Greendale

I realize how it is with fans and super-fans. They love their artist and wish to find anything good or redeeming in their latest work. Even when it isn't really there. I've loved Neil's music since the olden days, yet I was not very entertained by this movie.

The music was essentially a one-off. He went into a studio with Crazy Horse (minus Pancho) and just dashed off a bunch of songs, recorded them, done. This has worked well for him on some of his past record albums, but all the electric songs sound the same here, and not really very good at all by NY-CH standards. The acoustic tune "What You Were Looking For" is OK, and the electric finisher "Be The River" is rousing and enjoyable (in large part thanks to the kids doing the chorus refrain).

The Story? It's there if you pay close attention, but I soon found myself not caring enough to try. As I felt that he didn't care enough either.

Just to answer to those who presume Mr. Shaky of self indulgence and amateurish egocentricity! Being what his name brings, you cannot expect a Kubrick movie! Are you in the latest technology to produce the highest quality in sound or images? Forget this 'movie': it's the revenge of the rascals! For those worried about giving him more money, so he will eventually produce MORE of this, stay still! Some praise this movie as a brilliant opera from a genius, who's fighting for the rights of Mother Earth to survive the naughty and idiotic children: humanity. Anyway, maybe because I watched it on my birthday (it was a present I made to myself), I enjoyed it as an intimate 'over the shoulder' look at a private family diary: and after all it's just this! A family story with a turn: we are ALL family, on this Mother/Father planet...

Please note: I cannot give it a vote; maybe there should be a 'Not Valuable' sort of option to place on this kind of works.

Watching Greendale brought to mind two other film experiences: Fellini movies and Kubrick's "Barry Lyndon". What does Greendale have in common with them? The viewing attitude that made me appreciate them. In younger days I had trouble understanding Fellini plots, until making a conscious decision to leave intellect out of it and just "experience" what I was watching. From that point on I became a huge Fellini fan. With Barry Lyndon, a friend had reported that the plot was tedious and boring. But another friend's comment motivated me to see it - he said that it was like viewing an endless stream of painting masterpieces. I saw Barry Lyndon with that attitude - and to this day it ranks as one of my favorite movies due to the visual (and audio) experience. (And I've completely forgotten the plot and the acting.)

I'm not comparing Neil Young to Fellini or Kubrick. And I have no argument with critics of Greendale's cinematic or acting qualities, other than to feel that they've missed the point. If you need to enjoy professional acting, don't pick a movie where the characters are amateurs and friends. If you're a fan of cinematic technique, don't compare Greendale to textbook rules. If you must have a traditional plot and story line, look elsewhere. And if you're not prepared to treat it as an "experience", you may be disappointed.

As for me, I found it to be a thoroughly enjoyable experience that has stayed with me for much longer than most other movies. Thank you, Neil.

(Postscript - I'm not qualified to buy into the debate as to whether being a Neil Young fan is a prerequisite to enjoying Greendale. He's been one of my favorite musicians for decades.)

Neil Young's companion film to his concept album of the same name is rendered in a grainy color 8mm silent film -- accompanied by the music of the album. The hook is that while the cast acts out the events of the songs, they lip sync to Young's vocals. The effect is at once strange, startling and somewhat boring. The production values are quite low, but the fidelity in image and setting is interestingly contrasted within the editorial content of the film. The story involves a family that is riven by violence and the gathering forces of media and government that exploit it. Young uses this situation and the bucolic town of "Greendale" to make an argument about the evolution of American life, the march of conservative politics and most particularly, the plight of the environment. After an hour of watching what mostly feels like Young's home movies, bumbling and blurry, he violently cuts to the razor sharp video images of the media descending upon the town. It's easy to dismiss this film as cheaply made and lazily conceived. But the film closes with the image of a newly-politicized young couple driving to Alaska to "save the Caribou" -- with the Devil hitching a ride. Young may be suggesting that in the end the terrible forces that rain down on "Greendale" ascended from there as well.

It's a strange movie, but I would heartily recommend it to people who either like or love Neil Young and are interested in experimental cinema. The story is thin (but there is one), yes, but it's definitely a mind-affecting experience.

The thing I took away from it most (apart from the obvious ecological message, but that's always been a theme of Young's) was the stylistic choice to film most of the scenes in extra-grainy Super 8, but to insert these highly-produced segments from (fictional) TV news stations and the like. It's a simple message, but a good one: Young's trying to tell us that the world we see on TV, even the allegedly real world of news, isn't real, and that we trust it at our peril. The real world is shaky, and blurry, and hard to make out sometimes. Anything that looks slick, and easy to understand, is probably fake.