A letdown


Being a big jazz (and Monk), film and documentary fan, I have to say i was a bit let down by this film. It seems the filmakers could not decide if they were making a documentary or a concert film. I quess I was expecting a documentary. too bad.

reply

[deleted]

wow.
the very thing i loved about this film was how crammed it was with performances. I think Monk himself said "writing about music is like dancing about architecture". I certainly enjoyed the non musical reminiscences, but what i found so valuable about this was the concentration of actual music from the actual man on film!

reply

Stephan, I’m with you on this one!
You can’t apply a normal structure to Monk’s music or life; to try to do it in a normal doco structure would show a lack of respect, understanding, and appreciation for Monk.

reply

That's a silly cop-out.
What better way to show respect and understanding than a nicely done documentary about the man's life and music.
This was a concert film, nothing more, nothing less.

reply

This is a rare documentary which is actually about its subject. One can tell this from where the camera is placed, equal to the eye line of Monk, or below: looking up trying to convey the enlightenment of Monk’s music, life and gifts that he was nice enough to refine and share with the world. And Monk is shown standing and moving and creating.

Most documentaries, are only, really, about the documentarian, as you have the subject sitting or standing still; with the camera much like the documentarian looking down and judging, in the manner of posing the question: what has my subject done in his or her life to justify my interest and the expending of my precious few hackneyed emotions and thoughts?

I find such documentaries worthless and repulsive. As you have the documentation leeching off the subject, their life, while at the same time they possess the conceited stupidity to think they are doing something for the subject, and should, still (!) be justified to, even though they obviously don’t have the guts or talent to create anything on their own that’s worth anyone’s appreciation. Hence, why they really do documentaries.

However, I do find your “concert film” pejorative extremely funny. This would be akin to showing a high skilled surgeon, what makes him great, a surgery, and saying: “This is not a documentary, this is a surgical video!” Of course, he’s going to be shown in concert: he’s a fantastic musician! And what makes him Monk! This is fantastic! Time to make the piano dance!

reply

It's not a documentary, it's a concert film.
We learn nothing about the man.

reply

Respectfully, it's a documentary with a great deal of concert footage.

What did you want to know that wasn't covered?

reply

What influenced the artist?
What were key moments in his life?
Loves? Friends? Jobs? Schools? Failures? Success? Family?
What did people who knew him have to say about him?
What did the artist himself say about himself?
What were fellow musicians' impressions?
Music historians input?
Contemporary artists look back at how artist influenced them?

Need more?

reply

If you're seriously interested in learning more about Monk's life, I'd suggest reading Robin Kelley's biography. The author deserves credit -- particularly for explaining the origin of the laughably aloof, pseudo-hipster Five Spot footage. (I remember thinking, "Why are there so many bored-looking white people in the audience?")

Several of the questions you've put forth are, indeed, addressed in the film -- albeit not always accurately, ie the bit about attending Julliard -- and, frankly, I don't know how much more depth could be reasonably expected. The film's only an hour and a half, after all, and cutting any of the performance footage would be a sin.

I'd suggest that the film is best seen within the context of a pre-existing awareness of Monk's music/life -- which can be found elsewhere. Or, as a way of introducing an extraordinary musical figure, prompting the viewer to go further on his or her own.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

It's been awhile since you both posted about this movie, but I just saw it for the first time on TCM and it prompted a discussion with a friend (also a big Monk fanatic) about the movie and I thought I'd pass our thoughts along.

For about the first 20 minutes I was disappointed with the movie because it wasn't following the typical formal get-to-know this person format that most documentaries about famous people follow. Then all of the sudden, I found myself enthralled by the movie and in the days that have passed, i can't stop thinking about it.

Today I spoke with a friend about it and he had similar comments to mine, bored and disappointed at first and then fascinated. Then he said something very interesting. He said he was glad they did the documentary the way they did. Monk was an extremely complex person and trying to explain away how he was and wrap that exposition into some neat package with a bow on it would have done a disservice to Monk. He said, the important thing about Monk, was his music, plain and simple.

At first, I disagreed with his reasoning, but the more I thought about it, the more I think he's right. I've read a lot about TM, and Coltrane, and Miles and Bird and many of the jazz giants but no matter how much i've read about Monk, he still seemed like a mystery. In the end, I'm glad Straight, No Chaser did nothing to unravel the mystery. It's not always best to know what's behind the wizards curtain.

This also makes the title appropos. Straight, No Chaser = just the man and the music son, no BS. To me, it was fascinating to see him AS HE WAS without the psychoanalytical nonsense.

Just my .02

reply