FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
A disaffected working-class Londoner (Phil Daniels) rides a scooter with his Mod buddies while pining after a beautiful girl (Leslie Ash) whose affection he finally wins (temporarily) during a bloody riot in Brighton against a rival gang of Rocker bikers.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Coming-of-Age
• Counterculture
• Gangs
• Juvenile Delinquents
• Motorcycles

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that “England’s first street film, about the turbulent Mods vs. Rockers music-motorcycles-fashion scene in 1964 (the year of the Brighton riots)” is “the most exciting, perceptive youth film since Rebel Without a Cause.” He writes that “it wasn’t made with an international market in mind” — meaning “there’s no preface for the uninitiated that defines and contrasts the warring Mods and Rockers”, and “the working-class characters speak with thick cockney accents” — but he notes that he “can’t see why Americans can’t identify with it”, given that “young viewers can relate to the Mods, who define themselves by their musical taste, revolutionary fashions, anti-social posturing, and anarchical brand of violence”. He further notes that “one can become extremely sentimental because director Franc Roddam has done a remarkable job of re-creating the youth scene of 1964: dark, wet London streets, empty but for the herds of Mods on Italian scooters and Rockers on heavy cycles in search of a rumble; dingy, sweat-filled clubs; greasy diners, pinball joints, back alleys, dance halls, etc.” He concludes his review by asserting that “this is a superb, powerful film, ambitiously directed by Roddam with wit, style, and passion”, and that “you can’t help feeling that adrenaline rush so often experienced in the mix-sixties”.

Given that most film fanatics these days weren’t alive in the 1960s, Quadrophenia may hold less personal appeal — though it remains a potent depiction of a “character we can all identify with”, someone who “represents all youths in the throes of growing pains, in desperate search for their identities”. As uncredited screenwriter Pete Townshend said in an interview:

I could still remember that feeling of struggling to fit in, something that happened to me when I was even younger, around 14, and everyone around me seemed to have got their lives on track. This is such a universal experience for young people that it has echoed.

Perhaps most representative of adolescent angst is beautiful Steph (Ash), an embodiment of the toxic MGTOW movement in that she “marries up” as soon as a new bloke holds dominance or interest. Daniels’ pain and bewilderment at Ash (and at life in general) are completely understandable, given he’s someone who “doesn’t fit in anywhere because he tries too hard to be different” and is “always more excited, angrier, or more frustrated than anyone else; to him every moment has great significance”. His final sequence with Ace Face (Sting) is an appropriately crushing denouement.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Phil Daniels as Jimmy (nominated by Peary as one of the Best Actors of the Year in his Alternate Oscars)
  
• A powerful portrait of disillusioned youth
  
  
• Nice use of authentic locales
  
• Brian Tufano’s cinematography
  
  
  
• A fine, subtly incorporated “concept soundtrack” by The Who

Must See?
Yes, once, as a cult favorite. Described at length in Peary’s Cult Movies 2.

Categories

• Cult Movie

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Combustible Celluloid Review
• Q Network Review
• DVD Savant Review
• Spinning Image Review
• NY Times Original Review

Synopsis:
A young boy (Barry Winch) whose mother (Ann-Margret) becomes a widow during WWII grows up blind, deaf, and mute. As an adult, Tommy (Roger Daltrey) is taken by his mother and step-father (Oliver Reed) to a preacher (Eric Clapton) and an “Acid Queen” (Tina Turner) who attempt to cure him, and is also left with abusive caretakers (Paul Nicholas and Keith Moon) who fail to elicit any reaction. When Tommy becomes a pinball champion, however, he develops an enormous following, and is soon a figure of religious reverence.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Ann-Margret Films
• Blindness
• Cults
• Deafness
• Jack Nicholson Films
• Ken Russell Films
• Musicals
• Oliver Reed Films
• Rock ‘n Roll

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that Ken Russell’s screen adaptation of “The Who’s rock opera” album — about a “deaf, dumb, and blind English boy who is pitied, ignored, abandoned, and abused until his pinball wizardry makes him a national hero”:

— is “ambitious, flamboyant, and at times imaginative, but eventually the succession of wild, colorful, and sometimes disgusting images wears you down”. He argues that “the picture’s about 40 minutes too long”, and that “another problem is that the score by Pete Townshend (with help from John Entwhistle and Keith Moon) doesn’t compare to the best Who music.” I’m in agreement with Peary’s assessment, and find it surprising that Ann-Margret — playing Tommy’s “tormented, heavy-drinking mother” — was nominated for an Oscar (presumably due to her multiple age-portrayals and impressively high level of dramatic “commitment”).

With all that said, this film is much too creatively staged and shot not to be seen at least once — and fans will likely enjoy repeat visits.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Endlessly creative and surreal imagery, sets, and costumes
  
  
  
• Stellar cinematography
  
  
  

Must See?
Once, as a dizzying cult favorite by a reknowned director.

Categories

• Cult Movie

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Spinning Image Review
• Moria Review

Synopsis:
Nearly half a million hippies converge on a farm in New York, enjoying music, drugs, peace, and good vibes despite the crowded conditions.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Concert Films
• Counterculture
• Documentary
• Rock ‘n Roll

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “epic documentary beautifully covers this seminal cultural event” in which “more than 500,000 young people showed up for [a] three-day rock-music concert in 1969 on a farm in upstate New York”. He notes that “the whole youth-protest movement was there in spirit and took pride in how peaceful this event was. It was where the love generation’s dreams came true: a beautiful communal society where everyone pulled together under difficult circumstances, where there was the sound of music instead of gunfire.” He further adds that the documentary — “directed by Michael Wadleigh in cinéma vérité style” — conveys “that far more important than the all-star performances were the people who had gathered and lived for three days without adequate food supplies, bathroom facilities, medical supervision or protection from the heavy rains”, who nonetheless turned the event “into a successful communal experiment”. He notes that “performers later admitted that they were overwhelmed by the spirit of the event and felt it a privilege to play for this audience”.

There is much to enjoy about this engaging, smartly crafted documentary — but perhaps most impressive is how thoroughly the filmmakers provide as many perspectives on the event as possible. We hear from disgruntled neighbors, but also surprisingly generous and kind locals, such as those who stepped up to help feed the hungry crowds, or the cheery Port-a-San janitor who states he is “glad to do [his work] for these kids”. We see plenty of “turned on” participants having the time of their lives — but also listen to one distressed young woman desperate to escape the crowds. We hear a tireless worker sharing a hilariously rambling anecdote about trippers (“You wouldn’t believe some of the kids that come in here. They’re really spaced out. Last night, this cat, this cat comes in and says, ‘If anger is red and envy is green, what color is jealousy?’ And I mean, he’s really spaced out! And you just don’t go fucking people’s heads up when they’re spaced out! So I said, uh, “Black, right? Because jealousy is poison.'”) — but she then admits to feeling concern about her sister:

I mean, like, right now I’m missing my sister. I lost her. She was on, uh, on mesc. And I lost her during Richie Haven’s performance. I’ve got her tickets home. I haven’t seen her since… She’s all right. Sure she is. It’s just that I’d like to see her so I can get home in time. She’s got to be back Monday for court. Otherwise, you know, I wouldn’t care. Otherwise, I’d probably let her hitch home.

Speaking of home, we see kids lining up to make calls at a crowded telephone booth; sleeping like sardines on top of cars; skinny-dipping; caring for young children. We also see the tremendous amount of trash left behind after the concert (a detail most documentaries would shy away from); I was reminded of Frederick Wiseman’s films, which cover all facets — both important and seemingly insignificant — of what it takes to make an event or place run smoothly. One thing that distinguishes Wadleigh’s film from Wiseman’s, however, is his innovative use of split-screen imagery to show diverse perspectives on either a single moment or different points in time. The juxtaposition of concerned middle-aged neighbors with a shot of teens skinny-dipping is deliberately provocative, while other combinations simply help to convey the vastness of the event.

Split-screen and super-imposition is especially extensive during musical sequences — to powerful effect, given that we can see both performers and viewers at once. IMDb notes that this stylistic choice was driven by necessity:

The two- and three-panel screen presentations seen throughout much of the movie were innovations born of necessity on the part of its creators and a film editor named Martin Scorsese. With so much footage shot, and the studio’s unwillingness to expand the length of the released film’s running time, it was decided that a way must be found to maximize the amount of footage that could be used.

Interestingly, the musical performances ALMOST seem secondary to the ethnographic footage — though there are plenty of powerful songs, most notably Jimi Hendrix’s legendary riff on “Star Spangled Banner”. Interested viewers can read much, much more about this event — and the musical line-up — in numerous books or websites. Click here for a minute-by-minute overview of who performed when.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• A refreshingly thorough, multi-faceted look at this historic event
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• Highly effective use of split-screen and super-imposed editing
  
  
  
  
• Several powerful, memorable musical sequences
  

Must See?
Yes, of course.

Categories

• Genuine Classic
• Historical Relevance
• Oscar Winner or Nominee

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Roger Ebert’s Review
• DVD Savant Review
• Chicago Reader Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
The raucuous style of British rock band The Who — singer Roger Daltrey, guitarist Pete Townshend, bassist John Entwistle, and drummer Keith Moon — evolves over their 15 years of performing together.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Documentary
• Musicians
• Rock and Roll

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, this “very good documentary about the early years of the seminal British supergroup The Who” contains “interview material” that is “kept brief and doesn’t interfere with the group’s many songs, taken from concert footage, television appearances, and studio jam sessions”. We get an excellent sense of the four band members’ irreverent humor, as well as their diverse personalities: charming Daltrey (that hair! those abs!), dynamic Townshend (his energy and talent — and nose — are truly one-of-a-kind), goofy Moon (never not clowning on camera), and aloof Entwistle (static in comparison with his band-mates). Peary notes that throughout the non-linear film, “we see the group age and their style of dress switch from mod to flamboyant to casual, but if anything, their energy level picks up, their songs become louder, their musicianship becomes more complex, and their anarchic style, typified by Pete Townshend smashing his guitars and Keith Moon his drums, becomes less an angry, ostentatious gesture than a way they can properly convey the artist’s/musician’s need for completely free self-expression”.

I’m not positive about the veracity of the latter assertion, especially given the following rather cynical quote by young Townshend early in the group’s career:

You have to resign yourself to the fact that a large part of the audience is sort of thick, you know, and don’t appreciate quality, however much you try and put it over. The fact is that our group isn’t… hasn’t got any quality. It’s just musical sensationalism.

as well as the film’s closing quote by an older Townshend (see beginning of this review), which continues as follows:

It’s not people just saying, “Listen, you’ll disappoint your fans if you don’t go on. The show must go on. You must go on, otherwise all those people will be so upset.” It’s, “You’ve got to go on, man. Otherwise, all those kids, they’ll be finished. They’ll have nothing to live for.” That’s rock and roll.

With that said, this final interview clip is followed by an enjoyably energetic and well-staged performance of “Won’t Get Fooled Again”, and surprisingly touching shots of the band embracing their adoring fans on-stage — thus making it seem like these men truly are playing for the enjoyment they bring to their fans (and continue to do so today).

Note: According to Wikipedia, the deeply drug-addicted “Moon… died one week after seeing the rough cut [of this documentary] with Daltrey.”

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Valuable, enjoyable footage of the group’s dynamic performance style and audience appeal
  
  
  
  
  

Must See?
No, but I think most film fanatics will want to check it out simply for general cultural interest and rockin’ music.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Spinning Image Review
• DVD Savant Review