Woodstock: 3 días de paz y música

Wavy Gravy said it best. Three days of peace, love and music, captured onto film. Everybody has their own opinions about which groups are better than others, but the overall effect is a dizzying one. 500,000 people (with an additional 1 million on the roads who couldn't get any closer) gathered in one spot, for a festival that named a generation. It's hard to believe that the concert was supposed to be a nothing more than a publicity event for a proposed recording studio, financed by a pair of venture capitalists. But the sun, moon and the stars were all in the proper alignment to create an event that we can only stand back and admire. I praise the organizers for having the foresight to document this event on film, for future generations to enjoy and behold. And perhaps, one day, repeat in some form.

I was 8 years old the time this event took place and having older siblings into the times, styles, and cultures of the era I certainly got a feel and liking for the bands in this documentary. I have seen bits and pieces of this event throughout the years, but never took the time to sit down and watch the whole event from start to finish; that is until last weekend. This definitely is what music documentaries have used as the measuring stick to define themselves ever since. The Director's Cut, which is what I viewed, is 224 min in length. It's amazing how one can get "sucked into the experience" and not notice the time elapsing! The Remastered version is incredible especially regarding the visual and audio equipment used in that time period. The 2 channel effect with the split screen is interesting and keeps the viewer entertained by the different sounds and noises in the interview segments. Best musical and visual picks are Jimi Hendrix, CSN, Country Joe (cute use of the "bouncing ball" - can we say Karaoke?), Jefferson Airplane, and my favorite Janis Joplin. If you're a period person, grew up in the late 60's, or appreciate classic rock music, then I urge you to go and watch this classic piece of work.

9 out of 10 ***

"Woodstock" was meant as a documentary about the famous 3-day 1969 New York rock festival of the same name, but it's really more valuable as a record of 1960's hippy culture. This is unquestionably the best film to capture the spirit of the 60's. Between musical acts, the camera meanders through the audience and the enormous outlying crowds to interview spectators, or just eves-drop on the scene. This is the most interesting, entertaining, and eye-opening aspect of the film.

Several of the musical performances are memorable and deserve mention: Richie Havens' awesome concert opener is a classic--you could watch it a hundred times and still get goose bumps--pure magic. Jimi Hendrix comes pretty close to magic also with the final musical number. His frenzied rendition of the "Star Spangled Banner" is incredible, and a fitting closer. Country Joe and the Fish and Joe Cocker are also memorable. A few of the musical acts don't seem to fit: Sha-Na-Na comes across as a weird oddity--(a throwback to the fifties), and Alvin Lee's "Ten Years After" is just too long and boring. Most of the other performances are so-so, but worth watching.

Overall, the film captures the mood, spirit, and music of the times better than any other. I would also venture to say that this may be one of the very best documentaries ever filmed on any subject. The depth of coverage is spectacular -- fitting for such a historical event. A great movie!

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.