MovieChat Forums > Jazz on a Summer's Day (1960) Discussion > Did anyone else think this sucked?

Did anyone else think this sucked?

posted 18 years ago by Tashtago
19 replies | jump to latest

One thing is clear after watching this movie Burt Stern may be a good photographer but he's no director or Jazz afficionado. Sure the photography is excellent and there are some beautiful shots but as a documentary of a Jazz Festival it could have been a hell of a lot better. Each performer other than Louis Armstrong is given one or two numbers and then it's on to the next. In addition there are some abysmal cuts, best example being Chuck Berry, we hear him introduced, Sweet Little Sixteen start, and then some non-descript shots of people dancing in silouettes, some crowd shots and finally Chuck - only what do we get ? The back of Chuck's head for nearly half the song and a cut during the famous duck walk!!. This is typical of the whole movie- shots of seagulls during a performance, too many shots of the audience instead of the performers, a cut away to the America's cup>,some rich kid drinking a coke at a farm house ? This thing is a mess and I'm a huge jazz fan so it's not the music that's the problem.

[–] cc_brewster 18 years ago

I was going to post a review of this, but you pretty much expressed my reaction to the film. What I wish is that someone could get Stern's original footage and re-edit it into a straight performance film-- no incomplete tunes, and showing primarily the performer (from the front!). Stern's attempt at 1958 artsiness just doesn't work now, if it ever did.

[–] Tashtago 18 years ago

Yes. Most concert films are like this. I think the reason is most of the filmmakers don't know enough about music. The Last Waltz is an exception -great movie and lots of footage of The Band. Have you seen others?

[–] nils-weijdegard 16 years ago

You may be quite right, but still this film introduced jazz music to me when I was young and gave me an enormous good feeling. Music can be all that!
Chico Hamilton, George Shearing and Gerry Mullingan being absolutly wonderful.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bartf-4 16 years ago

[–] samsmith928 16 years ago

I only have positve reactions to this every time I view it. It puts me at a July 4th weekend festival in living color in the 1950's with an intermingling of all races. Beautiful testament, beautiful documentary.

[–] tonstant viewer 16 years ago

No, you have missed the point completely.

First, there were no feature-length concert films before this, only shorts of 20 minutes or so. So there was no blueprint to follow, they put it together the best way they could with the technology of the time, without looking over their shoulder at somebody else.

Secondly, there was no easy way then to link the five cameras with the audio recording, so the first six months of editing was devoted just to matching the image and the sound. They had lots of time to think about what to do with the film while they were putting it into usable form.

Thirdly, the title is Jazz on a Summer's Day. So there's a lot of jazz, but a lot of summer's day, too. People have changed in 50 years, and this is a great way to figure out how. They're not a distraction here, they're part of the show, too. Watch and learn.

[–] timboytx 16 years ago

I disagree with the criticisms regarding “bad cutting” and “this thing is a mess”. I have seen this film many times, and I enjoy it very much every time I see it. I applaud the filmmakers’ decision to embrace the whole jazz festival experience and not just point the camera at the performers. The whole piece serves as a time capsule of a specific time and place, and the nameless faces in the crowd add a great deal of texture to the overall effect. My only criticism is that some of the non-performance segments seem staged, to me, such as the sequence in the crowded house where everyone looks like they were told to act like it’s a party.

[–] anderdoodle 15 years ago

I agree on both points--the shots of the audience and the America's Cup add to the overall '50's feel of the film, but the "party" scene looked extremely contrived, as if we were watching a beer commercial.
This film made me want to be there--to see some of the greatest jazz performers at their peak, and to experience a bit of classic Americana.

[–] swangdb 13 years ago

I saw the film for the first time last night. I enjoyed it. I'd like to see more of the performances. The audience shots were fine.

As for the party, I sort wished I could have been there!

As for it showing a specific time and place, it sure seemed like a lot of people were smoking, more than you'd see today.

Also, there seemed to be a lot of empty seats, more than you'd see in most music fests these days.

[–] chinaskee 16 years ago

No. I thought it was a masterpiece on all levels. And I'm surprised it wasn't even nominated for an Oscar for Best Documentary.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bartf-4 14 years ago

I loved this film. Its a classic.

[–] bhikkhu 14 years ago

This film captures an era in incredible way. The shots of the audience were some of the best parts of the film. It is about jazz, but it's also about a lot more.

Om Mani Padme Hum

[–] Interlepos (1784) 2 years ago

Agreed. This film felt special because of that. It captured the music, but also a feeling of an era.