Stardust

Like an artist constrained to not use black and white in a painting the film's director has not used the music of it's heroic subject and just as the use of black and white is not necessary to make a painting so has the director found a way to make a film about a moment in Bowie's life without his music. Certainly we can harbor fantasies of a film where verisimilitude overwhelms us and all our rocknroll memories explode on screen. This is not that sort of film. So sorry for your loss. Stardust is a story of an apotheosis and one that did not come easily. Bowie was ignored by many in the early 70's including his record label. Many familiar characters spill across the screen and while you might gripe at Bolan or groan at Angie, Johnny Flynn's David Jones/Bowie is at times eerie as he emulates the shapes and features we associate with the man who sold the world. Not a perfect movie but Bowie came alive here at a time when still miss him. When Bowie played John Merrick on Broadway he wore no makeup and made no attempt to look like the famous Elephant Man and yet still carried the part to great acclaim. Kudos to director Gabriel Range for his choice of musician, somewhat acclaimed, Johnny Flynn to lead this thoughtful semi fictional look at where a Jones became a Bowie.

I'm a rabid devotee and aficionado of Bowie. Frankly, I wasn't expectant to see a film of the highest order. I had qualms...and for good reason.

In my estimation to portray David Bowie is a fool's errand. The man was peerless with creative restlessness, panache and flair that no one absolutely no one could touch. Flynn's attempt to show us Bowie onscreen left me cold. He's not cut out to play David Bowie. I was underwhelmed to say the least. Yeah, an awful lot of people claim that he doesn't bear a slightest resemblance to David. To my mind it's not the case. The storytelling is slapdash, film's attempts to unveil the true story failed spectacularly. To crown it all the fact that this freaking film simply overlooked Hunky Dory is unforgivable. What's the hell??? That was a breakout album for Bowie, a step change in his music direction, the time when he recalibrated his sound and vision. I can go on and on.

Having said that, gotta give the devil it's due. The flick gave it a try to shine a light on the more obscure Bowie period. The time when his career was still at an embryonic stage. He tried to make his way as an artist and find his voice at long last.

Some fervent fanatics of the flick can slam me claiming that I'm in no position to criticize. But hey, I have a good mind to voice my opinion. David Bowie means the world to me.

If you wanna get into Bowie, this film is not a step in the right direction. In case you live and breathe Bowie, don't even bother.

David Bowie was a one-off. The mercurial artist was always on the move artistically. He was unafraid to switch gears. Bowie took chances thought his long term-career and seldom let up. Make no mistake his legacy will live indefinitely.

If I was giving the keys to direct a semi-true story about how David Bowie found his footing in the music world, I would never have taken this approach. What a buzz kills. You know you are going to get a slew of rabid Bowie fans to watch this; why make it look like Bowie is a stupid quack. I can't imagine much of this story is based on true events. Perhaps he had some struggles getting his music footing so don't spend 90% of the movie on that and leave your audience not excited about Bowie's rise to Fame; pun intended! There wasn't even any music or early tracks to hear even if they weren't big hits. This did try to paint a picture about Bowie's humble beginnings and how hard it was to reach stardom in America. And how he struggling to find himself in real life and trying to find who he truly is as an artist. It focused on his relationship with a publicist who believed that Bowie could be big in America. All solid points to build into a story. But the main problems were these: Zero character arc.

Zero enjoyment.

Zero Bowie music.

Zero new insights learned.

Who would choose to tell this story with a miniscule payoff or leave the fans excited to play some Bowie on the drive home?

The director and producer (rarely do I call out the producer) managed to make David Bowie uninteresting, flat and devoid of magic. I tinkled in a few rating points for cinematography, lighting and acting.

How can you have a David Bowie Biopic, and not have any of his music in the film?

There are many thing wrong with this film. The most obvious one being the failure of the producers to secure the rights to Bowie's music for a film about Bowie's music. The second issue is that the story is in accurate. The film implies that until Bowie invented Ziggy he was a failure in the US until the Spiders from Mars album was out. This is false. Before Ziggy and after TMWSTW Bowie released an album called Hunky Dory which had a US hit called Changes, an FM staple called Life on Mars, and a song that changed rock and roll, called Queen B*tch. The riff of Queen B*tch is maybe the most copied riff since Chuck Berry, especially by punk and new wave bands. So the fact that this film pretends this album never existed to serve some made up story is dishonest

Third mistake is having a 60 year old Marc Marin playing a 39 years old is very distracting.