Woodstock: 3 días de paz y música

This 'defining moment of a generation' has been over-romanticized to the point of parody. Woodstock changed nothing about American life or culture--the mythos surrounding it is just a nostalgia trip for aging hippies and guilty yuppies longing for the days before mandatory drug-testing. The notion that getting stoned and balling in the mud at a rock concert could qualify as a form of social or political activism is so ridiculous that it's almost contemptible.

Nevertheless, 'Woodstock' the movie is a gem for its numerous moments of brilliance on stage and the relatively innovative use of multiple sound-tracks and camera angles that paved the way first for similarly brilliant concert films like Scorsese's 'The Last Waltz.'

This film was largely responsible for the explosion in popularity of The Who's 'Tommy,' and it's easy to see why. Their renditions of the rock opera's high points, culminating with 'See Me Feel Me/Listening to You' in the early morning hours, are simply breathtaking. Ironically, the Who frequently slagged their performance at Woodstock and the hippie movement in general, and Townshend famously clobbered anti-establishment activist Abbie Hoffman with a blow to the head from his guitar after Hoffman tried to take the mike during their set (sadly, this legendary bit of rock lore was missed entirely by the film crew, who were changing reels between songs at the time). Their set's most serendipitous aspect--the sun breaking over the horizon during the instrumental climax of their final number--was a consequence of the group's holding up their performance for several hours, demanding to be paid in advance. They were also quite angry about having been unwittingly dosed with LSD, which had been added to basically every form of beverage--including ice-cubes--in the backstage area. They translate their frustration and anger into a manic energy unrivalled in the history of live rock.

Also perilously high on LSD was Santana, whose performance of 'Soul Sacrifice' became a defining moment for that incarnation of the group. Though Carlos Santana's guitar was always the focus of Santana, the film's sound editing and camera work dwell more on drummer Michael Shreve, a drop-dead brilliant jazz-trained percussionist who joined Santana while still in his teens. One could easily be persuaded that Shreve was the real genius of Santana from this performance.

Other star-making turns are here to be found: the first public appearance of Crosby, Stills, & Nash, delivering a stripped-down performance of 'Suite: Judy Blue-Eyes' supported only by Still's acoustic guitar and their legendary three-part harmonies, Joe Cocker refashioning the Beatles' 'With a Little Help From My Friends' from psychedelic pop into gut-wrenching soul, and the hugely underrated Richie Havens' acoustic folk introspection.

The snippets of dialogue and interviews date poorly, with the exception of a humorous turn by Grateful Dead guitarist Jerry Garcia, who gives a quick running commentary as he rolls and displays a fat marijuana joint for the camera (the Dead refused permission to have their performance featured in the film).

Perhaps the most celebrated moment of the film is Jimi Hendrix's set with his new group, the Band of Gypsies, which features his virtuosic take on the 'Star-Spangled Banner.' Though the hippie rhetoric about the glorious counter-culture revolution of the sixties is tiresome (I find it somewhat telling that, due to weather, Hendrix's set was pushed back to the morning of the last day, and was missed by the majority of the filthy, soaked, and hung-over crowd), Hendrix (who, unbeknownst to many, was an Army paratrooper before he became a rock god) captures the confusion and fear aroused by the Vietnam War and the rift it inspired between American youth and the so-called establishment with stunning clarity. He also proves quite convincingly why he will never be equaled as a rock guitarist or an icon of cool.

Forget the hippie nonsense and get off on some of the highest-quality recordings and concert footage of the golden age of rock.

Having attended the Woodstock festival, I've probably seen the original movie about 5-10 times. I ordered the 25th anniversary version just recently and was pleasantly surprised by the extra footage of the Jimi Hendrix performance. I invited a guitar playing friend of mine to watch, and we were both totally blown away by his performance. It's sort of disappointing that this footage wasn't included in the original feature, but I'm sure glad it is here now. The addition of Janis Joplin's outrageous performance was also gladly welcomed (I always appreciated the fact that she was loyal to her backup band, but in reality, she deserved a much better band). My only complaint is the remix of the Joe Cocker performance, which in my mind, is one of the best and most powerful rock performances ever committed to film (the audio mix in the original film was much better).

I was too young for Woodstock, but I heard of it spoken in reverent tones over the years. I also heard great things about Michael Wadleigh's 1970 documentary-concert. Despite this, I put off seeing the film. Maybe because I thought it was going to be some roll-your-eyes groovy experience, man. I don't know, but I didn't get around to viewing it until the late 90s and I was blown away. I've seen it three or four more times since then and it always has the same awe-inspiring effect.

The concert took place over 3.5 days in mid-August, 1969, at the height of the Vietnam fiasco and the counterculture movement. Twice as many people attended than expected and it was the biggest gathering of people in one place in history, about 400,000, only beat by the infamous Isle of Wight concert in England a year later.

The film shows the good and bad of the hippie culture. Generally speaking, the movement was a reaction against the Vietnam war and the sterile legalism that America and similar countries had devolved into by the early-mid 60s. The youth wanted freedom, peace and love and you can see this in the movie. It was a good thing. Yet you can also see the bad -- like the bad acid situation ("Hey, it's your trip, man..."). Both Janis Joplin and Jimi Hendrix appear at Woodstock, and they're great, but they'll be dead in a little over a year, both only 27 years-old. Jim Morrison and the Doors didn't play because they declined at the last moment and later regretted it. Jim died shortly after the other two, also only 27. Interestingly, Jethro Tull declined because Ian Anderson didn't like hippies and was concerned about things like inappropriate nudity (?!).

But I don't mean to put a downer on Woodstock because it was an amazing event, never to be repeated. They tried to repeat it at Altamont Speedway in California, less than four months after Woodstock, and also at Isle of Wight, but both festivals turned out badly and put the the kibosh on the movement's noble ideals, even though it was pretty much inevitable since freedom without wise parameters naturally devolves into chaos and self-destruction.

Regardless, as a snapshot in time, "Woodstock" is fascinating and supremely entertaining. Half of the appeal is the incredible magnitude of the event itself and the footage of the people -- the hippies who came and the adults who lived there and tried to help or, in a couple cases, complained. This includes the fun and sometimes outrageous escapades of the festival. A good example would be the skinny dipping or, in many cases, semi-skinny dipping. Although this may have been a cool experiment at the event it never caught-on in the culture at large. Why? Probably because few people want to see someone else's Captain Winky and, unless a female has the body of a starlet, who wants to see it? (lol).

But what can explain the mass appeal of Woodstock? What made the hippies come out en masse? Was it just the music? The filmmakers ask this very question of a guy at the festival who looks about 16-17 years old. He says it wasn't just the music, at least not for him. The hippies crawled out of the woodwork, so to speak, like zombies seeking some kind of solace, a sense of community, a reason to... live. And Woodstock met that need.

The other half of the appeal is, of course, the performances and music. What's amazing is how diversified the styles of music were and how non-heavy. Don't get me wrong, many of the performances are seriously energetic, but they're light compared to what rock/metal evolved into in the 70s to the present. There was acoustic folk, Caribbean, blues, rock, gospel, pop, 50s, Latin rock, jazz fusion and psychedelic rock. Some of it I like and some of it I don't much care for, but they're all entertaining in one way or another. Since I'm into metal, my favorites are Santana, The Who and Jimi Hendrix, but I also enjoy a lot of the lighter stuff, like Joan Baez ("Swing Low Sweet Chariot") and Arlo Guthrie ("Coming into Los Angeles"). And then there are the acts that come out of left field, like Sly and the Family Stone and Sha Na Na, even Ritchie Havens.

What's amazing is how brief the classic hippie era was. It started around '65 and its apex was Woodstock in August '69, a mere four years later. From there it was all downhill with Altamont, Isle of Wight and the deaths of the movement's principal musical icons. As such, it only lasted some eight years.

Thankfully, we have this film to see the good aspects of the period -- some bad, some eye-rolling -- but mostly good, and definitely entertaining.

The film was shot in White Lake, New York, and runs 184 minutes while the 1994 Director's Cut runs 225 minutes. I've only seen the latter.

GRADE: A

when the movie was first released, I saw Woodstock in a theater with my great uncle. I was in 8th grade. He took me to see it because we both played guitar and shared a love of music. It was quite an experience - especially some of the "free love" scenes, but we loved it and he was especially awed by Jimi Hendrix.

I had a chance to see the director's cut in a theater this year. It was such a gift to go back in time and recapture the feeling of that time. While four hours is a long time, the extra footage of Jimi Hendrix and the dreamy scenes of Janis Joplin near the end are worth it.

Yes, Woodstock is ESSENTIAL viewing for any rock fan and for anyone who wants to capture the real sense of what it was like to feel part of a generational "love' movement. It seems so unreal in retrospect, but those of us who lived it - remember it. See Woodstock and enjoy.

I just got done watching the DVD version of Woodstock last night. At 25, I didn't realize it until then, that these were just kids! Woodstock may have been about music, it may have been about peace, but what the documentary truly captured on film was the Youth of American trying to make things right in a time when there was wrong. A garden of eden filled with innocence and joy. The only sorrow one knows when watching Woodstock is the fear of 1969 and the knowledge that many of the idols found in that year are not with us today. Still, man, what a time and I only wish I could have been there, among the innocent in the garden. Too bad I was born in 1978