Woodstock

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.

As I have seen this many times since it first came out on in the theater and then on VHS, I now just fast-forward chapters on the DVD to the music, enjoying my favorite performances in this epic documentary of the most famous rock concert of all time.

There is a lot to enjoy, including the stuff between the music if you have never seen this before. It certainly captures the wildness of the late 1960s, the good and the bad. It really brings you back to a unique time in American history. For someone who was part of that time, things that were "cool" back then now look and sound a little stupid and naive, but it's still fun to watch. Not only do you get a ton of music, but you see a half million people weathering storms, the mess, drugs, port-o-johns, drugs, dancing, skinny-dipping, drugs, eating. You get the idea.

Music-wise, everyone has their favorites so I'll put a plug or two in for the artists I've always enjoying watching-seeing the most in this movie: Ten Years After; Sly And The Family Stone; Canned Heat, The Who, Richie Havens, Santana, Sha Na Na, Country Joe And The Fish, The Jefferson Airplane and Crosby, Stills and Nash.

At almost four hours, you can choose from a variety of music acts, enough to give you at least an enjoyable couple of hours of that alone, if you wish. This is a must- have for music fans of that era.

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.

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