Xixax Film Forum

Film Discussion => The Vault => Topic started by: modage on March 26, 2009, 09:27:08 AM

Title: Taking Woodstock
Post by: modage on March 26, 2009, 09:27:08 AM
trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Iq8z2WDbKo

oooh, its a comedy.
Title: Taking Woodstock
Post by: Sleepless on March 26, 2009, 10:17:24 AM
That looks fucking brilliant. Gonna be fun!!!
Title: Taking Woodstock
Post by: SiliasRuby on March 26, 2009, 10:30:20 AM
Yippppppeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!! I know and love this music and have extensive knowledge of that time so this is going to be great or complete crap, probably great though.
Title: Re: Taking Woodstock
Post by: polkablues on March 26, 2009, 11:34:42 AM
This should be good.  I like Demetri Martin as an actor; he kind of comes off like a less smarmy Zach Braff.
Title: Re: Taking Woodstock
Post by: New Feeling on March 26, 2009, 03:20:20 PM
That trailer looks pretty bad but I'm expecting Ang to come through.  the Woodstock doc is one of my favorite films so this will have a hard time living up.     
Title: Re: Taking Woodstock
Post by: Reinhold on March 26, 2009, 06:21:22 PM
they were cutting this in the suite next to the suite that Xavier was edited in, so I saw some of this from my desk in the hall. looks really great from a composition standpoint but I'm not too juiced about the music i heard (unmixed).
Title: Re: Taking Woodstock
Post by: SiliasRuby on March 26, 2009, 06:53:12 PM
I really hope for the best for this film
Title: Re: Taking Woodstock
Post by: NEON MERCURY on March 26, 2009, 09:39:44 PM
 :yabbse-angry:  this like like shit.   when/if i eventually see it i hope i geta chance to laugh at my stupidity.

trailers are treuly unique..take WTWTA and everything yyou know about the book and spike lays down and amazing trailer that does everythiong a trailer shoud do..then take all u know about the potentrial of an Ang 'I directed THE ICE STORM" Lee woodstock film and look at the horrible trailer..wow
Title: Re: Taking Woodstock
Post by: Neil on March 26, 2009, 11:39:46 PM
I have only watched it once, but i do believe that this will be on the better list for me.  I am pretty excited, I just believe in/enjoy a good ole' story about woodstock any time.  I personally enjoy the time period/subject matter, ya know? But i sort of agree with you pyramid, after watching it a second time, it didn't visually pull an ang lee on me, so, who knows, different approach. i don't know much about it.


Still want to see it, kinda bad.

FUCK YEAH DEMETRI!!!
Title: Re: Taking Woodstock
Post by: MacGuffin on April 29, 2009, 08:01:36 PM
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpopwatch.ew.com%2Fphotos%2Funcategorized%2F2009%2F04%2F09%2Ftakingwoodstockposter1.jpg&hash=3a1afc12558d9ad84bcd793630f8e8b38b5e385d)
Title: Re: Taking Woodstock
Post by: MacGuffin on May 16, 2009, 09:35:23 AM
New Ang Lee film conjures up spirit of Woodstock  

CANNES, France (Reuters) - Oscar-winning director Ang Lee conjures the optimism of late 1960s America in a touching film based on the true story of Elliot Tiber, who was instrumental in organizing the legendary Woodstock concert.

In "Taking Woodstock," news footage and the presence in the cast of troubled Vietnam war veteran Billy, played by Emile Hirsch, are reminders of the violent backdrop to the event.

But they barely intrude upon what is a feel-good movie in which Lee aimed to capture what he called "the last moment of innocence," and a contrast to his most recent films "Brokeback Mountain" and "Lust, Caution," both tragedies.

"I was yearning to do a comedy/drama again without cynicism," Lee told reporters on Saturday at the Cannes film festival, where Taking Woodstock is in the main competition.

"For me '69 ... is a glorified idea, a romantic image of the late 60s, the last piece of innocence we had, at least in my mind," the 54-year-old Taiwanese director added.

"To me it's the innocence of a young generation departing from the old establishment and trying to find a more refreshing way, more fair way to live with everybody else.

"You have to give those half a million kids the credit of actually having three days of peace and music, nothing violent happened. I don't know if it could happen today."

An estimated 500,000 fans turned up in August, 1969, to hear the likes of Janis Joplin, The Who and Jimi Hendrix perform on a dairy farm belonging to Tiber's neighbor Max Yasgur.

Taking Woodstock, which is based on Tiber's memoirs, will be released in cinemas on the 40th anniversary weekend.

BEHIND-THE-SCENES LOOK

Rather than recreating the concert itself, Taking Woodstock follows Tiber, his family and friends from the town of Bethel as they prepare to host an event which turned out to be one of the biggest and most important in rock history.

A theater troupe puts on performances that invariably end with everyone on stage in the nude, while Tiber's parents, who run the ramshackle El Monaco motel, work around the clock to capitalize on the sudden influx that arrives on their doorstep.

British actors Henry Goodman and Imelda Staunton are Tiber's Jewish immigrant parents who react very differently to the new and strange world of music executives, hippies, hangers-on and a cross-dressing ex-Marine called Vilma, played by Liev Schreiber.

Staunton's character cannot let go of her past.

"I'm playing someone who cannot change, and the whole story and the concert and the documentary, and now the film, is showing how change can happen," Staunton said.

"So symbolically I'm rather regretful that I'm someone who is stuck with her own struggle and can't move on."

Tiber, the central character portrayed by comedian Demetri Martin, breaks free from his overbearing mother to discover his own sexuality.

Despite the homage paid to the spirit of free love and free tickets, everyone is on the make, from Yasgur to locals who charge thirsty festival-goers to fill their bottles with water.

The event was captured in Michael Wadleigh's three-hour 1970 documentary, which picked up an Oscar.

Lee acknowledged the influence of the documentary on Taking Woodstock, and writer James Schamus said he hoped the movie would encourage people to go and watch the earlier work.
Title: Re: Taking Woodstock
Post by: MacGuffin on August 10, 2009, 12:53:36 AM
Focus Features' far-out plan
Ang Lee's 'Woodstock' taps new aud for '60s
Source: Variety

Focus Features has a challenge in Ang Lee's "Taking Woodstock": How to market a film that is centered around the 40-year-old landmark event, but isn't really about that event.

Conventional wisdom would dictate targeting baby boomers. But, in fact, Focus believes there is a much wider audience for the pic, which bows Aug. 28 in about 1,000 theaters.

Certainly the company is tapping into the sensibility of that era, capitalizing on this month's multiple celebrations of the 40th anniversary of the event. Focus is promoting the pic using psychedelic lettering, hippie garb and music, of course. There are tie-ins with a VH1 special, the History Channel, a partnership with a Sirius pop-up channel, a Rolling Stone guitar sweepstakes; and interactive features on the official website in which veterans can share Woodstock stories and users can transform their photo into a psychedelic poster.

In addition, the cast and filmmakers have been crossing the country for a schedule of screenings and junkets in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco and in and around Woodstock itself.

"We are very closely tied in with the history and the spirit of Woodstock," notes Focus CEO James Schamus, who also scripted the pic. "From day one, we've tried to stay in that zone."

Though there's plenty of the era's music in the movie, there is no concert footage. The focus is on the "story behind the story" and the human interplay that led to half a million people showing up in Bethel, N.Y. And Schamus and his team -- including Focus president Andrew Karpen and prexy of theatrical distribution Jack Foley -- have found big enthusiasm from audiences who were born decades after the Aug. 15-17, 1969, event.

Partly that's because star Demetri Martin has a big following from his standup work on Comedy Central and on college campuses. But more important, audiences are responding to the universal story about one man finding himself and defining himself in relation to his upbringing.

The film also hits a nerve with contempo audiences, since it's about an end of one era and the beginning of another, when the nation was demoralized from an unpopular war overseas and depersonalized society, while simultaneously finding new reasons for hope and signs of change.

The marketing is aimed at reminding people that Woodstock was a monument to the '60ish notion that anything is possible. Despite the seeming chaos from overcrowding, bad weather and a lack of food, attendees got along, supported each other and made the best of the difficulties -- and not a single incident of violence took place.

The film was the result of chance meeting in October 2007. Elliot Tiber was promoting his memoir about his role in bringing the almost-cancelled music event to Woodstock, N.Y., as an effort to save his parents' motel from being taken over by the bank. During a stop in San Francisco, he was booked on a talkshow just before Lee, who was promoting "Lust, Caution," and gave the director a copy of the book.

A film school friend urged Lee to read the book and by the following summer, the director was shooting footage in New York, taking advantage of the state's production incentives.

Lee is a key selling point in the pic, but his reputation brings the tricky factor of managing expectations. "Taking Woodstock" is the 11th collaboration between Lee and scripter Schamus. After such films as "Lust, Caution," "Brokeback Mountain" and "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon," some critics at the film's world preem in Cannes in May (including Variety's) were surprised that the film was so small-scale and gentle, and disappointed that it featured no concert footage.

Schamus blames himself. "I believe that some of the critics were puzzled in that I think they wanted to see Janis Joplin," he notes. "We had finished the week before and we didn't have time to guide expectations."

But the pic got a rare five-minute standing ovation at the official screening, with enthusiasm from young audiences and overseas folks for yet another change-of-pace from Lee, told with subtle humor and an undercurrent of melancholy.

Woodstock was elevated into iconic status thanks to another movie: Michael Wadleigh's Oscar-winning 1970 documentary, which grossed an astounding (for that time) $50 million for Warner Bros. after being acquired for a mere $100,000. Martin Scorsese and Thelma Schoonmaker helped edit the pic. But those hoping for another version of Jimi Hendrix performing "The Star Spangled Banner" or Ten Years After doing "I'm Going Home" again will be sorely disappointed.

"We didn't need to remake the genius documentary, which we watched religiously in prep," Schamus notes. "Concert movies don't get a lot of respect but that's a work of genius."

But the film is not about the music. "The lovely joke in the film is that here's this very funny dysfunctional family that's three miles from the concert and Elliot never makes it to the concert," Schamus says.

Focus isn't giving out the budget but it's believed to be in the mid-20s. The cast isn't exactly high-priced, with Martin in the lead along with the key roles filled by Henry Goodman and Imelda Staunton as his overbearing parents, Eugene Levy as Max Yasgur, Jonathan Groff as concert promoter Michael Lang, Emile Hirsch as a Vietnam vet and Liev Schreiber as a cross-dressing ex-Marine.

Aside from managing expectations about the film's non-concert focus and about Lee's work, Focus is dealing with the question of timing. Late August is usually a burial ground for films so the Aug. 28 bow might surprise some domestic B.O. watchers. (The pic's international rollout begins day and date in Australia and Sweden, followed by a Sept. 3 bow in Germany.)

Focus originally planned to open "Taking Woodstock" on Aug. 14 to match the anniversary but moved it back two weeks after seven other films landed on the date. But execs are hoping the two-week delay allows them to take advantage of the wave of nostalgia this month.

"We think it's wise to wait longer so that the public gets a taste of it," Schamus says.

The writer-exec remains relentlessly upbeat and notes that it took him a long time to articulate his goal in making "Taking Woodstock."

"We're trying to make people happy and that's an elusive state," he says. "We tried to make this as joyful an experience as we could during the filming to get that sense on the screen. We're trying to radiate the same kind of vibes."
Title: Re: Taking Woodstock
Post by: brockly on September 01, 2009, 11:09:36 AM
Ang Lee has made some of the best movies of the decade. when i heard his next film would be coming out this year, i had my fingers crossed he would deliver a masterpiece to end the decade. that was asking too much, it wasn't meant to be. nevertheless, Taking Woodstock is simply put another great film by a great director.

the plot revolves around the mundane lives of a struggling Jewish family getting caught up in the middle of the rambunctious social upheaval of the sixties. selling out his town in a desperate attempt to save his family from going broke, Elliot brings the Woodstock festival to the quiet country town of Wallkill. in doing so, he is exposed to the "center of the universe" and his perspective on life is thrown out of whack.

spoilers!
there is a moment here, featuring an lsd trip, that is probably the best scene i've seen all year. the film brilliantly builds up to this moment, which is clearly the turning point in Elliot's life. the only complaint i have is that i felt it should have ended shortly after instead dwindling for as long as it did. that's not a big problem though.

ang lee is extraordinary. if he's capable of making a film that doesn't reach greatness, we've yet to see it. he's been one of the powerhouses this decade and he's ended it competently with another great film. hats off.
Title: Re: Taking Woodstock
Post by: Neil on September 02, 2009, 11:07:51 PM
Quotethe only complaint i have is that i felt it should have ended shortly after instead dwindling for as long as it did. that's not a big problem though.

I know you said it didn't bother you greatly, but i just wanted to add that the LSD lasting too long might not have been a fluke.  That's what that shit does.  Goes, and goes, and goes etc.
Title: Re: Taking Woodstock
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on September 04, 2009, 12:34:22 PM
I loved pretty much everything in this movie, but all that split screen stuff was really annoying.  During the opening credits it was ok, but throughout the movie it was incredibly distracting to me. 

It's a minor complaint, but still, very confusing as to aesthetically "why."
Title: Re: Taking Woodstock
Post by: CatMan5129 on September 06, 2009, 04:48:41 PM
Quote from: Walrus on September 04, 2009, 12:34:22 PM
I loved pretty much everything in this movie, but all that split screen stuff was really annoying.  During the opening credits it was ok, but throughout the movie it was incredibly distracting to me. 

It's a minor complaint, but still, very confusing as to aesthetically "why."

It's an homage to the original documentary film, Woodstock (1970), which had a great deal of split screen.  I thought it was used appropriately when the scenes were meant to feel overwhelming.
Title: Re: Taking Woodstock
Post by: ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ on September 06, 2009, 11:22:05 PM
Oh.
Title: Re: Taking Woodstock
Post by: diggler on September 09, 2009, 06:37:37 PM
just saw it and really enjoyed it. i was the only one in the theater.

spoilers

The LSD scene was appropriately overwhelming but not schlocky. I hate when movies try to depict drug experiences but this one was pretty spot on. loved the shot of the field turning into a giant wave.  It's no classic but I was genuinely moved by several scenes (particularly the father saying goodbye)