Dallas Videofest 2009 - 72 Musicians
November 7
, 2009
72 min. | USA
Sometimes success and failure are the same thing. Especially with independent bands. Tour schedules, unemployment, day care, divorce, drinking... it's the 23 hours you're not on stage that's the hard part. Shot on one stage, in one club, during four days, this documentary empowers every almost-made-it musician to speak with a single, honest, infuriating, anonymous, resonant voice. And it's funny. And they kill live.
Information from the festival's website
Places to eat:
Drink Specials:
- Trader Vic's: 5 pm - 7 pm: $5 mai tai's, zombies and bahias
- Stan's Blue Note: 11 am - 7 pm: $2.95 vodka drinks, $1.75-$2.95 beer specials / 10 pm - 2 am: $2 wells and domestics
- J. Pepe's: 11 am - 2 am: $2.50 well drinks.
- The Green Elephant: 8 pm - 11 pm: $2.50 you call its
Teresa Gubbins, says:
Dear filmmaker Bob Moczydlowsky,
Boy, was I excited to see this rock documentary filmed in Kansas City. I've been a huge fan of the K.C. rock scene dating back to the '90s; always thought it such a tragedy that bands like Molly McGuire were so horridly exploited by record labels -- exactly the kind of exploitation that <em>72 Musicians</em> gets those K.C. bands to talk about via interviews about their experiences in the music industry.
Well, congratulations for being one more L.A. prince who exploits Kansas City bands with your annoying documentary, wherein you can't be bothered to identify who the musicians are, neither during the interviews nor when they're performing. I would love to know because I would possibly buy some of their material, but guess what, dude: I don't have time to sift through some list on your website to try and match up which bands I liked. After hearing the songs only once, I can't even say for sure which songs I liked.
And call me silly, but when someone is talking and being presented as having expertise or authority, as the musicians are in this film, then I like to see who they are.
Unfortunately, the camera work is more of the same: Not only does it dismiss the musicians' individual identities, it callously turns them into into a parade of inanimate body parts, with its laughable microscopic closeups of someone's teeth or a moving arm or a hat brim. And to what end? That kind of self-conscious camera work doesn't offer any insight into their being, all it does is ostentatiously assert that the people making the film are "arty," and ultimately distracts the viewer from what the interview subjects are saying. On some level it feels rather sadistic.
The documentary is weak in that there's a major disconnect between the interviews and the performances. The person being interviewed has no connection to the subsequent or preceding performance. It turns these people into cogs, like they're just passing through, secondary to the greater good of the all-important documentary. Unfortunately, the message - that labels exploit bands and that being a rock band isn't as glamorous as it looks - is hardly new or insightful.
The performances of the bands are great. As for who they are, the promotional material mentions Appleseed Cast, Coalesce, oh I don't know who they are and, as this film makes clear, it's not really important, is it?
Staff
3 weeks, 5 days agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
bobmoz, says:
Hi Teresa. Thanks for writing about my film. I'm sorry you didn't like it.
At the risk of sounding like a whiny, damaged artiste, however, I'm going to respond to a couple of your points.
First, I am hardly some "LA prince." Yes, I live in Los Angeles. I moved here three years ago after a decade in Kansas City. There is no studio, production company or any other "exploitive" entertainment company involved in the film. It's just me. I work for a living, and I spent a good deal of my own personal money on the film. I have yet to earn it back. The musicians in the film are, for the most part, my friends. Some of them are among my best friends. Exploiting them or their stories is not something that's in my nature. I hope they agree with me there. But for the sake of your review, please know this: I'm as anonymous and aspiring as the musicians in the film.
Which brings me to my second point, where I may sound a little disgruntled. 72 musicians is not a film about music. It’s a film about musicians. As you note, it doesn’t have any of the standard identification or background info about the names of the bands. It doesn’t have their history, the labels they’re on, or even the names of the songs you’ll hear. For most people (and especially for people who like films about music), I get that this might be annoying. But the film has a more challenging story to tell; a story that gets better if the viewer is willing to decide for themselves what they think of the music — without influence from marketing or critical commentary. As the filmmaker, I'm concerned with the people. And the film's point is that these people are for the most part anonymous -- they're our neighbors, friends, relatives -- and they're living their life in pursuit of their dreams, damn the torpedoes.
And yes, we do intentionally turn all the musicians into a kind of Every Man. The fact that you didn't get that is probably review enough; the film didn't work for you. You're not alone. Reactions to the film have been either very positive or very negative.
Hopefully, I'll get to make another film someday, and hopefully I'll do better. But for now, I stand by this one, and I think it's ok that not everyone gets it, or enjoys it. Thanks for watching and writing about 72 musicians, we need all of the press (good or bad) we can get.
cheers, -bob
ps -- You mentioned the great performances from the bands in the film. You can download a free soundtrack album from those bands here: http://72musicians.com
pps -- I think it's f*cking awesome that you like Molly McGuire. One of the best (and loudest) bands to ever come of out of the Midwest. We totally agree there!
Anonymous
3 weeks agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal