MovieChat Forums > History of the Eagles (2013) Discussion > Very interesting documentary.

Very interesting documentary.


I had only a vague knowledge of the early Eagles, and up until yesterday only knew them from the DVD of their return concerts in 1994 when they were all 40-something men. Whether this film makes you more of a fan, or as some have stated a 'hater' of the Eagles, it is superb in that it doesn't sugar-coat the issues and the difficulties any group like that has getting along with many strong personalities. The film doesn't try to make them look good or look bad, just a look at how they really were.

I knew nothing also of Joe Walsh's story, how he came to give up booze and drugs is a good story in itself. I of course like Don Henley best, a good old Texas boy from the same town as Scott Joplin, and one of the best singing voices ever for this kind of music.

Many of the threads on this board discuss the member of the Eagles, what people like or don't like. But if we just focus on the film itself, it is quite the revelation.

..*.. TxMike ..*..
Make a choice, to take a chance, to make a difference.

reply

It was a very well done film. I was a bit hesitant when I saw it was over 3 hours but it was done so well, you don't even notice how long it is. Especially if you're a music historian like me who loves the inner machinations of successful bands. There isn't that much I didn't already know about these guys having read numerous articles on their history over the years. Still it was good to see it, bones and all, laid out in front of me visually. The Eagles are one of the greatest bands in the world. Loved them since I was a kid even when my friends teased me about listening to that kind of music.

reply

Any thoughts about what made it such a good documentary?

I've watched several other music docs over the last year but none have worked as well (for me) as this. It's a classic story - boys going to the big city to make their fortunes, succeeding beyond their dreams but then what comes next? It helps that we are introduced to the characters. They have talents but also flaws just like real people and they are all so different from each other. Once you've watched this, you shouldn't have any trouble telling your Henley from your Frey or knowing which Don is which. They're articulate, the stories are entertaining but we're also waiting for the inevitable to happen. Just to make sure, we get warned of the band's demise early and so we are looking for the cracks.

They don't tell us everything - for that you need to do further research - but there are enough hints of problems even when they're not spelt out. I'd have liked more on the changing relationship between Frey and Henley because that was clearly the elephant in the room. I didn't need more on the break with Don Felder - the essentials were covered and Felder tells his version in every interview he gives for his book/album/tour.

reply

Regarding Felder, I just re-watched the 1994 DVD of their reunion story and concert, and felder has the most "air time" in the introductory part of the DVD and is smiling and seems very happy with their reunion. So it is strange that he and Frey became so much at odds just a few years later.

Also it tells us something about Henley that Schmit says Henley was the only one he kept in touch with during their "14 year vacation." I don't believe Henley is the ogre that some want to make him out to be, but Frey certainly seems willing to wear that label.

..*.. TxMike ..*..
Make a choice, to take a chance, to make a difference.

reply

Yes, Felder does seem happy in those 1994 interviews and yet in his book he says he wasn't. They're all pretty good at putting on a good face for the outside world. The story seems to be that things were ok at the start of the tour but as it went on, the problems started again.

After the band broke up, Frey withdrew completely. He refused to even be in the same recording studio as the others for the mixing of the live album. It was (supposedly) five years before he and Henley spoke and thirteen before he was reconcilled with Walsh. He even dropped his old friend JD Souther. Maybe one day he'll explain what was going on. Meanwhile, Henley remained in contact with at least Schmit and Felder.

reply

[deleted]

Any thoughts about what made it such a good documentary?

I've watched several other music docs over the last year but none have worked as well (for me) as this. It's a classic story - boys going to the big city to make their fortunes, succeeding beyond their dreams but then what comes next? It helps that we are introduced to the characters. They have talents but also flaws just like real people and they are all so different from each other. Once you've watched this, you shouldn't have any trouble telling your Henley from your Frey or knowing which Don is which. They're articulate, the stories are entertaining but we're also waiting for the inevitable to happen. Just to make sure, we get warned of the band's demise early and so we are looking for the cracks.

They don't tell us everything - for that you need to do further research - but there are enough hints of problems even when they're not spelt out. I'd have liked more on the changing relationship between Frey and Henley because that was clearly the elephant in the room. I didn't need more on the break with Don Felder - the essentials were covered and Felder tells his version in every interview he gives for his book/album/tour.





Sorry so late getting back to you with a reply. What made this a great documentary for me is all of the video documentation from the early days and the candidness of the players to speak on camera. The historians really did their homework and the narration told a very detailed story from-start-to-finish of how the band came together and became one of the most successful music groups of the 70s. Loved that there were multiple perspectives from former members and outside witnesses as well so it wasnt all just Frey or Henley's sanitized, one-sided versions of the history that might make them look like the good guys.

Around 2003, I picked up a copy of Uncut which is an over-priced british music magazine that had a cover story on The Eagles. It was a 14 page history of the band from start to finish right up to the reunion tours. It was fascinating and I learned more about the band than I ever knew from that one article. This movie was like that article come to life.

I'm a music documentary nut and I've watched everything from docs on YES to Prince and Steely Dan. I'm fascinated by the process of music stardom and the histories of rock stars. Plus the backstage gossip is always juicy. Always fascinating to see how band members get along with each other (or not). I think we're always under the impression that because we see musicians jamming onstage and smiling and winking at each other as they play, that they're great friends but often nothing could be further than the truth. Artists can love the magic they create together but hate each other offstage socially. Van Halen comes to mind.

reply

I'm glad you found the time to come back. I'll look out for some of those other music docs.

One aspect that worked for me is the way the Eagles music formed part of the narrative to the story. Other documentaries (like the recent Genesis one) become a succession of music videos of the greatest hits by the end and that can be tough if you're not the biggest fan of the band. Luckily, I discovered that I still like Eagles music even when I haven't heard it for decades.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

I'm probably historically best described as a "Greatest Hits" fan of the Eagles, i.e. I own their compilation albums and I know and like the same Eagles songs that everybody knows and likes.

I've never considered myself enough of a fan to go see them in concert, but having watched this, I'm tempted to do so next time they tour. There was something about this documentary that swept me in and that brought the story and events "closer", and I think it was the seamless integration of the contemporary interviews, the concert footage and the footage of backstage or studio activity.

It seemed to be reasonably even-handed in terms of its perspective. On the one hand, it allowed Henley and especially Frey to bloviate somewhat about how great they were and why they deserved a bigger piece of the reunion pie than the others; one of them points out that it was thanks to their efforts as solo artists that Eagles music remained popular post-breakup, seemingly ignoring their earlier comment that classic rock radio pretty much took care of that and the fact that Glenn Frey basically just put out 80s pop-ish dreck for years after. On the other hand, the others (Don Felder especially) are given ample opportunity to tell their side of the story, and frankly come off looking pretty dignified.

One of the only other music documentaries I've seen that brings a band's story to life quite like this one was Rush: Beyond The Lighted Stage. I'd love to see similar documentaries about Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, U2, etc.


Revenge is a dish best served cold.
-- Klingon proverb

reply