Did anyone else think this sucked?

It's pretty amusing that Tashago thinks the filmmakers didn't know how to edit a film. Aram Avakian not only won an Oscar for his editing of The Miracle Worker before he became a full-time director and film professor at NYU, he was also known as the best editor in the business.

Besides which, the comment that the people who made the film weren't "jazz aficionados [spelling corrected]" is hilarious. Avakian took three of the most famous photographs of Miles Davis in history -- the ones you see on postcards -- and he was also Red Garland's manager in Paris.

Aram Avakian's son once told me a story: As a kid, he answered the phone one day and was startled to hear Miles was on the other end.

"I was just lookin' at that picture of me your daddy took," Miles rasped. "Best picture I ever had."

Aram's older brother, George, was also a famous jazz producer for a Columbia Records and produced albums by Miles Davis.

So tell me, self-professed "jazz af[]icionado" -- when it comes to understanding the music, how do your credentials stack up against theirs?

Yeah, I'm used to modern concert films and would have liked to see more of the performances. But without Avakian and Stern, this film wouldn't exist at all, nor be beautifully shot and edited, nor show so vividly what life was like in that blissfully pre-hippie decade. The shots of the audience are brilliant in their unstaged and aesthetically distilled candor. The filmmakers aren't making a statement about life in the 50s or the torture of being a pre-civil rights jazz musician. They're showing you exactly what it was like to live right then and there, on that day, enjoying a gorgeous afternoon, people's company, and some of the greatest jazz and gospel musicians who ever lived.

Without this flick, I wouldn't have a clue as to what any of that felt like and neither would you, so stop pretending to be an expert and just say thank you. I'm a musician myself and I'll survive without closeups of people's fingers.

===========

And as for the idea that the party "looked like a beer commercial" -- first of all, beer commercials don't feature half-naked men playing the cello while spuming clouds of cigarette smoke that obscure the play of their fingers across the neck. Second, how culturally illiterate do you have to be to recognize that beer commercials merely imitate real scenes like the one in the flick?

What you take for reality today is another set of mannerisms that masquerade as truth, just as those in the 50s did. Brando and Dean looked disarmingly real back then; now their performances, good as they are, look mannered to us.

Today's verité will look just as stagy a decade or two from now as 50s verité does to us, which is why it's important to understand the difference between mainstream style and localized content: Style always changes. Recorded events do not.

I'm with the others who love it more every time they see it. The music is great, and the photography is beautiful. But what I especially love is the "slice of life" we get viewing the audience and the other events happening simultaneous with the music. This is one of the few documents of mid-century America that depicts black and white people equally -- not in contention with each other, not segregated; one group is not subservient or superior to the other. It's really kind of fascinating, especially given what was happening overall in society at the time.

I love how it's not only a concert film, but also feels like a travelogue, home movies, a study in portraiture, and even advertising -- especially with its high-concept photography, stylized lighting, and the juxtaposition of disparate images to evoke a particular mood and sentiment.

As engaging as the music is, to me, the real show happens offstage -- on the water, as part of the America’s Cup trials, around town, and in the audience, where we as viewers get to react to the music, and to the audience reacting to the music. The audience itself is a distinct character in the film, making this a perfect snapshot of mid-century America in addition to being a survey of the world of jazz.

And jazz is America. Its rise and decline almost perfectly mirrors the trajectory of American culture over the course of the 20th century. From its rural, blues influenced roots, to the sophisticated urban styles that eventually morphed to become rock and roll, this period in music history is exactly like the overall post-war period in America: one on the cusp of major change and upheaval. Watching this movie with a modern eye, we can give a wink and a nod at the things to come. Seeing a young Chuck Berry perform “Sweet 16″ is amazing to behold, but watching the audience’s reaction to him is even more telling as it underscores the impending shift change.

This movie is as much about the show as it is about the people watching the show.

Ha ha, made you look.

Use of the word "sucked" shows the level of criticism.

It is flawed, but... there were clearance issues that limited which artists and songs could be filmed and recorded. (Some things never change.) Also, 35mm color film wasn't cheap; they couldn't just let the cameras run all day and night.

The house party scenes were actually filmed on Long Island. Some of the people who appear were actors; the original plan was to make a narrative film, but they couldn't come up with a workable script.

This comes from the director interview which is included on the Charly DVD edition. Strangely, the clips included in the interview look better than the movie itself, so the Charly DVD probably isn't the best this movie can look.