Members nat whilk II Posted March 16, 2014 Members Share Posted March 16, 2014 Ok, we watched the Inside Llewyn Davis movie, and, take this to the extent I have any credibility around here, that: > this movie is totally sympathetic to the hard-working musician who just can't seem to make it financially in the business in spite of being quite a good talent and a sincere practitioner, > the movie is carefully crafted to show the attitudes prevalent in the 60s that heaped contempt on the folkies (namely the jazzers and Kerouacian beatsters, not to mention lovers who wanted you to provide a secure income and a nice home in the 'burbs, which, of course, as a starving artist you could not do, and > you think about the real talents that never make the big time, but keep practicing their art, just getting by for years and years, decades and careers, in spite of resistance in the world and at home. Like Dave Van Ronk, to an extent. This movie honors those people. They are not perfect, ok, but lord above, what they endured and how they endured regardless. Good Movie. Three thumbs up if I had them. Not a home run for the masses, but a message for those who know the drill, being artists and struggling. that's the view from over here... nat whilk ii Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Lee Knight Posted March 17, 2014 Moderators Share Posted March 17, 2014 Good review and I agree with every point you made. Not sure of some if the neg surrounding this flick. It's odd, not perfect, but I absolutely loved it. Now go watch the excellent concert movie. Very good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blue2blue Posted March 17, 2014 Members Share Posted March 17, 2014 Thanks, Nat. That's reassuring. My negativity about the film has all been generated directly in my mind by the advance publicity, cast, and spokespeople. But I find your personal overview of the movie itself quite valuable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Lee Knight Posted March 17, 2014 Moderators Share Posted March 17, 2014 Thanks, Nat. That's reassuring. My negativity about the film has all been generated directly in my mind by the advance publicity, cast, and spokespeople. But I find your personal overview of the movie itself quite valuable. You're not the only one with a negative reaction to the film though. I found it pretty respectful to musicians in general. Sort of a nod to the artists. the Van Ronk thing seems to put some off. The main actor mentions outright his name was thrown around quite a bit. But only as an inspiration for a character. This is no biography. Far from it. This isn't supposed to be Van Ronk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blue2blue Posted March 17, 2014 Members Share Posted March 17, 2014 Yeah, unfortunately, a lot of the early write-ups and promo from the Coen camp made it sound like Van Ronk was the inspiration and they kept talking about him as though he was a negligible hanger-on. You have to realize that the Coens have been my favorite current filmmakers for years but that Dave Van Ronk was one of my earliest influences and probably the first folkie I really bonded with. Maybe he didn't play the pop celeb game like others -- but he had an enormous body of excellent work, was a fine player, a soulful, characterful singer, and an early champion of some fine then-young writers like Joni Mitchell. He didn't deserve some of the dismissals he received at the hands of those doing promo for the Coens. It was offensive to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nat whilk II Posted March 17, 2014 Author Members Share Posted March 17, 2014 No question, the Coens appropriated a whole bunch of images and vignettes from the real histories of some real people. Van Ronk is the central template or whatever you might call it. The tendency of movie makers to treat the personal histories of actual people as just so much free material to appropriate and reconstruct in any fashion that fits their artistic goal is growing more marked all the time. Kind of similar to using samples of other people's recordings, no? So is it biography or not? No - it's a long, long way from biography. But on the other hand, the film works very hard at presenting an authentic reconstruction of an actual time and place and scene. So the distinction between fact and fiction is very blurry, very post-modern. If it were my movie, I'd wonder if maybe I should stick a disclaimer up on the screen at the beginning or end, the old "this is fiction, not intended as a history of actual persons" etc. just to fend off misunderstanding and show some respect for the sake of surviving family and friends. But that's an old-fashioned scruple seemingly. The movie is not "about" Dave Van Ronk - it's about what you can do with Dave Van Ronk's (and others) life story and image and so on. Besides, artists these days really don't like to answer questions as to what their creations are "about" - the stock current response is "it's not about anything, it's just what it is. You can interpret it any way you want, we could care less." Seems like there a real danger of insensitivity to me, when it comes to such heavy borrowing from actual people, when artists typically feel no obligation to anyone's "memory" or whatever. But it's the prevailing attitude, and after all, we're just talking about a movie, and as I said earlier, the movie honors the journeymen laborers in the music field....I have mixed feelings about all this. nat whilk ii Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators MrKnobs Posted March 18, 2014 Moderators Share Posted March 18, 2014 I watched this tonight with my missus, just a few minutes ago. I have a somewhat different opinion from Nat's. Obviously we can't discuss the movie in detail without spoilers, so I'll be careful not to do that. So let's stay general. First of all, does this movie have any message other than being a singer songwriter sucks? Have any of you posting here not experienced a very similar set of events that the title character did? The following will be my own experiences so I don't spoil any of the movie. Have you guys not played crappy dives, slept on floors, played when you were massively food poisoned or otherwise ill? Been BS'd by venue owners, not got paid, been hassled and / or arrested for BS reasons? Have you played for chump change, been told you aren't good enough, been ripped off by agents, discovered your bandmates were sleeping with the same girls you were, traveled squeezed into a unreliable stinky van with people you would never associate with if if wasn't for the biz? Carted in your gear from a mile away (F you, SXSW!) just to play a free 20 minute show? Those are (mostly) just things that RECENTLY happened to me. It's a horrible life being a singer songwriter, constantly humiliating. There's never a gig that I play without saying a little prayer of thanks that I stayed in school and don't HAVE to do music for a living. So, yeah, the movie is pretty accurate but what's the point? And Llewyn is kind of a jerk, not a very sympathetic character in my opinion. Hard to feel sorry for him. The music was mostly meh (as the kids say) up until the very end where you know what (if you watched it) happened. I see people far more talented than myself failing miserably, maybe that was the point of the movie. Terry D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nat whilk II Posted March 18, 2014 Author Members Share Posted March 18, 2014 Yeah, I pretty much agree, except that Llewyn didn't strike me as being as much of a jerk as all that. Oh, yeah, he was a real a-hole a couple of times, no question. But he was treated just as bad, and worse, constantly. The Coens are big on self-inflicted problems, so they spread the blame nicely around the entire environment in addition to Llewyn's own Reverse Midas Touch. Everyone gets pretty low marks except for the one (hopelessly square) family that truly cared for Llewyn. I think it's a valid message intended for non-musicians, to have the plight of the struggling musician deglamorized so thoroughly. For those of us in and around the trade, it's pretty satisfying commiseration. And the Coens, to my mind, always ultimately tell entertaining and clever stories that illustrate their take on human nature. There's a old gripe critics developed in the 1800s about Shakespeare - that he certainly had fascinating characters, but he had no clear moral to his tales. For me, there's so much psychological truth and brilliant characterization in Shakespeare, that he needs nothing else whatsoever. On a less exalted tier and admittedly to a lesser extent, I still can say I feel kind of that way about the Coens, and even Tarantino, when at their best. nat whilk ii Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators MrKnobs Posted March 18, 2014 Moderators Share Posted March 18, 2014 I think it's a valid message intended for non-musicians, to have the plight of the struggling musician deglamorized so thoroughly. For those of us in and around the trade, it's pretty satisfying commiseration. nat whilk ii Do we want non-musicians to know that, though? I was once in a band with a drummer that had had his 15 minutes of fame with a big time group that had been on Midnight Special, had a label contract, hot album out, etc. before their bassist killed himself and thereby the whole deal for everyone. This drummer used to preach to us that it's really important to stay "bigger than life" to the audience. He even went so far as to scold the rest of us if we chatted with audience members after the show. I thought it was ridiculous at the time, now I think about it sometimes and wonder. Another group I was in was pure hyped crap, all of us hired as sidemen for very popular Elvis / Freddy Fender impersonator. Each small town we'd play in, he have us give a free short show in the gym or auditorium of the local high school. He played up his "big rock star" image, and, to our surprise and disgust, the kids totally bought into it and showed up in large numbers at the paid show that night. Once it backfired in a big way. Del Rio TX only has a couple of big hotels and the kids figured out where we must be staying and showed up in large numbers THERE after the show and pretty much trashed the place, believing we really were leading the rock star life and wanting to participate. Our "star" went along with the fantasy, even appearing briefly on a balcony to throw a TV in the pool. My point is maybe it's not such a good idea to let the fans see us dividing the tip jar after the show, hauling our own gear out to the alley and bunjee cording it to a dolly like a homeless person. Maybe it's better to let them imagine us sipping Veuve Cliquot off groupie bellies in the penthouse suite. Maybe they need to live a little vicariously through us. Maybe... just maybe.... (ducks)... the image / fantasy is even more important than the music. Terry D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nat whilk II Posted March 18, 2014 Author Members Share Posted March 18, 2014 Ha! Great story. You are a human encyclopedia of great stories - surely you've been told that before. Oh, yeah, the schtick is part of the deal, unavoidable. Even if you fight and scream that you have no schtick, if you're popular, one will be created for you by your fans - they will dress you in it and put words in your mouth like a doll. If Llewyn Davis were a real person, he would be forever characterized as the underdog, perservering musician by adoring fans. All Dylan has really done is just try to stay one schtick ahead in the game. There are tons of music fans that I believe never really hear the music - they just like belonging to the fanclub. God bless 'em, their money is as good as everyone else's. nat whilk ii Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rasputin1963 Posted March 20, 2014 Members Share Posted March 20, 2014 Yeah, ILD is a fascinating movie. Not a feelgood film by any stretch. But Llewyn was truly his own worst enemy. (Is "selling out" truly the worst thing that could happen to a guy?? Pop's "sellouts", quite frankly, are whom we remember, after all). ) I agree with Terry that the music didn't blow me away, even Llewyn did not seem to me to be an amazing fount of talent (three-chords over some dreary pseudo-Irish poetry?). Those Kingston Trio/Chad Mitchell records of the 60's sounded so warm and convivial... but all the songs in this film, without exception, seemed cold-cold-cold to me... I'm sure that was the Coen's perverse intention. Notice the way every song in the film was played in its entirety? Was I the only one growing bored by the third verse of each song? (Again, I think the Coen's calculated that). It's a bitter film: Goodman's sad portrayal cemented that: infinitely more talented that Llewyn Davis... but strung out on smack and living (apparently) in his car. Gotta love the way the career of the dippy little jug-eared hinterlandishe goy seems to be on the rise, while Llewyn's seems to be on a perpetual downer. I think the Coen's were also issuing a "tsk-tsk" to Jewish artists who should have more self-respect than to cover up their Jewishness. The nasty fact about pop music is that audiences mostly want acts who look appealing ("show us yer tits!"), who look like they're having fun onstage, and who make them feel good, period. For the most part, they don't care about an artist's inner emotional conflicts (unless they possess a stunning talent and riveting charisma, neither of which Llewyn had). The artist who goes into pop music to exorcise his demons is in for a rocky road. The photography in ILD was just amazing, I thought: that bizarrely ugly, cavernous 60's diner; the incredibly soulless look of that yellow-grey blizzard over the black unfeeling highway... marvelous stuff. The Coens always take risks that pay off. I think the Coen's message of this film was not unlike that of Christopher Guest's A MIGHTY WIND: even 60's Folk, thought to be so earnest, was essentially showbiz bull{censored}, like any other fad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Lee Knight Posted March 20, 2014 Moderators Share Posted March 20, 2014 I watched this tonight with my missus, just a few minutes ago. I have a somewhat different opinion from Nat's. Obviously we can't discuss the movie in detail without spoilers, so I'll be careful not to do that. So let's stay general. First of all, does this movie have any message other than being a singer songwriter sucks? Have any of you posting here not experienced a very similar set of events that the title character did? The following will be my own experiences so I don't spoil any of the movie. Have you guys not played crappy dives, slept on floors, played when you were massively food poisoned or otherwise ill? Been BS'd by venue owners, not got paid, been hassled and / or arrested for BS reasons? Have you played for chump change, been told you aren't good enough, been ripped off by agents, discovered your bandmates were sleeping with the same girls you were, traveled squeezed into a unreliable stinky van with people you would never associate with if if wasn't for the biz? Carted in your gear from a mile away (F you, SXSW!) just to play a free 20 minute show? Those are (mostly) just things that RECENTLY happened to me. It's a horrible life being a singer songwriter, constantly humiliating. There's never a gig that I play without saying a little prayer of thanks that I stayed in school and don't HAVE to do music for a living. So, yeah, the movie is pretty accurate but what's the point? And Llewyn is kind of a jerk, not a very sympathetic character in my opinion. Hard to feel sorry for him. The music was mostly meh (as the kids say) up until the very end where you know what (if you watched it) happened. I see people far more talented than myself failing miserably, maybe that was the point of the movie. Terry D. We all have different expectations and benchmarks for the films, paintings, music, art we experience. For me... ...the film delivered in spades. I told my wife not to waste her time. I know her taste and this isn't it by a long stretch. Not for everyone and not really a musician's movie. Still, for me... ...it had a lot to say under the guise of not saying very much at all. His mind is invested in the unappreciated art of daydreaming. Of being an artist. Things like money, keeping the cat in, not burning bridges while drunk, getting along with family, the SIMPLE things in life... are not so simple or obvious to him. They're an ongoing nuisance, mystery and bother to him. He's got... things to think about. And they certainly don't romanticize or demonize that notion. I loved that about it. Q: It's me, can I come up? A: No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nat whilk II Posted March 20, 2014 Author Members Share Posted March 20, 2014 ...the music didn't blow me away' date=' even Llewyn did not seem to me to be an amazing fount of talent ...Was I the only one growing bored by the third verse of each song? (Again, I think the Coen's calculated that). [/quote'] The issue of the quality of Llewyn's music is a key issue, seems to me. The F. Murray Abraham character was the "Truth Teller" in this movie. So many movies have this iconic character somewhere in the film - typically an older, seasoned, intelligent person who is not invested in the main character's ups and down. Llewyn sits down, gives him a very good performance of an old traditional folk tune (a very sad one), and we watch Grossman's [Abraham's] inscrutable look, hoping for something good to finally happen to Llewyn. Instead, it's "I don't see a lot of money here. You're okay. You're not green. You're no front guy but if you can grow a goatee, stay out of the sun, we might see how your voice works with [this trio he's putting together, obviously a reference to Peter, Paul, and Mary.] Of course Llewyn's gift for taking the wrong turn leads him to turn this down. Ahh...the truth didn't do him much good, did it? That's pure Coens, that is. nat whilk tii Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blue2blue Posted March 20, 2014 Members Share Posted March 20, 2014 Do we want non-musicians to know that, though? I was once in a band with a drummer that had had his 15 minutes of fame with a big time group that had been on Midnight Special, had a label contract, hot album out, etc. before their bassist killed himself and thereby the whole deal for everyone. This drummer used to preach to us that it's really important to stay "bigger than life" to the audience. He even went so far as to scold the rest of us if we chatted with audience members after the show. I thought it was ridiculous at the time, now I think about it sometimes and wonder. Another group I was in was pure hyped crap, all of us hired as sidemen for very popular Elvis / Freddy Fender impersonator. Each small town we'd play in, he have us give a free short show in the gym or auditorium of the local high school. He played up his "big rock star" image, and, to our surprise and disgust, the kids totally bought into it and showed up in large numbers at the paid show that night. Once it backfired in a big way. Del Rio TX only has a couple of big hotels and the kids figured out where we must be staying and showed up in large numbers THERE after the show and pretty much trashed the place, believing we really were leading the rock star life and wanting to participate. Our "star" went along with the fantasy, even appearing briefly on a balcony to throw a TV in the pool. My point is maybe it's not such a good idea to let the fans see us dividing the tip jar after the show, hauling our own gear out to the alley and bunjee cording it to a dolly like a homeless person. Maybe it's better to let them imagine us sipping Veuve Cliquot off groupie bellies in the penthouse suite. Maybe they need to live a little vicariously through us. Maybe... just maybe.... (ducks)... the image / fantasy is even more important than the music. Terry D. I take the opposite tack. I can sort of stretch to put up with some ego/front BS from those who are really talented -- but I've just got that scruffy up from the streets mentality and always have since the sixties. Maybe, in fact, it's because I was so into folk music in the early 60s. At any rate, I've got less than zero tolerance for those who are not super-talented but act like someone is supposed to think they are -- or, worse, act like they think they are. If you've got it all, you can get away with a lot. But come off like an asshole to me and have one little chink in your armor and your going to end up in my discard pile. EDIT: I just had a stunning revelation. I mean a real stunner. Phil Ochs started the glam movement. A large part of the appeal of glam was irony and nothing had the acid-burned irony of Phil Ochs putting on that silver lame evening jacket (or tuxedo, can't keep that straight, I'm more a blue chambray workshirt/plaid flannel kind of guy) and singing bitter songs of war and betrayal by our leaders. And then he hung himself. There ya go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blue2blue Posted March 20, 2014 Members Share Posted March 20, 2014 Do we want non-musicians to know that, though? I was once in a band with a drummer that had had his 15 minutes of fame with a big time group that had been on Midnight Special, had a label contract, hot album out, etc. before their bassist killed himself and thereby the whole deal for everyone. This drummer used to preach to us that it's really important to stay "bigger than life" to the audience. He even went so far as to scold the rest of us if we chatted with audience members after the show. I thought it was ridiculous at the time, now I think about it sometimes and wonder. Another group I was in was pure hyped crap, all of us hired as sidemen for very popular Elvis / Freddy Fender impersonator. Each small town we'd play in, he have us give a free short show in the gym or auditorium of the local high school. He played up his "big rock star" image, and, to our surprise and disgust, the kids totally bought into it and showed up in large numbers at the paid show that night. Once it backfired in a big way. Del Rio TX only has a couple of big hotels and the kids figured out where we must be staying and showed up in large numbers THERE after the show and pretty much trashed the place, believing we really were leading the rock star life and wanting to participate. Our "star" went along with the fantasy, even appearing briefly on a balcony to throw a TV in the pool. My point is maybe it's not such a good idea to let the fans see us dividing the tip jar after the show, hauling our own gear out to the alley and bunjee cording it to a dolly like a homeless person. Maybe it's better to let them imagine us sipping Veuve Cliquot off groupie bellies in the penthouse suite. Maybe they need to live a little vicariously through us. Maybe... just maybe.... (ducks)... the image / fantasy is even more important than the music. Terry D. That's about the first thing I've read that made me feel like maybe I wanted to see the movie after all. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blue2blue Posted March 20, 2014 Members Share Posted March 20, 2014 Yeah' date=' ILD is a fascinating movie. Not a feelgood film by any stretch. But Llewyn was truly his own worst enemy. (Is "selling out" truly the worst thing that could happen to a guy?? Pop's "sellouts", quite frankly, are whom we [i']remember[/i], after all). ) I agree with Terry that the music didn't blow me away, even Llewyn did not seem to me to be an amazing fount of talent (three-chords over some dreary pseudo-Irish poetry?). Those Kingston Trio/Chad Mitchell records of the 60's sounded so warm and convivial... but all the songs in this film, without exception, seemed cold-cold-cold to me... I'm sure that was the Coen's perverse intention. Notice the way every song in the film was played in its entirety? Was I the only one growing bored by the third verse of each song? (Again, I think the Coen's calculated that). It's a bitter film: Goodman's sad portrayal cemented that: infinitely more talented that Llewyn Davis... but strung out on smack and living (apparently) in his car. Gotta love the way the career of the dippy little jug-eared hinterlandishe goy seems to be on the rise, while Llewyn's seems to be on a perpetual downer. I think the Coen's were also issuing a "tsk-tsk" to Jewish artists who should have more self-respect than to cover up their Jewishness. The nasty fact about pop music is that audiences mostly want acts who look appealing ("show us yer tits!"), who look like they're having fun onstage, and who make them feel good, period. For the most part, they don't care about an artist's inner emotional conflicts (unless they possess a stunning talent and riveting charisma, neither of which Llewyn had). The artist who goes into pop music to exorcise his demons is in for a rocky road. The photography in ILD was just amazing, I thought: that bizarrely ugly, cavernous 60's diner; the incredibly soulless look of that yellow-grey blizzard over the black unfeeling highway... marvelous stuff. The Coens always take risks that pay off. I think the Coen's message of this film was not unlike that of Christopher Guest's A MIGHTY WIND: even 60's Folk, thought to be so earnest, was essentially showbiz bull{censored}, like any other fad. This, above, is actually the first I've read that actually made me feel like maybe I might want to see the movie after all. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators MrKnobs Posted March 20, 2014 Moderators Share Posted March 20, 2014 I take the opposite tack. I can sort of stretch to put up with some ego/front BS from those who are really talented -- but I've just got that scruffy up from the streets mentality and always have since the sixties. Maybe, in fact, it's because I was so into folk music in the early 60s.. Yeah, and that's why the band has to appear friendly and approachable but the stage manager (or someone appointed for this task) has to hustle them off stage, i.e. be the bad guy. That way the band appears friendly but their time too important to mingle. I broke this rule a few times. Once it caused quite an internal discussion. My old 80's rock band played a big show. As we always did, the other guitarist and I teased the girls at the front of the (elevated) stage, leaning down with our guitar necks aaaalmost close enough for them to touch, all the while exhorting them to "show us your boobs!" Well, we didn't say boobs, but you get the picture. This particular night there was one particularly drunk girl up front and she did, in fact, show us the (substantial) goods. I teased her most of our set, than after the show was over, I went looking for her. I found her friend instead. I asked her where boobs girl was, she told me her friend was in the ladies' room, mortified that she had done that. I asked her friend to see if there was anyone else in there (the club was closing) and she told me only her friend. So I knocked on the side of the entry way, and finally got her to come out. She actually covered her face with her hands she was so embarrassed. I gently explained to her that it was ok. We aren't rock stars, she's not a groupie, we were all just doing a collaborative show together (her included). Now the show was over, it was back to being real people time again. I told her we were all going to The Kettle to get some breakfast, would she like to come? She did. She and I are still friends to this day, though I did catch a ton of {censored} from my bandmates for inviting "poon" to our after show breakfast. Apparently if she was in that classification (she was not) I was supposed to take her to a hotel or somewhere, if she was a wife or gf I could bring her, otherwise she was not welcome as she was a "fan" and fans only get to see us when we're performing. That band was a lot of fun, taught me a lot, was pretty successful, but I really don't miss those guys except for Pete the 17 year old bassist who was the most mature and open hearted of the lot. Terry D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blue2blue Posted March 20, 2014 Members Share Posted March 20, 2014 That's a pretty good story. You were a good guy for, well, being a good guy. Some things are more important than band protocol. But, yeah, I can see why a touring band has to have rules and such. Fences make good neighbors, as they say. Better to bump up against the rules than someone you have to get along with. Happy to say I never did the road band thing. I wasn't cut out for bands. Not when I drank and definitely not now that I don't. ; ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.