal with how rapidly the Clash’s music shifted, at the time. It personally took me years to come to terms with the “London Calling” and “Sandinista!” albums. I had inhaled the punk ethos, in maybe a puritanical way, and I thought they had become a mainstream pop band.
Well, I did too. I thought they had sold out and become a rock band. I realize now how wrong I was. At the time I thought the Pistols did the right thing. Self-immolation was the way to go, and everything else was hypocrisy and selling out. You get wiser as you get older, and I certainly am very thankful for “Sandinista!” in particular. It’s amazingly relevant music.
At the same time, at some point after those albums they did become just another rock band, didn’t they? Certainly their late albums were pretty bad. It’s painful for someone who was a fan to see that footage where Joe is trying to keep the band together with a whole new cast of characters, after he had fired Mick. What made him want to do that?
He was so signed up to the idea of the Clash as an instrument of change. He became more radical and more kind of preachy, with the last version of the band. I’m someone who is very interested in the second version of the Clash, frankly. I’m not the person to do it, but I think there should be a film about just that. I love some of the live shows I’ve got on bootleg tapes of that band. The album, where Bernie Rhodes snuck on all these synthesized drums and football chants, has a horrible aspect overlaid on it, but some of those songs are fucking great. I wouldn’t close the door on that band.
I’ll try to keep an open mind. There’s an amazing moment, a little earlier, when Mick is still in the band but they’ve gotten so big that they’re playing football stadiums in the United States. Some TV newsman interviews this girl outside and she says, “Oh, they’re not punk anymore. They’re a rock band. They’re just like the Stones.” That must have killed Joe — that was exactly what he didn’t want to become.
He thought he could learn the lessons of the Stones, you know? It’s quite moving when he says, “We’ve made every fucking mistake in the book.” He was always that honest. That’s the great thing about making a film about Joe, over all other rock stars. No one else has ever been that honest with his audience. He fought very hard to maintain access to his life as a human being, rather than hiding behind sunglasses in a gated community or whatever. I think he was a kind of philosopher, as much as a musician.
Right — he made some great music in his career, but I don’t know that music was his No. 1 talent. When he and Mick were together in the Clash, he relied on Mick’s musical abilities.
And in the Mescaleros, he relied on other people. Yeah, as he said about his guitar playing, “I don’t go for the fiddly bits, because I can’t do them.”
That’s right. He chose his last name as a literal description of his guitar playing.
Yeah, and he was a great rhythm guitarist. He played it like a drum, basically, and ripped his hands to pieces doing it. That energy and that total ferocious commitment to that rhythm was a big part of the Clash’s music. But he wasn’t really a musician.
Before he called himself Joe Strummer he called himself Woody. Wasn’t that almost who he wanted to be — an agitator or a political activist who happened to play the guitar, like Woody Guthrie?
I think the film isn’t banging you on the head with politics, but it’s a political film and Joe was a political animal, but in a really interesting way. He avoided, for the most part, the obvious hectoring or lecturing tone that the left is often forced to adopt, because it’s desperate to try and say what it’s got to say, and it doesn’t have the luxury of owning the advertising business and the press and the TV networks, which the right-wing establishment does own. Joe was an interesting counter-figure to that, because he got inside the machine and tried to work with elements of style and fashion, all the shit that the machine exists on. He tried to wrest some way of saying things through it. You’ve got to do that, or you’re not going to be heard.
“Joe Strummer: The Future Is Unwritten” opens Nov. 2 at the IFC Center in New York, with other cities to follow. It’s also available on-demand through IFC In Theaters on many cable-TV systems.
Fast forward: Caped crusaders on the couch in “Confessions of a Superhero”; the trendoid gorgeosity of “Diva,” 25 years later
I vastly enjoyed Matt Ogens’ documentary “Confessions of a Superhero” when I caught it last spring at the South by Southwest Film Festival in Texas, but it seemed like one of those winning little festival movies that was just a bit too peculiar for mainstream release. I’m grateful to say that I was wrong, and Ogens’ intimate portrait of four would-be actors who eke out a living by donning superhero costumes and posing for tourist photographs on Hollywood Boulevard may soon be playing near you.
As Ogens’ Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman and Incredible Hulk readily admit, they’re just panhandlers with funny clothes who make their money by staying, barely, on the right side of the loitering and harassment laws. Batman, in fact, seems like a borderline personality with a scary past and a rage problem, despite his much-commented-upon resemblance to George Clooney. Wonder Woman is a one-time homecoming queen from Tennessee, and the Hulk is an African-American “country boy” from North Carolina who spent four years homeless — and actually gets a pretty big acting break that may get him out of that green suit.
But the heart of the film is Christopher Dennis, the incredibly strange dude who’s spent many years as the boulevard’s Man of Steel. Dennis doesn’t just play Superman, he is monumentally obsessed with Superman and owns one of the world’s premier collections of Superman tchotchkes. By his own account, he’s a former meth addict and the illegitimate son of one-time movie star Sandy Dennis (although her other relatives don’t believe that), and Superman has given him a new lease on life. If you think he’s odd, though, wait till you meet his girlfriend! Lest you fear a freak show, Ogens is never patronizing or condescending. In its own inimitably strange way, “Confessions of a Superhero” is an inspirational tale. (Opens Nov. 2 at the Pioneer Theater in New York and the Alamo Drafthouse in Austin, Texas, Nov. 16 in Los Angeles and Nov. 21 in Denver. DVD release will follow in January.)
This is as hackneyed a sentiment as you can express, but I’m stunned to realize that it’s been 25 years since the release of Jean-Jacques Beineix’s “Diva,” which you might describe as both the last New Wave film (meaning the French film movement of the ’60s) and the first one (meaning the music and fashion moment of the early ’80s). Certain things about the film still seem highly contemporary, by which I mean that “Diva” isn’t about its perfunctory thriller plot but instead is about its own magnificent colors, its clothes and interiors, its languorous Parisian atmosphere — the vast, empty lofts! the crashed cars! — and of course its music. It briefly turned African-American soprano Wilhelmenia Wiggins Fernandez into a celebrity, and while she can’t act for beans, she sure sings the crap, over and over again, out of that aria from an obscure Italian opera called “La Wally,” which itself became a trendoid signature of sorts. It’s a supremely gorgeous and supremely shallow motion picture, but it believes in art with a capital A. And practically nobody does anymore. (Opens Nov. 2 at Film Forum in New York, with more cities to follow.)
The civil rights battle ignored by the U.S. media
The documentary "Black Power Mixtape" tells a counter-history of the 1960s, through the eyes of foreign journalists
A still from "The Black Power Mixtape 1967-1975"
It was tough enough to track the social and political upheaval of the 1960s through domestic news coverage, let alone to pay attention to what the rest of the world was reporting. But journalists from abroad were fascinated by the roiling changes — and often saw it quite differently.
Though U.S. network coverage of civil rights cruelties helped rally the country against the worst offenders in the South, coverage of revolutionary groups such as the Black Panther Party more often took J. Edgar Hoover’s extremist stance that it was the most dangerous internal threat to the U.S. Rarely did it look at the accomplishments of its free breakfast programs, community organizing and determination to stand up to police harassment and brutality.
Swedish newsmen and filmmakers who didn’t follow the FBI line came to America to learn what they could, looking at life in largely segregated black America, talking frankly and seriously with black leaders and closely following their trials.
Footage of the era, said to have been sitting in a Swedish basement for three decades, became the eye-opening documentary “The Black Power Mixtape 1967-1975” making its U.S. television debut on PBS’ “Independent Lens” Thursday night as part of its Black History Month series.
The modernist title owes in part to filmmaker Göran Hugo Olsson using modern-day commentary, from musicians in many cases, to accompany the found footage. Talib Kweli, Erykah Badu and Ahmir “Questlove” Thompson of the Roots add their contemporary revolutionary musing among commentaries by professors and historians.
The wealth of Swedish footage owes in part to the Panthers’ desire to see their movement as an international one, or one that certainly relied on support from outside the U.S.
It is the Panthers’ Embassy in Algeria where Eldridge Cleaver holds court, for example, far from the threat of FBI invasions. Martin Luther King Jr.’s visits to Stockholm to meet King Gustaf VI Adolf that are well preserved, and King’s traveling partner Harry Belafonte recalls the meeting.
Some of the earliest footage in the film shows a young Stokely Carmichael speaking in Stockholm in 1967, stating in the simplest terms the recent history of black movement in the U.S., carefully stepping beyond the nonviolent action approach by King.
“In order for nonviolence to work, your opponent has to have a conscience,” he points out coolly. “The United States has none.”
In some ways, it is the footage of Carmichael, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and honorary “prime minister” for the Panthers, that is the revelation of “The Black Power Mixtape.” How suppressed has his voice been over the years, even at a time of black history mining?
It’s certainly eye-opening for modern-day commentator Kweli, who exclaims, “He has so much passion and fire inside of him,” yet remains quite cool. “He seemed like a regular dude.”
After telling reporters in Stockholm, “I’m not as patient as Dr. King,” Carmichael takes over a Swedish interview of his own mother in Chicago to get to the point: The family’s struggles and limited opportunities can be boiled down to the fact that they are black.
One gets the sense that Swedish journalists enjoyed visiting black ghettos, where they tried to get a taste of life as they paused for interviews with Huey P. Newton and Kathleen Cleaver.
The coverage was noted in the U.S. as well, when TV Guide in a cover story complained about its negativity. Swedish reporters interviewed the story’s writer, balancing it with the view of director Emile de Antonio, who dismisses TV Guide as “an absolute nothing magazine.”
Officially, Sweden had been so critical of America’s role in Vietnam that the U.S. pulled its ambassador from Stockholm in 1968 and ended diplomatic relations with the country altogether for a time in 1972, after Prime Minister Olof Palme compared the bombings of Hanoi with the worst atrocities of Nazis.
Whatever the diplomatic relations, Swedish journalists certainly took the black revolutionaries more seriously and were plainly excited to be the first TV reporters to talk to an imprisoned Angela Davis. Still, because they worked from the same script, the question soon boiled down to: Do you have to use violence to reach your goals? Davis, receiving her first media visitor, was plainly annoyed by this, in just about the only footage that’s in color rather than black-and-white.
“When somebody asks me abut violence, I just find it incredible,” she says. “What it means is that the people who ask have no idea what people have gone through, what black people have experienced in this country since the time the first black person was kidnapped from the shores of Africa.”
The revolutionary tone of the film may provide grist for those on the right who erroneously see PBS as some kind of government-funded left-wing propaganda machine. When was the last time Louis Farrakhan was given a forum to talk about white devils?
But “The Black Power Mixtape” qualifies as a social history of a revolutionary movement, one quashed by a mid-1970s drug infusion to black neighborhoods that film participants are quite sure was caused by the government.
More than that, the modern voices in the film are resolute that lessons of the past need to be learned as the struggle goes on.
Wind power: Renewable resource, or another corporate scam?
A fascinating new film about one small-town political fight takes on the pseudo-green wind industry
A still from "Windfall"
In telling the story of a small-town political fight over wind power, Laura Israel’s fascinating documentary “Windfall” at first seems like another entry in the long laundry list of post-”Inconvenient Truth” doomsayer environmental films. Indeed, “Windfall” has some of the rural, homespun feeling of Josh Fox’s Oscar-nominated “Gasland,” which helped ignite a national debate over the natural-gas extraction method known as fracking. Israel’s film also offers a direct riposte to Bill Haney’s “The Last Mountain,” in which Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is seen promoting wind power as a clean alternative to the dirty and destructive combination of mountaintop-removal coal mining and coal-generated electricity.
Viewed through a long lens, “Windfall” is about much more than the hidden costs and unexpected side effects of wind-power generation, or about a citizens’ uprising in the tiny town of Meredith, N.Y., in the Catskill region 150 or so miles northwest of Manhattan. (Mind you, both are gripping stories.) It’s about the American tendency — and very likely the human tendency — to look for magic-bullet solutions to complicated social and economic problems, where none are available. It’s a microcosmic version of the political divisions — between left and right, environmentalists and free-marketers, corporations and citizens — that have virtually paralyzed our republic. It’s a reminder that whenever a virtually unregulated industry (as in this case) offers capitalists a chance to defraud the little guy and make a bundle, they’ll do it. It’s a tantalizing case study that suggests ordinary people still have the power to steer a course between faceless bureaucracies and greedy capitalists, but only just — and only if they can find a way to overcome their differences and work together.
In the abstract, wind power sounds like a good thing to nearly everybody. It relies on an essentially infinite resource, carries little or none of the obvious environmental downside of coal or oil, and presents no Fukushima-style doomsday scenario. Wind generation has become a major focus of venture capital; Israel includes video of a hearing a few years ago at which T. Boone Pickens told a congressional committee that he could imagine, in the relatively short term, 20 to 25 percent of the country’s electricity demand being fulfilled by wind and other renewables. I have no way to evaluate that claim, but the experts Israel consults in the film think it’s hokum. Given the inherently inconstant nature of wind, they argue, it’s not a stable or permanent solution to our energy crisis, and is unlikely ever to amount to more than a drop in the bucket.
Setting aside the discussion of whether it’s worthwhile to pursue wind power in the first place — and we shouldn’t really set that aside — there might be locations in the Great Plains states, the Southwest and the high western deserts where wind farms, even on the enormous scale imagined by Pickens, would do no great harm. But as people in Meredith and numerous other communities in the wind-friendly rural Northeast and Great Lakes region have discovered, living anywhere near those gargantuan wind-harnessing engines is quite a different matter. These days, the typical industrial wind turbine is around 400 feet high — the height of a 40-story building, or twice the length of a jumbo jet. The blades alone can weigh upward of 35 tons, and the entire assembly anywhere from 150 to 400 tons (resting on a platform of concrete and rebar, which itself may be 30 feet deep and weigh several hundred tons). It’s an enormous construction site, culminating in a high-voltage electrical device, that emits a 24/7 whoppa-whoppa-whoppa noise and incessant low-frequency vibration, and is topped with a brilliant flashing light. By daylight, there’s the nightmarish strobe effect — the vast rotating shadow that falls across an entire neighborhood when the turbine is between you and the sun. (While the question of whether it’s actually unhealthful to live near a turbine is unresolved, it’s definitely unpleasant.) If your neighbor put one up in her backyard without asking permission, how would you feel?
As it happens, I have a personal interest in the events and location of “Windfall,” because I spend summers in a town just a few miles from Meredith. But nothing about the town or its surrounding area (in Delaware County, N.Y., one of the poorest and least populated counties in the Northeast) is untypical of rural America. Meredith has a mix of longtime residents and big-city emigrants, and its longtime dairy-farm economy has largely collapsed in recent years, partly replaced by an unstable mixture of tourist-oriented businesses, craft initiatives and boutique organic farming. These social tensions came to the fore, predictably, during the wind-power debate, with the major landowners and dairy farmers on one side — hoping for the rather skimpy royalties paid by the corporate investors in wind — and many “recent” New York City arrivals, convinced that the region’s economic future depends on its unspoiled landscapes, on the other. (I use the scare quotes because anyone who’s lived in Delaware County less than 30 years is often viewed as a newcomer.)
People on both sides of the issue in Meredith assumed at first that the anti-turbine forces were an elitist minority, partly because the town board had always been dominated by the same landowning families, and partly because wind-power companies had signed people up to secret agreements that forbade them from discussing anything about the relationship. What ensued was a fascinating lesson in democracy (and a version of the same lesson the Tea Party and its supporters may learn later this year). After 826 people — more than half of Meredith’s total population — signed a petition opposing the town board’s pro-development policy on wind turbines, it turned out that the people who thought of themselves as the “real” residents were in the minority, and the jig was up for the wind industry in this one tiny corner of America. Yet as one newly elected board member reflects at the end of the film, nobody came out of this fight feeling good. A formerly harmonious community is now bitterly divided, and the Mitt Romney-style venture capitalists of wind power will just move on to the next town and sell their pseudo-green poisoned chalice to somebody else.
“Windfall” opens this week at the Quad Cinema in New York and the Facets Cinémathèque in Chicago. It opens Feb. 9 at the Art House Cinema 502 in Ogden, Utah, Feb. 24 at the Clinton Street Theater in Portland, Ore., and March 2 at the Northwest Film Forum in Seattle, with other cities and festival screenings to follow. It’s also available on-demand from cable, satellite and online providers, including Amazon, iTunes and VUDU.
Sundance opens with “riches to rags” story
The festival begins with the incredible true story of the tycoon, the beauty queen and their massive dream house
A still from "The Queen of Versailles"
PARK CITY, Utah — According to the mayor of this ski-resort town, which is a famous outpost of crunchy liberalism smack in the middle of the most Republican state in the union, it took the arrival of thousands of outsiders for the Sundance Film Festival to get the place back to normal. Last year the Utah Legislature passed a resolution declaring climate change a hoax, as Mayor Dana Williams told us before a Thursday night screening. Since then, Mother Nature has retaliated: It has barely snowed in the Wasatch Range this winter, leaving the region’s fabled slopes almost bare. But a day that began with drizzling rain and temperatures in the 50s ended with a healthy dose of the white stuff, while we all sat inside in overheated auditoriums watching movies.
Sundance has ditched its former tradition of having one main opening-night film, instead screening four different pictures, two American (a narrative feature and a documentary) and two foreign (ditto). This is all to the good, and avoids invidious comparisons with more Hollywood-centric festivals — but there’s little doubt this year that photographer-turned-filmmaker Lauren Greenfield’s documentary “The Queen of Versailles” was first among equals. The unbelievable-but-true story of Florida real-estate tycoon David Siegel and his ex-beauty-queen wife Jackie, who nearly went broke while trying to build the biggest house in the country, is like a Theodore Dreiser novel for our time, infused with the vivid, vulgar spirit of reality TV. It often had the sold-out Eccles Center howling, but also has elements of profound tragedy and allegory.
After everything starts to go south for the Siegels, Jackie has to take their enormous brood of children — or some of them anyway; I believe they have eight — back to her upstate New York hometown on a commercial flight. (Previously, they had gone everywhere in their private jet, of course.) But she’s still baffled when she gets to the Hertz counter at the airport in Elmira, N.Y., and asks, “Who’s my driver?” She grew up in modest middle-class circumstances and hasn’t been nosebleed-rich for that many years, but she has totally forgotten that regular people don’t have chauffeurs.
And the thing is, I never felt that Greenfield was mocking Jackie, who comes across as a likable, commonsensical middle-aged mom (albeit one with considerable, um, cosmetic enhancements) and is in many respects the heroine of the movie. She really is an ordinary person who has led a life that goes beyond the unlikely or the bizarre to the flat-out impossible. Her previous jobs included cocktail waitress and nursing-home attendant, and here she is pumping out kids and managing a 26,000-square-foot house for a sour and distracted rich guy 30 years older than her. (That’s not the uncompleted house modeled after the Palace of Versailles; that one was supposed to be 90,000 square feet.) By the end of the film, with most of the household staff laid off, Jackie’s job includes wandering around scraping dog crap off the carpeting in room after room, and discovering how many of her children’s pets have died from neglect.
David Siegel, who made his enormous fortune by selling time-share vacation rentals in places like Florida and Las Vegas (and Park City) to working- and middle-class people who couldn’t quite afford them, is apparently suing Greenfield over his portrayal in the film. Specifically, he objects to the Sundance brochure describing “Queen of Versailles” as a “riches-to-rags” story, and while I’m no lawyer, I suspect he’d have a better case if that weren’t exactly how he puts it in the movie. What David really doesn’t like, I suspect, is seeing himself on-screen as a brooding old cuss with no life outside his work and no time for his own children. He shuts himself up in a cluttered den with a widescreen TV and stacks of papers, trying to find a way to rescue both his Orlando dream house and his Vegas condo tower, now deeply underwater. (Time-share lending was essentially a species of subprime mortgage, and when credit dried up so did Siegel’s business.)
Still and all, Greenfield does allow us to see Siegel’s human qualities, especially the fact that he’s chasing the same ersatz vision of luxury, the same unattainable simulacrum of the good life, that he’s been selling to poor people one Vegas weekend at a time. He’ll probably never finish his Versailles, but even if he does it’ll have cockroaches and the same ghastly paintings of his family in pseudo-medieval finery. Siegel and his wife are of course entirely unaware that their attempt to build a replica of Versailles in Florida, and fill it with “Louis XIV-type antique furniture,” is a cruel and altogether too appropriate historical joke. But that’s really not their fault; they live in a country that has become a parody of itself.
Pick of the week: The amazing American journey of Harry Belafonte
Pick of the week: Day-O! How the singer-activist blended Caribbean shtick and fierce political passion
Harry Belafonte (Credit: HBO)
For several generations of people too young to remember the civil rights era, Harry Belafonte may seem like a baffling figure, familiar mainly from protest marches seen on television and Caribbean-shtick pop songs heard on grandma’s car radio. Who is this elderly African-American celebrity with the Italian-sounding name and the aristocratic demeanor? Why did he become famous in the first place, and why does he sometimes come off as the self-appointed radical conscience of black America? Most famously, Belafonte ignited immense controversy both within and without the black community by repeatedly suggesting that Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice were the “house slaves” of the George W. Bush administration.
Those inflammatory remarks are not mentioned in “Sing Your Song,” the rich and fascinating new documentary about Belafonte’s life and times, which was written and directed by Susanne Rostock but has clearly been authorized and approved by Belafonte and his family. We learn a great deal about Belafonte’s central role as a towering figure of the early-’60s civil-rights movement, when he was confidant and advisor to Martin Luther King Jr. But also unmentioned are his visits to Fidel Castro in Cuba and Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, his warm relations with the Soviet leadership before the fall of communism, or his assertion that George W. Bush was a greater terrorist than those who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks.
For the record, I believe that Belafonte’s remarks about Bush are entirely defensible, if impolitic. What he has to say about Barack Obama’s first term can only be imagined, because the current president’s name, startlingly, is never uttered. (His father’s is; Barack Obama Sr. first came to the United States from Kenya by way of a Belafonte-sponsored scholarship.) I don’t bring up Belafonte’s past associations or overseas visits in order to red-bait him (as his ideological opponents have done exhaustively over the years). My point is that “Sing Your Song” is a vital document of American history, which I recommend to everyone, and also an attempt to massage the patriotic legacy of a complex and polarizing figure.
One thing Rostock’s film makes abundantly clear is the fact that Belafonte had the opportunity to become a high-profile and sometimes strident social activist because his first incarnation as a celebrity was about as wholesome and non-polarizing as a black man could possibly be. Born in Harlem but largely raised in Jamaica by his grandmother, Belafonte ultimately brought the island’s folk songs back to America as mid-’50s pop-calypso hits like “Matilda,” “Man Smart (Woman Smarter)” and of course “Banana Boat Song,” which you’ve definitely heard even if you don’t know what it’s called. (Irrelevant footnote: Belafonte’s story speaks to me personally in all sorts of ways, but partly because it parallels that of my own father, who was born in the same month of 1927 a few dozen blocks to the north, and then was sent back to his own grandmother on a somewhat colder island.) With his trademark tight pants and unbuttoned shirt, the muscular Belafonte became a sex symbol to millions of white women and girls at a time when interracial marriage was still impossible in many states, and toured with a mixed-race folk group to cities where black audiences had to watch from the balcony.
I realize this is stretching a little, but Belafonte in the ’50s — viewed strictly as a cultural archetype — was something like an early version of Obama, an articulate and handsome light-skinned African-American who spoke standard English better than most white people did. (To this day, Belafonte’s pronunciation of the word “theater” is redolent with cultural specificity; he says it as Bette Davis or Lynn Redgrave would have.) But as Belafonte himself explains it in the film, his path to stardom was at least partly calculated. Near the beginning of his performing career as a folk singer, he remembers, his idol Paul Robeson came to see him backstage at the Village Vanguard and told him: “Get them to sing your song, and they’ll want to know who you are.”
If anything, “Sing Your Song” may convey the impression that Belafonte’s career as a pop singer and stage and film actor — a shameless ham, it must be said — was simply a means to an end, a tool to be used against Jim Crow and apartheid and other forms of racism and injustice around the world. While I suppose it’s true that Belafonte’s close working friendship with King, or his later relationships with Nelson Mandela and Jean-Bertrand Aristide, may weigh more in the scales of history than “Banana Boat Song,” he honestly may be selling himself a little short. Sure, some of Belafonte’s calypso numbers may be cheesy, but he was a generous singer with a huge spirit, who pioneered multiculturalism and “world music” long before anyone used those words. The performers he introduced to mainstream audiences included Odetta, Nana Mouskouri and, most famously, Miriam Makeba — and his 1962 album “Midnight Special” featured a then-unknown harmonica player named Bob Dylan. (In the movie, you’ll watch him perform “Hava Nagila” on network TV in 1959, which became part of his concert repertoire for years. You can think that’s silly or think it’s awesome; I vote for both.)
Belafonte’s early association with Robeson (who was without doubt a communist) will raise in some viewers’ minds the long-cherished right-wing assumption that Belafonte was or is a treacherous Red seeking to destroy the American way of life. Even bracketing the fact that the two things are not connected — most American communists were not traitors, just as most American Muslims do not support terrorism — the evidence is pretty thin. Even the right-wing investigative site Discover the Networks can go no further than claims that Belafonte was “aligned with the Communist Left” and that he “views America as an evil and profoundly racist nation.” Depending on your definition of “evil,” those vague and disputable terms could be used to describe all kinds of people, from Cornel West to Noam Chomsky to Roger Ebert (to me).
“Sing Your Song” never addresses these allegations directly, other than sourcing most of the FBI’s files on Belafonte to a shadowy figure named Jay Richard Kennedy (aka Samuel Solomonick), a one-time Communist Party insider turned showbiz executive and government informant. Kennedy was Belafonte’s manager for several years — while his wife served as Belafonte’s therapist! — and the two of them apparently fed the FBI some ludicrous “Manchurian Candidate” line about Belafonte being a double agent “controlled by Peking.” My Internet searches suggest that at least one academic is trying to write a book about Kennedy/Solomonick, and I can’t wait to read that one.
I don’t support everything Belafonte has ever said or done, but he’s a hugely important American dissident who’s been on the right side way more often than the wrong one, and who pioneered a path followed by many other activist celebrities, from Marlon Brando to Sean Penn and beyond. Even in this carefully staged self-portrait, we meet a man in his 80s who is aware of his failings as a husband and father (although his two youngest children, David and Gina, helped produce the film) and plagued by the thought that all his labors against tyranny and injustice have not nearly been enough. On one hand, he comes off as boundlessly optimistic, seeking to hand off the torch of rebellion to a new generation; on the other, since the 1980s he seems to have hardened and grown less tolerant of politics. He declined to attend Mandela’s inauguration as president of South Africa because of his rift with Bill and Hillary Clinton, and declined to attend Coretta Scott King’s funeral because Bush would be there.
With his physical health precarious, Belafonte keeps touring the globe, meeting with European hip-hop artists, L.A. gang members, prison inmates, Native American leaders and his own council of African-American “elders,” in search of some resolution or program that might reverse the global tide of neoliberal capitalism and pseudo-democratic police states. He’s a hero, all right, but not the kind who gets to ride triumphantly into the sunset at story’s end. More like the hero of a long-running tragedy, the kind of hero once summarized this way by the English socialist William Morris: “Men fight and lose the battle, and the thing that they fought for comes about in spite of their defeat, and when it comes turns out not to be what they meant.”
“Sing Your Song” opens this week at the IFC Center in New York and the Playhouse 7 in Pasadena, Calif. It opens Jan. 20 in Santa Fe, N.M.; Jan. 27 in Portland, Ore., San Francisco and Seattle; Feb. 3 in Denver; Feb. 10 in Albuquerque, N.M., and Bellingham, Wash.; Feb. 12 in Montgomery, Ala.; Feb. 17 in Hartford, Conn.; and March 16 in Minneapolis, with other screenings and venues to be announced.
Right-wing documentary targets Occupy
Exclusive: Film in the making from Citizens United is likely to portray protesters as anti-democratic anarchists
VIDEO
(Credit: AP)
Citizens United, which specializes in making documentaries with strong right-wing messages, is currently in production for a film about the Occupy movement, a spokesman for the group confirms to Salon.
The landmark 2010 Supreme Court case that loosened campaign finance restrictions was brought by Citizens United and centered on an anti-Hillary Clinton movie made by the group. Opposition to that ruling has been a consistent message of participants in Occupy movement.
The new film is to be called “Mic Check: The Untold Story of the Occupy Movement.” A participant at Occupy Wall Street recently received an interview request from a Citizens United producer that included this description of the film:
Never in living memory has such a small political movement received such disproportionate attention from the press. Never in living memory has a movement been so widely scrutinized and yet so deeply misunderstood. Is it possible both the left and right have made the error of thinking that the forces behind Occupy Wall Street are interested in democratic politics and problem solving?
In Mic Check: The Untold Story of the Occupy Movement, we’ll look at the roots of the Occupy movement and hear from it undeclared ‘leaders’. We’ll go inside the still existing encampments in Los Angeles and Washington D.C., into the frequently contentious street rallies and hear from participants about their protest, their goals and their vision for the future.
(Emphasis added.)
That bolded line is taken almost verbatim from a Weekly Standard article by Matthew Continetti, who argues that Occupy is an attempt “to establish a socialist utopia through revolutionary anarchism” and that the movement must be met with legal and ideological opposition.
The email from the Citizens United producer says that filming is scheduled to be complete by Jan. 13 and adds that she can “arrange a video crew to tape in nearly any city in the US if need be.”
Here’s a taste of the Citizens United style:
Page 1 of 39 in Documentaries
Occupy fights the law: Will the law win?
The right’s lost causes
Unhappy Valentine’s Day in Israel
What a GOP cave looks like
Interview With My Bully: When I confronted my bully about racism
Iran’s Greens aim to rise again
The prettiest boy in the world
Should I donate a kidney to my friend?
America’s billionaire-run democracy
The bishops go off the deep end 

