MovieChat Forums > Meeting People Is Easy (1999) Discussion > Did the editing bother anyone else?

Did the editing bother anyone else?

posted 19 years ago by dante12x
10 replies | jump to latest

I like Radiohead, I know their style, I understand the connection between the way the documentary was done and their particular tone. But I think documentaries are supposed to inform, and this documentary didn't do much of that at all. They would have audio of an interview, music playing, sound effects (like Beeps) going off and then they'd be scrolling down articles. What on earth can be the point of putting all four of those elements on at the same time? I found it dissorienting and often annoying, because I really did want to know more about the inner workings of the band.

[–] charlielpd 19 years ago

I find it's just something I had trouble watching more than once. It was beautifully filmed and very interesting, but I found there's little real substance below the surface. I would have loved to see some full length performances as extras though.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] vandands 18 years ago

Actually no, it didn't bothered me at least, it was something I really loved about it.

> Mickey: You're gonna make it, Mal. Get mad.

[–] Amnesian 18 years ago

yeah, this wasn't a VH1 documentary. Stylistic elements were put in to reflect the band's mood

[–] jcarrig 17 years ago

its good, and radiohead is probably my favorite band of all time. but this doco did not satisfy me entirely, of course, its essential viewing for me. but i DID get tired of seeing slow motion video shots of live performances and difficult to hear random audio in the background. for stylistic purposes or not, i really wanted this doco to do more. 5 minutes of interesting film effects and editing, and 5 of straight forward footage with audio, rinse and repeat, that would have achieved the same feel and made it easier to watch. but whatever, if people want to call it art then whatever. the style of it just keeps u at a distance is what i think, you want to feel like your there feeling what they are feeling, and u almost do, but the artistic liberties taken with it really alienate them. for me anyway...

[–] KingOfCheezWiz 17 years ago

The artistic mood of the film is supposed to alienate you. That's what this film is about, alienation. When you're in a band out on the road, and you do interviews everyday, and say the exact same thing everyday, to the exact same people, it becomes like a 9-5 job. OK Computer is about the paranoia and alienation you get from working those 9-5 jobs, and the irony of it is, they became the victims in that sense. They tried to make an incredibly artistic album that they thought critics would absolutly hate (Thom says so near the end, he thought the critics would destroy the album, but they ate it up). So, with the finished product of this film, you get a sense that you don't get the full picture, because the band are such private people, and they hate the level they've reached. Thom later went on to describe that it was what happened with "Creep", only they were proud of this record because it was the one they always wanted to make. So that editing works perfectly with the mood and feeling of the band, extremely random, and alienated from society, and tiring. That's what this is trying to describe.

[–] Tchock 17 years ago

that's the main thing i love about Radiohead, they play by thier own *beep* rules
no cookie-cutter corporate bullsh*t

check out their website www.radiohead.com
to know what i mean, its just brilliant

Yesterday I woke up sucking on lemons.

[–] Kazorek 16 years ago

I know this is a really old post but I find this a very re-watchable film, something not typical in documentaries. It's just as much art film and social commentary as it is a documentary. It's narrative is driven completely by pace and visuals (and some VERY cleverly timed editing). It provides a point of view and the viewer does what he pleases with it. If it were any more explicit it just would not be Radiohead. I watched it twice the first day and I still feel like there is more for me to see. I find it reveals more about the inner workings of the band than I could've hoped, it just requires active viewing - as nothing is explained. Also, the interviews, music, sounds, and articles all seemed to be pertinent to what the film was trying to show - and I found it mind blowing how the chaotic style throughout seemed to magically push the narrative along in a very precise linear way; not to mention make an hour and a half film seem more like 30 minutes. I would watch again if I were you. If you found the style tiresome, this time realize this film has almost no filler - all the "article, music and FX, interview" montages are purposeful and each offers new content or a new perspective. This film is big and has a lot to offer without being arty gunk. It definitely isn't the biography channel. "Meeting People is Easy" tells you nothing - just shows you what is important and lets you figure out why.

[–] makavelijvz 15 years ago

The film was Grant Gee's vision of what Radiohead and OK Computer is/was about, perhaps it's not supposed to inform, nor have any substance, perhaps it's just supposed to be beautiful madness. Such is life.

[–] jcarrig 15 years ago

whatever people want to say about this, that it reflects radiohead's mood and the style is very "them", i'm preeetty sure i read one of them say that they didnt like it much and that it wasnt as doom-and-gloom ALL the time like it shows. and that there were lighter moments that werent shown. while all the footage and audio is legit, i think it's what isn't shown that manipulates the reality. yea they hated the interviews, were bored of the songs, were sick of the machine, but they also worked on new material, probably had some laughs now and then, probably enjoyed the praise on one level however disorientating it ended up being. I just think the film was very one sided.