MovieChat Forums > Crossfire Hurricane (2012) Discussion > Will there be a Part II? Ends in the 197...

Will there be a Part II? Ends in the 1970s!


Knowing this was in a 2hr time-slot, I kept noticing that this Doc was getting closer and closer to its conclusion and it was still in the 1970s! And, then with about 15 minutes to go in the hour - the closing credits start up with footage from 2008's SHINE A LIGHT.

Poof. The end. No mention of the 80s, 90s, 00s and beyond.

I know this wasn't the intent, but, it kind of unconsciouly makes the point that the Stones haven't done much of worth since the 60s & 70s. That they are just coasting on their fame.

Part II?

reply


Yeah they needed another hour. I loved the cinematography and directing, but some things were overlooked. Incredible documentary though.

reply

I think the narrative of the film ends in the late-70s for a very good reason. The Stones had really stopped making "ground-breaking" music by that point and had became a touring band. By 1980, they were no longer shocking the World with their tours or their music. I saw a show off the "Some Girls" tour in 1978 and a show off the "Tatoo You" tour in late 1981, and they were two completely different experiences. The 1978 concert was a wild decadent adventure, while the 1981 concert had almost a nostalgic feeling, with the band playing their "greatest hits" (many of which were 15 years old or more) and some songs off the mediocre "Tatoo You" album.

Most important of all, by 1980, the demographics of youth had changed. Young people at that point didn't have any real memories of the 1960s.

The Stones have been one of the most prolific touring bands since 1980, but their's has been a nostalgic audience for the most part. Not too much that's new, or fresh, or shocking.

reply

I found the ending to be appropriate. It ended when the Stones' career should have ended.

reply

I agree with Chas and Enchilada, this is as good a place as any to stop. For a real stones fan, the information is all over, and you watch it all and you read it all, and you know that you will never know everything, and why should you? The Stones were the unexpected flash that comes every so often - the right people, the right time, the right looks, the right circumstances, the right combination of personalities to make it work. And through it all, from the start, the iron-clad determination of one man that he would play this music, he loved it, it was his life, whether he was rich or poor. Good for him he turned out rich -- but he would still be playing it anyway, had he been poor. I learned a tremendous amount from a book written decades ago, Marianne Faithfull's autobiography.

I've seen all the movies and filmed concerts, read all the books and have gotten to see them live twice. I'm an American who cut her teeth on rhythm and blues, and their roots are my roots. Their later concerts became multigenerational, with kids and their grandads saying it was the best concert they had ever seen. I still learned a few things. Although I like slide guitar okay, I don't go out looking for it. I've always loved "No Expectations", especially for the slide, and the bass, but I never knew it was Brian's last useful contribution. Despite all the hype and rumours about his death, I thought that they handled that with feeling and good taste. It took a long time to recover from his loss, and some realized gradually over the years the differences his additions had made.

And my most favorite song - for years and years and years (Oh, don't play that !! It's so long !!") is considered their masterpiece - the great "Midnight Rambler". I heard it open-mouthed, on my feet, in Auburn, Alabama in 1969, and since I just had gotten the album, to me it was still a "new song" - I sure didn't expect to see it that night. Mick's black belt with white grommets cracked each time it hit the stage and he was wearing his famous black jumpsuit with the Omega on the front. Unforgettable.

No one can do what they have done. It's just too late for anybody to even start. Their mystique adds to the magic, and there is no need so strip it all away. To just watch, and listen, to the old and the new, from the nervous Jagger dragged out on the stage at the T.A.M.I. show, following what many still consider the very best film of an R & B act, James Brown and the Flames, to the elegant and decadent Keith telling his story about the concert he put together for Chuck Berry, punctuated by that laugh that sounds like a cough, to Mick's tossed hair when he sings "Well, I used to love her - but it's all over now". These are special people, doing special performances, and we'll probably not see their like again.







Yodi

reply

Great post, SGJane81.

Overall, this is a good documentary that mostly keeps the focus on the Stones’ best era. The image of the dangerous “black hat” band is played up to the hilt, which is a smart marketing tool for enticing a new generation of fans. In addition to being an exceptional singer and consummate showman, Jagger is a very savvy businessman. For me, the band’s glory days began to fade as soon as Mick Taylor left the Stones. While Ron Wood is a talented man, the interplay between Richards and Taylor produced some of the Stones' best work.

Some Girls was arguable the last “classic” Stones album, so it is fitting that the documentary does not linger much past this point. It is no small feat that the Stones were able to transition from the glory days of producing one landmark album after another, to an even longer era of the well-oiled touring & money-making live extravaganza. Younger music lovers tempted to dismiss the Stones as a corporate behemoth gifted only at raking in massive box office receipts every five years or so, will gain a much deeper appreciation for what the fuss was all about.

While there is no doubt that the documentary was produced to help market the 50 year anniversary of the band, there is no denying the power of the music and performances, most of which have stood the test of time quite well.

reply

I'd watch a part II, I think if you're celebrating 50 years then you should chronicle 50 years, but I think they've covered the most interesting and essential time in the bands history. I imagine anything after this would be much less captivating a viewing experience. I think the point that they ended at kind of does reach that point where the Stones become the band they are today - the giant touring behemoth, adored by the masses. The doc had a decent narrative arc to it in that sense.

___
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxuvJU0MVaU

reply

They need to do a Rolling Stones Anthology like the Beatles did. 10 Hours. Full story, from childhood and first meetings right thru and including the 21st century.

reply

[deleted]