Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Gimme Shelter (dir David Maysles, Albert Maysles, Charlotte Zwerin, 1970)

Group 1 Responses (400 word minimum). Focus on themes, or specific scene shots, or some other aspect of the film or its social, cultural, musical context. Due by the end of Tuesday.

Group 2 comments (200 word minimum): Supply a thoughtful comment that expands upon one (or several) of Group 1 responses.

Here's a pretty good article on the Altamont concert that appeared in Gadfly magazine:
http://www.gadflyonline.com/archive/NovDec99/archive-altamont.html

Here's a good review of the film:
http://www.salon.com/entertainment/col/srag/2000/08/10/gimme_shelter

11 comments:

  1. This documentary was similar to the Woodstock documentary in a couple of ways; although the differences stood out to me more. The scaffolding seemed to be the prime location for seating at both Woodstock and at Altamont. Also, the directors choose to focus on the construction of the venues as if to symbolize the building up anticipation to the main event. The cars lining the roads in both films really put into perspective the sheer mass of people that fearlessly turned up for the concerts. The differences in the two documentaries outweighed the similarities. In Gimme Shelter, the directors chose to show the Stones’ reactions to the documentary. In Woodstock, sure there were interviews and comments by the participants, but that was all during the filming and at the actual event; the buzz was still strong. In this, we could clearly see the Rolling Stones’ reaction to the events that transpired, after the fact and after the dust had settled. Also, Woodstock tried really hard to portray the events with some respect and purity, whereas Gimme Shelter was a little more raunchy and in your face. The overall feel of Woodstock was more airy and open and, especially at Altamont, the vibe was claustrophobic and gritty. The ambiance of the film was less orderly and calm, less serene than Woodstock.
    Altamont was advertised as another Woodstock. However, the two couldn’t have been more different. Both were titled a “free concert” but Woodstock turned into a free concert when the turnout rose exponentially whereas Altamont was originally planned to be free. At Altamont, the artists could not make it through an entire song, let alone a set, without the crowd erupting into a fight, drunken fans rushing the stage or the Hell’s Angels “beating” up a fight instead of breaking up a fight. All things aside, I would still have loved to be a part of both of both concerts; for nothing else than the simple fact that the music is, and always will be, incomparable and is unsurpassed. No one can dance like Mick Jagger and no one can play like Keith.
    What went wrong at Altamont? And who is to blame for the outcome? I know one thing; the music is definitely not to blame. Hell’s Angels were there to provide security; although their methods were less than desirable they could not be solely responsible. The concert promoters were just doing their jobs and trying to corner the market; they could hardly take all the blame either. In the fans there were still small glimpses of the peace loving hippies from Woodstock. In fact, one was in tears in the front row; appalled at the fact that her peers were more interested in violence than the Stones. As a group, the fans could not be 100% at fault either. I think it was a volatile mix, a deadly concoction, of current events, hostility from the security and the hastily put together venue. The Rolling Stones had simply outgrown that type of venue and the promoters were hell bent on matching Woodstock but without the necessary resources, they settled. Above all, Altamont did not work because Woodstock did. After Woodstock, there was an expectation. Once expectations get placed on things, there is always room for disappointment. Woodstock worked because that tiny ripple in time opened up where there were no expectations on an outcome; caution was to the wind.
    I loved how this documentary focused on the reactions of the Rolling Stones to the tour. Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown. Although they were not responsible for the events that took place, I feel that this documentary portrayed the Rolling Stones emotions of guilt and sorrow surrounding the event; especially in retrospect. Charlie Watts was emotional over the incident as was Mick Jagger as his image closed out the film.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The documentary Gimme Shelter is a depiction of the Rolling Stones’ first appearance in the United States at a free concert in California. The concert is free to all and held in the same fashion as Woodstock just months prier. This spectacle seems to offer the out comers even the same promise of freedom, peace, love and a good time like Woodstock in New York. Even the same people are responsible for the production of this free event claiming it as the “Woodstock of the West”. Even the same bands are making appearances in the film with the inclusion of the Rolling Stones as the new British headliner. The directors seem to put emphasis on this comparison showing similar images of peace seeking “hippie” children journeying from a far with hopes of a good time. In contradiction, this is far from what happens at least from the directors’ point of view.
    In the beginning, the directors seem to have interestingly placed the editing process as a reoccurring shot of the film from beginning to end. Mostly Mick Jagger and Charlie are shown watching, listening and reflecting on the film’s clips and scenes with the directors. This environment is interesting for the intimacy it brings back to the band and their reflective feelings on the events that had taken place at the show. Mick and Charlie seem more speechless and humble in that moment than this larger than life attitude shown on the screen their watching of themselves. Even the scene of the band listening to the radio show is taken place in this editing room. There appears to be an underlying theme ironically being offered in this space. Events have taken place, and now it is time to edit, reflect and choose what to do with the information gathered through these experiences.
    As if explaining the reason for these reflective editing shots, the director brings the viewer into the film’s chaotic story of the concert. The first scenes and events seem to try to capture the excitement of a hopeful reoccurring Woodstock. Though in fact, the events captured appear to demonstrate an atmosphere of complete contradiction to New York’s Woodstock festival. The Rolling Stones seem careless with an attitude of arrogance and rock star persona. Nothing is in the music to encourage an intellectual stimulant of involvement to the surrounding world. Woodstock in New York seemed to offer more stimulating music of political awareness and involvement. Also in contradiction, the band’s personas seem shallow and encouraging of a present hedonistic mind set not one of future goal oriented motives such as the musicians in Woodstock. This hedonistic attitude is exaggerated throughout the film. From the last minute organization of the concert to the music to the spectators’ actions, all the events carry this underlying energy of chaos. Of course, violence would be the encouraged outcome from this motive. The entire energy of the event portrayed through the film seems to radiate with it and leaves one to believe this is directors’ opinions as well.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The documentary “Gimme Shelter” started out with a live performance of “Jumpin Jack Flash”. I thought this was a great way to start the movie, however the film then cuts to a scene where The Stones are watching some of their live performances in the editing room; they looked pretty bummed about what they were seeing. We think they are just watching their own live performance, however later we find out that the band is watching the killing of a man wearing a green suit at one of their performances. This act of violence created strong reactions and blame being tossed around. In a radio interview with Sunny Barger, who is part of the infamous “Hell’s Angel’s”, Barger talks about the event and the tragic murder that occurred. Barger felt that Mick Jagger had thrown the blame on the Angels. He tried to explain the atmosphere and rationalize the murder and made statements like “I ain’t no cop” and “ain’t nobody gonna kick my motorcycle and get away with it”. The fear on Mick’s face while the Hell’s Angel is saying all of this was classic. Later we find out that the man in the green suit was thought to have pulled a gun and was going to try to shot at The Stones. At least, this was the justification given by the Hell’s Angel’s.
    I like the way The Rolling Stones were followed on their way to Altamont in this film. We saw concert stops and some recording of music, which made everything feel more up close and personal. In the days leading up to the free show, the location kept getting moved. The lawyers and promoters seemed to be working frantically to get something together. Finally the final destination is set for Altamont Speedway. This was a very large venue and it was the hope that this large space would be able to hold the massive crowds expected. It was thought to be the “West Coast Woodstock”. Thousands of counter culture kids where coming from all over, even Arty Lang had a hand in the promotion. They set up through the night and it looked like they were really going to pull it off.
    Most everything seemed to be going well. The Angels were chugging beer and the hippies were grooving. As the day wore on however, The Angels got drunk and the hippies got more messed up. The music just kept on going. As things progressed, The Angel’s became more violent. They knocked out a member from Jefferson Airplane and started getting restless. They were annoyed at people messing with their bikes. All of this tension mounted until finally The Rolling Stones got on stage. Tempers were flaring. It looked to me like Mick got scared of one of The Angels who looked like he was tripping; he looked like he was going to turn into a werewolf any minute. After what seemed like a very short time, the concert ended . The man in green pulled a gun, and was stabbed to death. I felt like the ending was a bit abrupt, but overall enjoyable. Hopefully the events of this concert showed other promoters and performers what not to do in order to avoid such chaos and ultimately the tragic loss of a life.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Although it was not quite as good as I had hoped it would be, this film was still pretty interesting, mainly because of the violent concert at Altamont and the gradual descent into madness. My main complaint about this film is that the first half of the film was mostly behind the scene footage of concert negotiations between Mel Belli and others trying to organize the concert which seemed extremely boring to me. I thought it made the film a little bit dull and slow. I also am a fan of the Rolling Stones and was shocked to see such an armature performance by the Stones even though I admit that they had plenty of distractions. I know that’s blasphemy but I think they sounded like a pretty sloppy band to me.

    The most shocking part of the film though is the actual events around the Altamont concert itself. The escalation is pretty intense because you can almost feel the tension gradually build and it somehow begins to feel like watching a train wreck in slow motion. As the opening acts of the concert perform, the chaos begins as the Hells Angels begin to kick the shit out of a few concert-goers, as well as on of Jefferson Airplane‘s band members. The concert had to be stopped many times as the Angels beat down the crowd. Finally, when things appear calmer and the band begins playing "Sympathy for the Devil", tensions mount and we start to get a real sense of danger. After the crowd calms down they play "Under My Thumb" and that’s when the fatal stabbing takes place. The film chillingly captures the stabbing leaving one to doubt that the black man in the green suit had a gun and that it was one of the Hell’s Angels that stabbed him. I was surprised to learn that the man had a gun because I guess I had always assumed it was some poor bystander that got stabbed for no reason at all. Not that it makes it ok.

    ReplyDelete
  5. In the documentary “Gimme Shelter” we all started out seeing the Rolling Stones during a live performance of the song “Jumpin Jack Flash”. In my opinion it was a pretty good way to start the film because it showed you how they were. It showed Mick Jagger and his personality and set the stage for the remaining of the film. The film was somewhat similar to Woodstock. The differences pretty much screamed out to you. People filming this documentary built the concerts up to the point where it had the feel of a heavyweight fight of some sort. Cars heavily backed up in the streets really showed just how many fans were anticipating this concert. However, maybe that was a bad thing. As we all know The Rolling Stones and The Hells Angels (who were performing security duties at the concert and obviously were not equipped for that kind of situation) were against the quote unquote "main culture". You could consider them counter culture. Fans had to be restrained from entering the performers trailer/dressing room. A good amount of fights broke out. Chaos was no stranger to this event. Mick Jagger himself attempted a few times to calm the crowd down. It really seemed as if that concert went on for that long in my opinion, but I guess after what you could call a "sufficient amount of time" the concert ended. This had to have been one of the strangest things I have ever seen with my own eyes. A man in green pulled out a gun and was stabbed to death. What happened at this concert showed others how to manage something of this magnitude and prevent the things that happened on this day from happening ever again.

    ReplyDelete
  6. In Response to Julie e’s comment:

    As if explaining the reason for these reflective editing shots, the director brings the viewer into the film’s chaotic story of the concert. The first scenes and events seem to try to capture the excitement of a hopeful reoccurring Woodstock. Though in fact, the events captured appear to demonstrate an atmosphere of complete contradiction to New York’s Woodstock festival. The Rolling Stones seem careless with an attitude of arrogance and rock star persona.

    I complete agree with what you’re saying about how the director chose to take a drastic turn and show the negative “chaotic” side of events like this at Altamont. But I don’t think this dramatic turn was something the director sought out to show but more like something he felt obligated to show, like it was his duty as a filmmaker to show the audience what really happened there that night, to hold nothing back. When the film finally does gets to the Altamont show the filmmakers try and capture the moment in a very Woodstock kind of way, highlighting the excitement and fan frenzy, but no matter how glamorous and fun the filmmaker and producers try and make it look, its clear that things are out of control and people are beginning to freak out including the bands (even the Stones).
    As the Altamont scene continues it does take a turn for the worse and you see a man stabbed to death, which is nothing like you see in the Woodstock film. And although the Woodstock film may not have shown us these types of things in their film I guaranty that things of this nature did happen there. Watching it I didn’t feel like the Stones didn’t care. To me Mick Jagger looked scared and unsure of what to do, though I might have to agree with you that Keith looks very unfazed by the whole situation. In all I feel like it was a shity situation that a number of people are to blame. Because of piss poor planning and in proper crowd control a man lost his life, but its situation and events like these that have helped to make the festivals of today safe and friendly for all who attend.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Gimme Shelter was a rocumentary on the Rolling Stones during their first tour in America. This documentary's main focus was on the massive free concert hosted by the Stones at the Altamont speedway in San Fransisco California. This concert was a promotional attempt by the Stones to increase ticket sales and improve their reputation which had been recently taking on a lot of heat pertaining to the price of tickets to their shows. Altamont was the second free festival of its kind following Woodstock by about six months. Their were some definite similarities between the two festivals in the way they were set up, both being headed by the same coordinator Michael Lang. There was however a great deal of differences as far as how smoothly each event went over. Woodstock seemed to go down without any problems aside from the weather getting in the way. Altamont however, seemed to run into all sorts of issues mainly with security, fans, and poor planning and organization. As seen throughout clips in the documentary the Rolling Stones seem to attract a very high energy, aggressive fan base. This is not speaking on everyones behave but i feel its safe to say for their time the Stones were the up and rising idols for the rebellious youth of the era. It seemed as though it was not uncommon for over excited and potentially highly inebriated fans to push through the crowd and climb on stage. This was taken into consideration when planning Altamont and the solution was to hire the Hells Angels as security. At the time this may have seemed like the perfect answer to a simple problem but it soon becomes apparent this was going to cause more of a problem than anticipated. As the unruly fans emerged from the crowd began acting in their usual manner of pushing and shoving, the Hells Angels handled matters in a way now days you would assume a biker gang to handle them, with violence. Through out the day there were many cases of this occurring but not until the Rolling Stones took the stage did it become apparent things could potentially get out of hand. After many attempts to reason with security and calming the crowd continued to fail a fan was stabbed to death by one of the bikers in a controversial attempt to maintain the peace and ensure everyones safety. My personal onion and analysis of this film is not only to present an informative documentary about the Rolling Stones but also the director had a goal to show the controversy from a non biased perspective. I feel he did a good job showing the lead up to the event of the stabbing from every angle. It is true of coarse that his personal bias could have potentially effected the content of the material that actually made it in the film but I feel it is safe to say he did a good job depicting how each side played its part in this very unfortunate event unfolding. It became clear to me that the fans showed consistency in their aggressive behavior, the Stones were aware of the way their fans acted, there should have been more discression used in hiring security from a coordinators position, and the Hells Angels resorted to violence in multiple occasions through the coarse of the day. I have concluded that every side is at fault just as much as another for this mishap and better planning and judgement on everyones part will lead to safer more smoothly running events in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Gimme Shelter had many similar aspect that woodstock . though not on the same level by far man called it the woodstock of the west, this brought a lot of contreversey along with it. The same guys that made woodstock this event happen as well. Altamont was a lot different from woodstocks in aspects such as security.. who in they're right mind would think having the hells angles be security was a good idea? Many fights many drunks rushing the stange was one way it varied from woodstock .Where woodstock was a free spirited hippie fest altamont was a get drunk and look like a idiot fest. Not really knowing about the Rolling stones and growing up in that time from my perspective to be honest they werent that good. they really didnt carry there selves as well as i would have expected. I thought it was funny that the first thing that happend after setting foot on the ground after getting out of the helicopter was mcjagger getting decked. Way to start the weekend off on a good vibe..

    ReplyDelete
  9. Will B n response to Dan G…

    "It is true of coarse that his personal bias could have potentially effected the content of the material that actually made it in the film but I feel it is safe to say he did a good job depicting how each side played its part in this very unfortunate event unfolding. It became clear to me that the fans showed consistency in their aggressive behavior, the Stones were aware of the way their fans acted, there should have been more discression used in hiring security from a coordinators position, and the Hells Angels resorted to violence in multiple occasions through the coarse of the day. I have concluded that every side is at fault just as much as another for this mishap and better planning and judgement on everyones part will lead to safer more smoothly running events in the future."

    I agree I don’t believe you can narrow it down to any single group. You could tell there was a lot of aggression built up on all sides, fan perhaps because of the frequent movement of the festival at the last minute. Overall I agree that I felt that the director was able to accurately portray the poor planning and general aggressiveness of all parties involved.

    In response to Jason E

    "My main complaint about this film is that the first half of the film was mostly behind the scene footage of concert negotiations between Mel Belli and others trying to organize the concert which seemed extremely boring to me. I thought it made the film a little bit dull and slow."

    I thought the Mel Belli scenes were important and gave the viewers a look at just how poor and last minute the planning for Altamont. I thought it helped drive home how hard it really is to get these multi hundred thousand crowd events together. It felt like everything was going against that event.

    ReplyDelete
  10. In Response to Leslie H:

    The first thing said that struck a chord with me and made me want to speak up and put my two cents forward was this quote, “The overall feel of Woodstock was more airy and open and, especially at Altamont, the vibe was claustrophobic and gritty.” Excellent observation, and as you go on further into the rest of your response to the documentary you give off this feel that the real clash between Woodstock and The Stones’s concert is that one happened almost naturally, as if it sprung up from the ground and was very in tune with its surroundings and the other happened as a result of forced will and the desire to repeat an effect, it was by brute force and the strength of determination regardless of the impact it had. One was born the other was invented, or built. I agree with this observation, when I stop to give it thought, I can really see this contrast between the way the two documentaries feed us the facts, or at least the observations.

    The next thing that stirred me was this line, Once expectations get placed on things, there is always room for disappointment.” Wow, keen sense of understanding here. Woodstock being an event that just exploded on the seen was not caged by definitions or past experiences, but rather was free in its chaos to be whatever the hell it could and would be. Altamont was being constructed in the hopes of being a second, newer, maybe even (of course) better Woodstock, it was limited from the first moments by past experiences with Woodstock, Altamont was defined, and as such, was caged to be only what Woodstock was and was therefore not free to be its own undefined (at that time) unique thing. An idea was forced and bad results happens. I might add there really is an almost divinity to originality, wouldn’t you say? That to be original is divine, to be something uncontained and unexplained is much more free and therefore powerful and intense, than to be something contained in an explanation?

    My last response is on a line you put forward and to be honest completely blew me away. I’m a nerd and I like word plays, images, and ideas that stir up the imagination and flow so seemlessly (naturally I suppose would be the most fitting thing to say here). The line goes, “Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown.” Is this yours? Or was this read somewhere? But enough of my nerdy like of the line alone, haha, it is really quite a perfect summary of the whole experience. Because everyone seems to have some part in the blame of what happened, everyone does indeed have an uneasy, burdened expression about their face. Some wear it by shifting blame to others and not owning their own part, others squirm, others hide the fact by trying to look nobel and “find” the source. Excellent observations all around.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The Rolling Stones are another band I’m not familiar with. This film gave me some insight on how influential the Rolling Stones really were. Now I have a bit of understanding on the model that so many rock groups are trying to follow. I like the long cuts, the awkwardness of non-rehearsed speech, the slow low action scenes, and the editors (Joanne Burke, Robert Farren, Ellen Giffard, Kent McKinney) do a good job of hooking the viewer with small clues. The combination of these traits’ make the film more personal, but the elements of story are still kept in mind. I enjoy the scenes with the Rollin Stones watching themselves on the editing screen. This makes us the viewer feel like we are watching the events unfold together just as the Rollin Stones are. The shots with the Rollin Stones just lying around also does a great job of making you feel as if you’re sitting right next to the Rollin Stones. My favorite performance was Ike and Tina Turner’s “I’ve been loving you too long”. She really controlled the stage. The sexually tension was so thick you could cut it with a knife, it’s as if she was making love to the microphone. Ike and Tina actually performed in Madison Square Gardens. At one point Mick Jagger says that the concert is an excite for people to come together, I think this is an underline theme in the film. Let’s take a second to think of how much footage actually was taken, now think of what amount of that footage was cut out. Babies were born and people lost their lives. The editors still did a great job displaying a variety of human life at the free concert. My favorite music fan was the guy tripping and crowd surfing. Actually everyone tripping on drugs was pretty funny. The mood of the concert constantly was changing. The hells angels were helpful and they hurt all at the same time. The live call on the ratio show from the hells angel was a great uses of foreshadowing. Clearly most of the people clubbed to sleep didn’t deserve that beating. I loved how the musicians constantly kept the concert positive. Sometimes trying to sing the crowd into submission and stopping to call for doctors whenever necessary. The concert expressed the human spirit in life and unfortunately in death as well. I had no idea where this story was flowing during the ending scene. I thought the film was a random assortment of shots until the final scene when everything is pulled together and it all makes since. At points of the film I was completely lost; this made the final scene much more powerful. I like this film the best so far.

    ReplyDelete