Not Fade Away

Reading some of the other reviews I can somewhat see positive interpretations of this movie: life as a young person in the 60s was not cohesive or predictable thus it is fitting for this film to be "confused". The problem is that the more or less random snapshots of the particular life we are witnessing illustrate the decade in ways we already understand: I like the Beatles, I am sad and mad when MLK is shot, I don't want to go to 'Nam.

Without the support of a plot or structured character development, one can anticipate the emptiness of it all. Too many threads are planted at once and they all die in strangled, choppy mess. Finally, individual scenes are executed in a way that is flowery, verbose, and predictable, which leaves each self-indulgent attempt at emotion-evoking very obvious.

Nostalgia is strong, and a few shivers-down-the-spine moments will no doubt come, which makes it easy to overrate this film. However those moments happen *despite* the film: cool history and good music are powerful things.

"Not Fade Away" is one of those movies that leaves you with a bad taste after you watch the movie; it's like watching a movie by the resident cool kid in town, straddling the prettiest girl in one hand and on the other hand, going on about how he overcame his meager upbringing, dysfunctional family, disloyal friends to become who he is. The story might be genuine and the tribulations might be authentic but it's just the way it is told that makes it so unlikeable.

The movie does not have an ending (just an absurd tacked on one), creates handfuls of subplots that it never bothers to resolve and indulges heavily in the writer/director's own world of self-references and pointless pettiness. After furiously producing subplots like it's a pilot of a TV show it just ends, giving that unresolved what-ever-happened-to feeling that as a moviegoer I hate. The young Italian-American protagonist who is probably the writer/director himself doesn't have a real story to tell or a point to make. The story just meanders on and on, the key tension points leading absolutely nowhere. Rather than create a compelling story, the movie demands some sort of adulation for what it presents and ultimately insults the viewer assuming the viewer should feel privileged to hear the story rather than earning its merits.

"Not Fade Away" is advertised as a movie about a band trying to make it big; however this movie is more of a bizarre bake of 60s set pieces. There is the vintage music equipment show - the Rickenbachers, the Gretchs, the vintage Fenders and others; the vintage car show and then the 60s records - primarily an obsession with the Rolling Stones that are displayed in their big, shiny and loud glory. While the audience who were teenagers in the 60s might appreciate the shiny items of desire, the rest will find these shiny objects do not fill up a movie or compensate for a story. It's like a glossy vintage advertising brochure - pretty girls, rebellious rock stars and shiny things but not a story to tell.

The other major problem in the movie is the absolute opacity of its sub-characters. The father, the mother, the girlfriend, the band mates, the girlfriend's sister, the families are completely and utterly opaque. They keep doing bizarre things without showing or being to infer why they are doing what they are doing. Perhaps it's some sort of a 60s thing, a band thing, an Italian-American thing or a 60s band thing but I wouldn't know. The movie doesn't bother to really explain or resolve anything and it just bubbles up here and there and then it's gone. The movie is just a sequence of these strung together and it just makes all the characters unlikeable and tiring.

I like rock and roll movies but in this movie rock music neither serves as a backdrop for a personal story nor tells a story about the rock and roll greatness. The 60s backdrop overpowers the movie and the story feels like it's about a bunch of teenagers so in love with themselves that they feel they are the privileged ones. One scene comes to mind; an aunt comments, "I hear rock and roll keeps you young" to which our protagonist churlishly replies, "rock and roll is an art form. Does Dostoyevsky keep you young?"

As with most filmmakers who work in themes, you should watch this to see Chase's perspective on the material, not for the story itself. Its seemingly formless structure will throw off some viewers, but it's very much in line with his body of work, being less about the music and the era and more about the effects of the passage of time, specifically the tug of the past on the present and the evolution of character (or not) as the years go by. It's an autobiographical elaboration on the themes in the dark and sad final seasons of the Sopranos, though it does have plenty of the usual witty Chase touches as well, like the kids dancing away the JFK retrospective. There's a pervasive sense of nostalgia because the setting feels realistic, neither idealistic like a Spielberg/Lucas movie nor revisionist like the progressive Pleasantville-type movies whose intention is to show us all how the past wasn't as enlightened as today. The downside is that it's such a well-covered period and milieu (for my generation The Wonder Years is the reference point) that it's hard to find something original to say. But go in with the understanding that it's more complex than it appears and it'll give you plenty to chew on afterward. At one point the lead and his girlfriend are watching Blow-Up and he comments on how strange it is there's no music to tell you when someone's going to get killed, and she replies that the sound of the wind in the trees is the music, which sums up this movie pretty well.

David Chase's "Not Fade Away" looks at what it was like to come of age in the '60s. The main focus is a New Jersey teenager who decides to join a band, but there are clear signs of everything that was going on: the Vietnam War, the generation gap, racial tensions, and Dean Martin's mean-spirited comment about the Beatles. Contrary to the previous reviewer, I would say that this movie is better than "Almost Famous". The latter was too fluffy and came across as a sanitized look at its era. This one is very upfront about what sorts of things happened (including some very tense scenes). And the final line poses a good question about how we as Americans want to be known to the world. Can we eventually look to our best qualities to do what's right?

Anyway, this is a good movie. It's got great music and brings up some important points. I recommend it.

David Chase's earnest mix of rock 'n roll, young love and family drama is overlong and sloppy, aspiring to be a defining examination of the Sixties but rendered trite by trudging out references to every historic moment (in this, it's similar to "Lee Daniels' The Butler") and wallowing in misguided pronouncements about the Vietnam War, capitalism and rock's purity; the intent is to advance the father-son conflict between lead John Magaro and a wasted James Gandolfini. (In fact, Chase unintentionally portrays rock music as a negative force, divisive enough to destroy families.) Chase's strength as the creator of "The Sopranos" was in his carefully plotted backstory that forced the viewer to pay close attention upfront; here, he employs a similar approach, but without the expanse a mini-series affords the result is disjointed and incomplete: all of the stories he introduces are either left unsatisfactorily unresolved or spontaneously concluded. It doesn't help that his characters are inherently unlikable (Magaro is a good example), mere caricatures (co-stars Jack Huston and Will Brill) or blanks (love interest Bella Heathcote). The film's sole asset is Steven Van Zandt's musical curation, though he eschews the deeper tracks in favor of songs even the casual fan will recognize.