Led Zeppelin - The Song Remains The Same - movie review

Led Zeppelin's "concert movie", The Song Remains The Same, has not met with wholehearted approval over the years, often being labelled either lacklustre or self-indulgent, or both. Having not watched the film for quite some time, I recently gave it another viewing, and thought that I would commit my impressions to blog form.

Although the concert footage was recorded in 1973, at Madison Square Garden in New York, the finished product was not released until 1976. The musical content is interspersed and overlaid with behind-the-scenes documentary clips as well as "fantasy" sequences and other assorted visuals.

The first thing to say is that the concert sequences are visually excellent, easy on the eye and technically well executed. The stage lighting is beautifully captured too, in the form of various reds, oranges and greens, giving the images an agreeable warmth and luxury, particularly in the close-up shots. The relatively small size of Zeppelin's stage set also gives the performance an intimacy and a compactness often absent from films set in large venues.

In some quarters I have seen the musical content of The Song Remains The Same uniformly dismissed. I think that this is slightly unjust. To me the quality of the performance is uneven more than anything else. It is true that the band was possibly at its peak as a live act in 1972, a year before this footage was shot, but there is still much to admire here. Even inconsistent and marginally below-par Zeppelin is well worth watching and/or listening to...

The version of "No Quarter" here is perhaps the stand-out piece in the movie. It is more aggressive than the studio version, with a great Jimmy Page guitar solo. Some memorable visuals are super-imposed on the music, including owls and sinister men on horseback. All "very Seventies", but quite effective and diverting, the cliches notwithstanding.

The longer, more "prog"-orientated tracks, especially those from the "Houses of the Holy" album, lend themselves more readily to outlandish visuals and story-telling, possessing a more "cinematic" quality. "The Song Remains The Same" (the song) is another example of this trend, as is "The Rain Song". This portion of the concert set is well suited to the "Arthurian" imagery which accompanies much of it. Actually, watching some of the "videos" produced for the film makes me wonder why Led Zeppelin did not explore these avenues more thoroughly in subsequent years.

The non-musical portions of the film are very much "of their time", but to my eyes they also have a period charm which is rather endearing. The sight of John Bonham driving a tractor is one of the highlights of the whole thing!  The backstage and documentary-style clips very much convey the extravagance, excess and egotism of Seventies rock, which may go some way towards explaining why some "critics" have traditionally found fault with this film.

The sound is pretty good, although some may contend that John Bonham's inimitable drumming is not captured as prominently as it might be. The separation allows the immaculate bass-playing of John Paul Jones to be properly appreciated, and Jimmy Page's Gibson Les Paul and double-neck guitars sound terrific throughout, organic and earthy, sometimes ethereal.  Admittedly,  Robert Plant was perhaps not on peak form vocally here. Was this the period when he was beginning to experience some voice problems?

Some of the performances towards the conclusion of the movie are very strong. "Dazed And Confused" is loose but incisive.  "Stairway to Heaven" is interpreted in an understated but affecting way, with an excellent solo by Page. "Whole Lotta Love" is performed in its familiar format, with more improvisation and ad-libbing in the middle section, although not as much an extended "medley" as on other live renditions.

In spite of this film's reputation and its flaws, I find it quite entertaining and slickly put together, especially when taking into account the various difficulties which were encountered in its production. It is a pretty evocative document of its era.

Mean Streets - movie review

"Mean Streets", the 1973 movie directed by Martin Scorsese, and starring Harvey Keitel and Robert De Niro, is one of those films which I think for many people is strangely elusive in its nature. Not a cult movie as such, but equally not one which would be easily described as a mainstream blockbuster. It has a charm all of its own.

The great use of music, a feature of several Scorsese films, is evident from the outset, even in the opening titles. This is just one of those elements which lifts "Mean Streets" well above the mundane. Throughout we are treated to assorted 50s and 60s classics (The Ronettes, The Rolling Stones etc) as well as opera and Italian songs.

The plot centres on mobster Charlie (Harvey Keitel), and his efforts to protect his wayward friend Johnny Boy (Robert De Niro), mostly from loan sharks and their depredations. This task becomes more fraught as Johnny Boy's behaviour grows increasingly abrasive and confrontational. There is some suggestion that Charlie, in pursuing this course, is striving for the redemption which he cannot attain through his religious faith.

De Niro's performance is outstanding, combining impishness and self-confidence with a certain vulnerability. He never allows the character of Johnny Boy to lapse too far into caricature.

"Mean Streets" succeeds in part because it is not weighed down by heavy and momentous themes. The screenplay and the quality of the acting carry any moral messages along with them. To my mind there is a heavy emphasis on telling a story, rather than constantly dwelling on profound issues. This way, the themes themselves are allowed to breathe naturally.

The aesthetic of "Mean Streets" has similarities to previous films;"The French Connection" springs to mind, but the atmosphere is nowhere near as gloomy and austere as other pictures of the genre. The music certainly helps, as does the variety in the locations and the visuals;there is even a scene at the beach. The scenes in assorted sleazy bars and clubs are each given a personality of their own, by the good use of lighting, music and so forth. Yes, it is still a gritty movie, but it also possesses a certain warmth. The dialogue contains some humour amidst the menace.

Due to the format of the film, and the mood which is built up, the viewer develops an empathy for, and an interest in, the destiny of the individual characters on a human level. The emotions are engaged, and this has more to it than merely a tale about mobsters. More depth, even allowing for the sobering and gruesome ending.

"Mean Streets" has been cited as highly influential by many people, both in its visual and narrative feel, and in areas technical such as camerawork and editing. However, it should be judged as an engaging film in its own right, with a distinctive tone stemming from a combination of potent but subtly employed ingredients. The movie may be overshadowed to a degree by the films which later came to define the Seventies in cultural terms, but it is absorbing, powerful and imaginative.

Taxi Driver - movie review

Taxi Driver, the 1976 film directed by Martin Scorsese, and starring Robert De Niro, is not a movie to be watched for light relief, but it is immensely powerful and absorbing. It is one of the pictures which made the 1970s such a golden period for cinema. Indeed, some might argue that Taxi Driver is the quintessential Seventies movie, because it touches on so many of the themes which were central to the time - political cynicism, the fallout from the Vietnam War, urban decay, social disintegration and general ennui and stagnation.

I watched Taxi Driver again just recently, and it had lost none of its impact. Of course, the centrepiece of the work is the character of Travis Bickle, so magnificently played by Robert De Niro. Quite apart from the acting performances, the cinematography and other aspects, one of the major strengths of the project for me is the multi-faceted plot, which has a nicely ambiguous feel to it. Throughout the piece I found myself asking "what are Travis Bickle's real motives and aspirations here?"  The movie therefore is imbued with real substance and depth, and actually encourages, even forces, the viewer to think constantly.

To summarize, Bickle is a Vietnam vet who take a job as a New York taxi driver, choosing consciously to work the night-shift. He is repelled by the corrupt and sordid activities which he witnesses, and begins to nurture visions of "cleaning up" the city. The movie documents his voyage into some dark places. The "diary" format of the narrative is a clever device, and it helps to strengthen the impression of a man going through a process of change, soul-searching and torment.

I had forgotten just how vivid and evocative the night-time sequences in Taxi Driver really are, capturing the sleaze, grime and insidiousness of the the world which Bickle inhabits, all bright lights, menace, vice and shadowy figures. The opening title sequence sets things up perfectly in this respect, as does the wonderful music by Bernard Herrmann, which is a feature of the entire movie..

The most unsettling thoughts which occurred to me whilst watching Taxi Driver recently concerned the main character's state of mind and motivations. Was Travis Bickle seeking to give his life some focus and meaning?  We are also left wondering whether Bickle's deeper motivations are selfless or self-serving .Perhaps there are both positive and negative consequences of alienation.  The character was not stereotypical or straightforward, even though popular perception has tended to see it that way.

The ending, it seems, has attracted much comment down the years. It does have some characteristics which one would associate with the average "dream sequence", for example the images of Betsy (Cybill Shepherd) and the delivery of parts of the dialogue.  It seems that it was not intended as a dream sequence, but it has the effect of keeping people guessing. Despite everything, has Travis been purged of his demons?

Whichever way we choose to interpret Taxi Driver, it comes nearer to meriting the word "masterpiece" than most cinematic works.

2013 US Open - Men's Final - Djokovic v Nadal

In the end, Rafael Nadal produced some of his patented tempestuous tennis to slowly overpower Novak Djokovic, and clinch his second US Open title in New York. Before Nadal's surge, however, there was some ebb and flow about the final at Flushing Meadows. At times, the level of play was stunning, even if it did not quite sustain the heights of excellence which we have seen in matches between the "big three" in recent years.

Nadal probably went into yesterday's final at Flushing Meadows as the marginal favourite, based on his and Djokovic's respective form in the build-up. The course and outcome of yesterday's final tended to confirm the view that Djokovic is not quite the well-oiled, chillingly efficient tennis machine of recent times. This is hardly surprising, as it would have been near-impossible to maintain that level for any great length of time. Yesterday there were even stages where his belief seemed to be sagging, but playing Nadal can have that effect on most people!

On the other hand, Nadal continues to astonish with his resilience and capacity to defy the doubters.  In the past couple of years, people have repeatedly asserted that his body will eventually cry enough, in the face of his relentless and vigorous style of play.  Each time, the Spaniard seems to return stronger in both body and spirit. The fire in his eyes, and in his belly, remain undiminished, it would appear.

There were times in the final yesterday when the match threatened to transform itself into a genuine "classic", as implied by the awesome 54-shot rally which saw Djokovic break serve in the second set.  Nadal's dynamism and zest however gradually took the match away from his opponent.  At this exalted level, the Serb only needed to drop marginally in intensity and consistency for it to be decisive.  Too many errors crept in as time went on. Nadal went majestically on in his unyielding, industrious way, and Djokovic struggled to respond in the last one-and-a-half sets.

So as the Grand Slams end for another year, what is the state of play, the pecking order if you will, at the top of men's tennis?  Well, it looks much more fluid these days.  With the travails of Roger Federer, do we even speak in terms of a "big three" or "big four" anymore?  Andy Murray's elevation to the status of Grand Slam winner has complicated such assessments, but I think some have excluded him from the top echelon, not because of any lack of accomplishment, but owing to his style of play.  This perception may soon have to change.

It's unfair to say that the "golden era" is unravelling.  It is just changing. More exciting times in store!