This article was downloaded by: [University of Leeds] On: 26 July 2010 Access details: Access Details: [subscription

number 773557620] Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 3741 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Critical Studies in Media Communication

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713597236

Remembering the dangers of rock and roll: Toward a historical narrative of the rock festival
Daniel F. Schowaltera a Doctoral candidate in the Department of Communication and Culture, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN

To cite this Article Schowalter, Daniel F.(2000) 'Remembering the dangers of rock and roll: Toward a historical narrative

of the rock festival', Critical Studies in Media Communication, 17: 1, 86 102 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/15295030009388377 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15295030009388377

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Critical Studies in Media Communication

Vol. 17, No. 1, March 2000, pp. 86-102

Remembering the Dangers of Rock and Roll: Toward A Historical Narrative of the Rock Festival
Daniel F. Schowalter

Downloaded By: [University of Leeds] At: 15:36 26 July 2010

This essay argues that Michael Wadleigh's documentary Woodstock (1970) and Albert and David Maysles's Gimme Shelter (1970) help trace a historical narrative which potentially chronicles the hazardous "effects" of rock music. This narrative helps explain how contemporary attacks on rock music might continue to resonate with the larger public. Like a conspirator, "the music" in these films is largely invisible yet its pernicious effects are made clear. D. A. Pennebaker's Monterey Pop (1968) is offered as a palliative which subverts the assumptions of this narrative, making its music highly visible while not exploiting representations of the audience. In doing so, Monterey Pop exposes the conspiracy logic of the narrative. "There are times when it's easy to think resistance to attempts to tap the rawest that the rock and roll musician is the most passions" (p. 73) and that "music is the militant, subversive, effective, whole, to- m e d i u m of the human soul hi its most gether, powerful force for radical change e c s t a t i c c o n d i t i o n o f w o n d e r ^ d t e r . on this planet. Other times you know its ,, / n-,\ -j x-c -KK- I T ror true." le Great Speckled Bird.;1969 ^ l \ B l o o m 1 J e , n t l f i e s Mickjagger as having the ability to stimulate OCK music continues to be tar- mobs to a "sensual frenzy," legitimate geted as a cause for moral decay drugs, and appeal to "suppressed incliin society. Best-selling author Allan nations toward sexism, racism and vioBloom (1987) claims that rock music lence" (p. 78). He concludes that "the has a "barbaric appeal to sexual de- essential character of musical entertainsire" (p. 73). He goes on to complain ment is not changing" (p. 79). that rock music has risen "in an atmoTipper Gore (1987), likewise a sphere in which there is no intellectual prominent critic of rock music, writes that "The drug-use messages that the Woodstock generation of rock bands Daniel F. Schowalter is a doctoral candidate in began to convey . . . continue today" the Department of Communication and Culture (p. 127). She argues that the proat Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405. violence and pro-drug messages of Portions of this essay were presented at the annual meeting of the Southern States Commu- heavy-metal and punk bands are a connication Association, Memphis, IN, 1996. The tinuation, a development, of the cycle author acknowledges Dr. John Louis Lucaites of decay begun in die late sixties. Like andJames L. Cherney of Indiana Universityfor Bloom, and others such as the Parents' their insights and criticisms of this essay. Music Resource Centre, she argues that
Copyright 2000, National Communication Association

87 CSMC SCHOWALTER

the essential character of rock music posits it as a great harm to its auditors and that this condition can only worsen. Such attacks on popular music enjoy an ancient tradition. More recently (1998), Robert Knight writes in his book
The Age of Consent: The Rise of Relativism and the Corruption of Popular Culture that

whites picked up the "infectious beat" (p. 201) of rhythm and blues from blacks and that Mick Jagger and the Rolling Stones were personally responsible for the infamous murder of Meredeth Hunter by a Hell's Angel at the Altamont Speedway in 1969, a festival emblematic of what "popular culture" had become. Whether utilized as an attack or an observation, the type of inevitable decay resulting from rock and roll is not just limited to reactionaries of the right or left, but can even be found in the province of cultural studies, as when cultural critic Dick Hebdige (1979) notes the "profane aesthetic" of punk bands and writes that "neurosis in punk had its origins in rock" (p. 28). The purpose of this essay is neither to scrutinize nor inventory these common and pervasive argumentssuch a task would be daunting. Rather, it is to ask, why do these critiques resonate and what source potentially informs them? To answer this, we must examine the rhetorical construction of rock music and the "consequences" the music potentially brings to its auditors. Because the above criticisms focus on the "effects" of rock music, an examination of the rhetorical construction of the rock festival is most appropriate.1 Here, "rock festival" is the occasion for the reception of rock music by a large group of" fans and the subsequent and inextricable "effects" of that musicthat is, how fans "get off" on their music. How are people to "make sense"

of the rock festival and how, in turn, does this sense-making potentially function within the larger rhetorical community concerned with the "effects" of rock music? An exhaustive analysis of rock festival reportage is not the goal, but rather examining two feature-length documentary films which depict the most (in)famous rock festivals of their era is Michael Wadleigh's 1970 film Woodstock, and Albert and David Maysles's 1970 documentary classic Gimme Shelter are valuable texts because they offer a reading that potentially chronicles the hazardous "effects" of rock music on festival attendees. That is, these documentaries help point up the trace of a narrative that spins this tale. Conversely, a third film, D. A. Pennebaker's Monterey Pop (1968), becomes valuable because it offers a reading that can dismantle the narrative formed by the two more infamous films. Monterey Pop reveals the conspiratorial and narrative assumptions upon which this sordid tale depends-assumptions that remain so important, and potent, for contemporary attacks on popular music. These films are useful for a critical interpretation of the rock festival and its music on several levels. First, each film is distinguished from the traditionally obscure documentary genre by its popular appeal, critical attention, technical innovations, and notorious filmic depictions (Barsam, 1973; Denisoff & Romanowski, 1991; Drowne, 1971; Hardwick, 1971; Haycock, 1971; Mamber, 1973; Pirie, 1971; Sarchett, 1994). Woodstock, for instance, was the most commercially successful documentary of the year and would gross 13.3 million in the United States. Second, as so called "direct cinema" documentaries, these films are often viewed as depicting a less mediated "reality," as distin-

Downloaded By: [University of Leeds] At: 15:36 26 July 2010

88

REMEMBERING THE DANGERS

MARCH 2000

Downloaded By: [University of Leeds] At: 15:36 26 July 2010

guished from traditional, fictional film It is this third level of rhetorical ponarrative. For example, Woodstock has tency, the collective documentary narbeen regarded as "a factual film- rative, that I explore. Even a cursory almost a newsreel of an historic event" reading of these films, taken as the (Barsam, 1973, p. 288) while Gimme trace of a narrative, reveals how they Shelter was said to have "recorded a rhetorically construct the rock festival reality, not a romp" (Barsam, p. 291). phenomenon for their viewers. The As Bill Nichols (1991) summarizes the narrativized movement from Wooddifference, whereas fiction represents a stock to Gimme Shelter ultimately fosters world, documentary represents the a rhetorical climate which makes rock world (p. 113). Third, the pairing of the music vulnerable to attack and proWoodstock and Altamont festivals en- vides a frame for continued attacks on joys a rich tradition, the former repre- popular music in today's larger rhetorisenting hope, community, and ideal- cal community. The music of the rock ism, the latter fear, estrangement, and festival, paradoxically invisible and imnihilism. Altamont was even billed as potent, enraptures the masses and ultithe "West Coast Woodstock." When mately transforms them into a violent viewed as a totality, however, as part mob. and parcel of the same cultural impulse, Woodstock and Gimme Shelter form

a coherent and compelling narrative which traces the dangerous and profound "effects" of rock music on its fans as manifested at rock festivals. Lawrence Grossberg (1987) writes that "The history of rock and roll-if not rock and roll itselfis largely a set of images: musical and visual, live and recorded, personal and public, of performers and fans, of youths and adults, of fun and rebellion" (p. 175). The image of an enthusiastic, clamorous rock audience engrossed in their music is a cultural commonplace. Such images are the fabric of these films and, thus, posit them as a "history" of the rock festival. Elsewhere, Grossberg (1993) notes the need "to map some of the ways these attacks function in larger circuits of culture and power" and that such a map requires "organizing a wide range of cultural texts and logics" in relation to these attacks (p. 193). The films and reviews explored below and their interrelationships serve as at least one element of such cultural texts and logics.

Woodstock
Michael Wadleigh's 228 minute Woodstock,filmedin 1969, begins with a brief statement from an elderly resident of Bethel, New York, the town closest to the festival. "This thing was big, too big for the world," he said in a bewildered and enraptured tone. Wadleigh's opening shots are telling of what is to come. Seemingly driven by a cause greater than themselves, like worker ants, images of old and young laboring in fields, driving tractors, and building the mammoth stage potentially position the viewer to consider the unquestioned faith, the imperative, of pulling "this thing" off. A young Mike Lang, one of the concert organizers, is interviewed early on and maintains a central presence throughout the film. Early in the film, we hear Canned Heat's "Goin' Up The Country," but are denied a view of the musicians themselves. Instead, we see a montage of people smoking marijuana, drinking alcohol, and dancing. The film's splitscreen mirror imagery and superim-

89 CSMC SCHOWALTER

posed cinematography ensure that the viewer is never denied a view of the massive crowd, even as the camera portrays performers. These technical innovations serve to distract from the festival's music and emphasize instead its dizzying reception. An entranced Richie Havens sings "Freedom" and continues to play his acoustic guitar even as he walks off stage leaving the microphone behind seemingly unconcerned that his guitar became inaudible. The camera cuts to several hundred people breaking down a fence. It becomes clear that everyone is under the same spell. The theme of a spellbound audiencerather than spell-binding musical performances-characterizes Wadleigh's film. Thousands of fans sing along as festival volunteers, residents, and workers are continually interviewed further subordinating the musicians and their music. The music, in effect, becomes invisible. Soon after, a young couple discuss sex, cohabitation, family relations, siblings, drugs, and their lack of communication with parents. Long-haired and psychedelically dressed festival-goers lead hundreds, perhaps thousands, in a Kundalini yoga session. Eventually clouds swell and a rain storm engulfs the festival grounds. Wadleigh's camera crews question soaked and muddy fans for their thoughts on the rain, yet in their enraptured state, none are particularly concerned. Lang comments on how "successful" the crowd is while another organizer admits financial disaster, and each speculates on the social significance of the event. Again, the vast array of ideas preoccupying the festival attendees and officials does not seem to include "the music." The viewer sees another montage video depicting hordes of pot smokers but can

only hear Arlo Guthrie's "Coming Into Los Angeles." Later in the evening, Stephen Stills, of Crosby, Stills, and Nash, muses that this is only the second time the band has played in front of people thus leaving the trio "scared shitless." Like Havens, Stills deemphasizes his music and draws the viewer's attention to the anxiety and rapture brought on by the festival. Musician and fan alike are vulnerable to the imminent, hypnotic influence of the occasion. Fans present gifts of watermelon and marijuana cigarettes to various musicians. Next the camera depicts seemingly endless lines of young people waiting to telephone home. Enchanted with the event, yet unable to articulate their experiences, their attempts at explanation are frustrated. John Sebastian sings "for the kids," but again the camera ignores the musician for the most part and presents instead a montage image depicting scores of young children at the festival many swimming nude with their parents. Finally Max Yasgur, the festival grounds owner, praises a sea of attendees after proclaiming that he doesn't know how to talk to twenty people at the same time, let alone the crowd before him. Nonetheless, he was eloquent in congratulating the wellbehaved crowd of half a million but made no allusion to music. With the masses gone, and only a few stragglers left to pick through a great expanse of refuse, the Woodstock experience had ended. Woodstock is a full-fledged obsession with the masses of concert-goers, the organizers, and residents. Though one critic noted that "more than half [of the film] is given to the performances," he further noted the nature of these representations as "close-ups of rhytfimic faces, hands, feet, and torsos, some-

Downloaded By: [University of Leeds] At: 15:36 26 July 2010

90

REMEMBERING THE DANGERS

MARCH 2000

The Woodstock music festival and its half million attendees has traditionally been viewed as a portrait of Aquariusa manifestation of cosmic consciousness more profound than the same year's moon landing and even viewed by some as the "second coming of Christ" (Hoberman, 1994). Additionally, the very word "counterculture" connotes a defiance, a resistance to the establishment in the same way that the term "Woodstock Generation" connotes a distinctive social culture. Conventionally, Woodstock concerned peace and love (in obvious and explicit opposition to the Vietnam War) and heady experiences. Critic Martha Bayles (1994) argues that "sobriety and family were very much what the original Woodstockians were out to overthrow" (p. 27). The documentary Woodstock however encourages a different interpretation. In fact, a likely reading of the film presents the event as devoid of oppositional politics. Further, im"Depoliticizing" Woodstock ages that might be construed as politiThe importance and significance of cally oppositional in Woodstock are empaudience constitution in Wadleigh's tied of any potency through a type of Woodstock does not end here however. filmic ridicule. In addition to depicting a passive and For instance, the status of Country enraptured mass of concert-goers, the film easily offers a reading which "de- Joe and the Fish's "I-Feel-Like-I'mpoliticizes" those masses. That is, it Fixin'-To-Die-Rag" as a politically opfunctions to empty and nullify their positional song is by no means clear. potential for politically oppositional dis- Though ostensibly criticizing the Vietnam War, the song's "sing-along" nacourse. Bill Nichols (1991) distinguishes be- ture and "humorous" chorus obscures, tween two forms of argument in docu- if not empties, the dismal message of mentary. Perspective "is the view of the its lyrics. Country Joe McDonald himworld implied by the selection and self realized this and later regretted the arrangement of evidence" while com- commercialization and trivialization of mentary "is the view of the world stated this song (Bindas & Houston, 1987, p. by the filmmaker or social actors re- 9). Eventually, according to McDoncruited to the film" (p. 126). Both of ald, his audiences lost interest in the these forms of documentary argument song altogether expressing more enthuare useful to an analysis and under- siasm for the "Fish Cheer," where the

Downloaded By: [University of Leeds] At: 15:36 26 July 2010

times splitting the screen to show more than one performer at a time, or more than one aspect of a single performer" (MacDonald, 1971, p. 492). The film obscures its own music and is preoccupied instead with the delirious "effects" of the music on the fans and with the enchanting aura of the festival. The masses are decidedly passive and caught up in the rapture and ecstasy of the music while paradoxically they displace the music of the festival itself in the film. Their preoccupation with yoga, sex, psychedelic clothing, and drugs leaves the music, though ubiquitous, invisible and only implied. The organizers, commentators, the old and young, the performers, and fans are all enamored with the festival. In Woodstock, then, it is not the music which defines the pop festival-rather, it is the effects of the music which begin to characterize it as the film "captures the vast scale of this unreality" (Barsam, 1973, p. 288).

standing of the depolitization in Woodstock.

91 CSMC SCHOWALTER

audience spells out the word "fuck"a Similarly omitted from the film are prominent sequence in the film (Bin- performances by the band Creedence das & Houston, p. 19). The "Fixin'-To- Clearwater Revival, then extremely Die-Rag" is further trivialized in popular and lyrically explicit in their Wadleigh's film as the lyrics appear at opposition to the Vietnam War (Binscreen bottom with a "bouncing ball" das & Houston, 1987, p. 15). landing on each syllable in time with The only explicit imagery or disthe music as if to allow viewers to course connoting the war in Vietnam participate in the "fun." Similarly, Jimi is anything but critical. In fact, some Hendrix's rendition of the "Star sequences of the film invite a reading Spangled Banner" potentially loses op- sympathetic to the military. At one positional potency for viewers of point an army helicopter is seen landWadleigh's film-mainly because it ap- ing near the festival site. We quickly pears that the vast majority of festival- learn, however, that it is providing goers have left, leaving his appearance emergency food supplies and medical "curiously ineffective" (Barsam, 1973, teams. A stage announcer revels, p. 289). Some have even interpreted "They're with us people, not against Hendrix's version as an expression of us." This contention is further elabopatriotism (Bindas & Houston, p. 22). rated as concert-goers express praise What is more, it appears as if the rendi- for the largess of the U. S. Army and tion had literally driven away the festi- military personnel. When potentially val attendees. "anti-military" discourse does appear in the film, it is likewise annulled. DurMoreover, for reasons as varied as ing one of the thundershowers, for infailed film contracts, simple editing, stance, a belligerent man demands to and prohibitive filming conditions, know who the fascist pigs are that many potentially oppositional moseeded the clouds, causing it to rain on ments at Woodstock not conducive to the festival. The sheer absurdity of this ridicule fail to appear. For instance, statement nullifies any conspiratorial Joan Baez's festival performance is feapolitical connotations it might have tured in a peculiar way in Woodstock. had. Finally, toward the end of the Her most prominent appearance in the film, a sanitation worker speaks to the film is a rendition of 'Joe Hill," a labor camera as he scrubs portable toilets song whose political significance is substantially displaced within the context and remarks in an enthusiastic and of the music festival which provides lighthearted tone, "I've got two sons, little if any discourse concerning the one here and one in Vietnam." In "labor movement" itself. This is inter- effect, one son happens to be at Woodesting not only because the song is stock and the other happens to be in contextually out of place, but also be- South-East Asia. This casual, inconsecause of what the film omits. The song quential conception of Woodstock and immediately preceding 'Joe Hill" was Vietnam as simply two different places an upbeat duet sung by Baez and Jef- not antagonistically related brings frey Shurtleff entitled "Drug Store Wadleigh's depoliticization to closure. Truck Drivin' Man" (1969), a scathing The paucity of anti-Vietnam sentiattack on then California Governor Ro- ment evident in the film is striking nald Reagan, accusing him of, among given that disenchantment with the other things, leading the Ku Klux PQan. war had finally reached mainstream

Downloaded By: [University of Leeds] At: 15:36 26 July 2010

92

REMEMBERING THE DANGERS

MARCH 2000

America in this year (Bindas & Hous- larly, it claims that the close-up seton, 1987, p. 14). Yet as Wadleigh quences of the musicians are so strong presents it, there isn't, after all, any- that the viewer gets "drawn right into thing very profound or countercultural them" and that "the form, pacing and about Woodstock and its attendees- movement of the film flow directly out only a spellbound mass of people who of the festival vibration." The review cannot even claim oppositional poli- laudably concludes that finally there is tics as their raison d'etre. Their music, a film "about us." not only obscured in the film, even Other reviewers claimed to "feel invisible, is rendered politically impo- more than an aesthetic kinship with tent as the link between music and the film's cast of half a million pilpolitics is decidedly severed. grims" {Chinook, 1970, p. 5), and felt Woodstock's perspective and commen- certain that the festival's "euphoria was tary, then, not only defines festival go- real," and that it "tells us a lot about ers as a passive mass, enraptured and this incredible phenomenon" (Guardenchanted by the music, but also "de- ian, 1969, p. 16). Even the most critical politicizes" them. Woodstock explicitly reviews admit that Woodstock"is a study subverts the myth of a politically oppo- of a culture within an environment" sitional and potent collectivity-a task (Chinook,p. 6). made easy and done persuasively in Some reviews even conflate the film light of their entranced state. Though with the "original" festival itself. For itself invisible, the dangerous and pow- example, the Philadelphia Free Press erful effects of rock music are becom- (1970) asks, "Who could sit through ing clear. 'Woodstockthe film' or gone to Reviews of Woodstock in the under- Woodstock without feeling the imground press mirrored the nature of mense power, the spiritual up-lifting the film itself. That is, many (re)view- that is the soul of Woodstock?" (p. 8). ers were enraptured by the film and Others claimed that the film's flaws credited it as "real," even adopting a "do not distract from its gut level as style of prose which mimicked the rap- dream and the almost messianic spirit ture and passivity of the film's dis- of its makers" and that its coverage was course. Good Times (1970) character- "as complete and as effective as the ized the film as a subject demanded" (Los Angeles Free Press, 1970, p. 56). Similarly, others 3-hour hallucination, a multiple-screen ecclaimed that the film had a "Biblical, static mind-blowing underground freak movie! This is the film that captures (well, epic quality" that suggests "paradise or not captures but something better) live some 'new world comin' " and presents people in 16mm grain full fantasy exis- a "vision of what we can do" (Harry, tence, and a free-flowing confusion rock 1970, p. 16). Other alternative newspaand roll festival in color and stereophonic pers suggest that the film enables viewsound (no shit), (p. 10) ers to vicariously experience the origiThe review goes on to claim that never nal festival (GoodTimes, 1970, p. 14), an before has a film "got into the glorious idea shared by movie executives who misery of living the festival trip" and "correctly assumed that the audience that Woodstock "makes you a part of the would treat the film as a concert" and trip, a part of the family," and urges agree to pay the exorbitant ticket price viewers to see the film "stoned." Simi- (Denisoff&Romanowski, 1991, p. 714).

Downloaded By: [University of Leeds] At: 15:36 26 July 2010

93 CSMC SCHOWALTER

Even advertisements for the film mir- Barsam writes that Gimme Shelter's rored the concert as they proclaimed power and "stunning, almost numbing in bold print, "Peace, Music, Love . . . effect on its audience are vital factors in Be There" [Chinook, 1970, p. 6, empha-the consideration of it as a film" (p. 290). sis added), implying as Variety (1991) For example, the viewer sees several stated that the film was "an absolute naked and disoriented people led into triumph in the marriage of cinematic a makeshift medical tent as a loudtechnology to reality" (Denisoff & Ro- speaker announces, "Ace bandages, we manowski, p. 714). need ace bandages if anyone has These reviews clearly suggest a re- them." Pairing these visual images with ception of the film consistent with the this announcement highlights the vulabove reading. Likewise, the film's mu- nerability and potential danger facing sic remains invisible in these reviews people at Altamont. Clearly, this is not which focus instead on the rapture, "happy" or "joyful" nudity; it is not excess, and passivity of the viewing carefree nudity like that found at experience/festival. The film Wood- Woodstock; it is dangerous, exposed, stock can be said to have conveyed the unpleasant nakedness. Moreover, be"reality" of the festival Woodstock, pos- cause it is not clear that these people iting it as an important moment in the even realize they are naked, there is a history of rock music. This "reality" suggestion, perhaps a foreshadowing, however was to assume a far more of a loss of control. As in Woodstock, the ominous character. music remains invisible and only implied in relation to the highly visible condition of its auditors-representaGimme Shelter tions that are continually exploited. The In Gimme Shelter, the Maysles Broth- rock festival has moved beyond pasers create for the viewer what has been sive rapture and political impotence conventionally described as the polar and begins to assume ever more danopposite to Wadleigh's Woodstock, the gerous characteristics as the "condisymbolic death of Flower-Power, Love, tion" of the fans worsens. and Rock (Barsam, 1973, p. 290; Scuffles erupt in the crowd, and Drowne, 1971,p.369;Hardwick, 1971, p. 3; Haycock, 1971, p. 56; Mamber, people shove each other and fight. As 1973, p. 8; Pirie, 1971, p. 226). How- the bands begin to play, the scuffles ever, in this narrative the film clearly become more frequent and intense. represents a continuationultimately a Grace Slick ofjefferson Airplane pleads conclusion-and a manifestation of the with the brawling hordes, "Easy, easy, terminal effect of rock and roll. Gimme easy, easy!" Hell's Angels throw an Shelter depicts the Rolling Stones' 1969 individual to the ground and strike him American tour and its macabre conclu- repeatedly with pool cues. The Maysles sion, the stabbing death of a fan by a offer a portrayal of unequivocal vioHell's Angel at the Altamont free con- lence. Eventually a fight erupts onstage cert in California, only months after and a Hell's Angel strikes Marty Balin the Woodstock festival. Most striking ofjefferson Airplane in the face knockabout this film's portrayal of the rock ing him unconscious. More hostile exfestival is its sequences of violence and changes follow between the Hell's Andepictions of a dangerous and uncon- gels, musicians, and fans as the violence trollable mob. Film scholar Richard continues into the night.

Downloaded By: [University of Leeds] At: 15:36 26 July 2010

94

REMEMBERING THE DANGERS

MARCH 2000

Finally, the Rolling Stones begin Mick Jagger and the Rolling Stones their performance but are forced to knows that the atmosphere is charged interrupt many of their numbers be- with the kind of electricity that can cause of violent outbreaks. Mick Jag- lead to violence. On the other hand, ger pleads with the fans to settle down the film should be praised as an unriand to stop the fighting. The sheer valed piece of detached reporting" (p. futility of these attempts highlight for 292). the viewer what has become an anesOther critics contend that, though thetized mob primed for mindless vio- "Gimme Shelter is a difficult film to lence. Jagger's pleas fall upon the deaf handle" {Georgia Straight, 1971, p. 21), ears of an uncontrollable horde. The "we all need this kind of jolt. We might climax of the film, the ultimate "effect" learn something about ourselves" of rock and roll, is immanent: sud- {Harry, 1971, p. 13). The Guardian denly, a fan, Meredith Hunter, is (1971) claims that the film is a "beautistabbed to death by a Hell's Angel-a ful summation of the American scene sequence shown repeatedly. of the 60s" (p. 13) while a writer in Win Published reviews of Gimme Shelter (1971) contends that with those who are consistent with the above reading. died at the concert, "Some of our Many characterize the film as not only dreams died there too" (p. 26). Conemblematic, but as a documentation of versely, another writer (Shapiro, 1971) the youth culture's and other charac- was "exhilarated because at last someters' "real" condition. The Berkeley Tribe one had put together a documentary (1971) claims that the film "is more that captured all the beauty, horror, than a documentary of death. The mu- and vision for a new world that is a part sic and excitement of the Stones and of our lives and experience" (p. 26). crowds during the '69 tour is a powerRegardless, a U.S. advertisement for ful affirmation of culture and life" and the film seemed to capture its recepthat "the male rock star ego trip is the tion well with the simple pun, "AltaStones' trip and our's too" (p. 16). mont changed a lot of people's heads" Other reviews indicate that the film (Sandahl, 1971, p. 145). As with the simply reaffirms common sense no- reviews of Woodstock, reviewers saw tions of what it depicts. For example, this film as a document of individual Harry (1971) claims that the Rolling and cultural characteristics and condiStones' "whole history is a role of physi- tions. Most refrain from discussing the cal domination" and that this fosters film or its music and focus instead on "the emotions that create a monstros- the events and people it depicts. As ity like Altamont" (p. 13) while Georgia such, these "film reviews" become soStraight (1971) explains the chaos and cial commentarycritiques of an alviolence at Altamont with the adage leged objective condition, another mo"People will continue to be people, I ment in the history of rock and roll guess" (p. 21). Similar critiques of Mick rather than critiques of the filmmaker's Jagger-as opposed to the film-abound. discourse. Perhaps the review from Good Times (1971) blamedjagger's "ex- Good Times (1971) best illustrates this perienced guidance" for turning our conflation of representation with objec"brave new world" into a "Hitler rally" tivity as it claims, "If you are a head, (p. 2). Barsam (1973) writes that "any- Gimme Shelter is a film to make you one who has attended a concert by hate yourself, in the same way that the

Downloaded By: [University of Leeds] At: 15:36 26 July 2010

95 CSMC SCHOWALTER

event of Altamont made us hate our- come stupefied and primed for mindselves" and further, that the film "is less, frenetic violence in the final stages inseparable from Altamont the event, of the festival narrative and the ultiwhich makes it almost impossible to mate effect of rock music on the youthreview in the usual film terms" (p. 2). ful masses becomes clear. Thus, as with Woodstock, these film It is this narrative that begins to offer reviews lend credence to the formation an explanation for the continued hostilof a historical narrative. Not only were ity and confusion regarding rock music these films viewed as emblematic, but and its festivals. More importantly, it they often seemed to reaffirm common- begins to reveal a source for the resosense notions for (re)viewers. In this nating attacks on rock music by critics sense, the films were the festivals. The like Bloom, Knight, and Gore as well rock narrative becomes clearit is but as other media events which clearly a small step for an enraptured and link music and violence. The rock festipassive mass influenced by the sinister val narrative informs such critiques with invisibility of rock music to become a uncanny detail. For example, Bloom's violent and anesthetized mob. In ef- notions that rock music has (1) risen fect, the fans have willingly entered "in an atmosphere in which there is no into a conspiratorial pact with the mu- intellectual resistance to attempts to sica conspiracy of violence. tap the rawest passions," (2) that "Music is the medium of the human soul in its most ecstatic condition of wonder The Narrative and terror" and (3) that Mick Jagger The rock festival narrative begins to has the ability to stimulate mobs to a take form and raises provocative ques- "sensual frenzy," legitimate drugs, and tions concerning how these two films appeal to "suppressed inclinations tointerpret the pop festival experience ward sexism, racism and violence" are and trace the corresponding harmful directly informed by the narrative. effects of rock music for a larger public. Wadleigh is explicit in his portrayals of Clearly evident from the beginning of an enraptured and passive audience the narrative are the profound "efwithout the ability to appreciate or fects" rock has on its auditors. Wadleigh evince intellectual resistance to the mufocuses the narrative on the festivalsic. Invisible and ingested, it has taken goers in Woodstock leaving the music control of the masses, pacified them, invisible. The importance of this howand robbed them of any sense of ever is not the masses but what their agency. condition has become. Woodstock leaves little to the imagination. The masses Likewise, the narrative progression have become passive and enraptured from Woodstock to Gimme Shelter mirby the mind-numbing effects of rock rors that of the masses. To use Bloom's and roll. Musician and fan alike have own words, their condition has moved become enchanted and implicitly lose from "wonder" to "terror." like a contheir sense of agency, and even their sumed drug the effect of the music is ability for collective political opposi- immanent and incontrovertible. As for tion. Politically impotent, still invisible his attacks on Jagger, the climate for and ubiquitous, the powerful effects of such claims has already been rhetorirock music have but one final avenue. cally constructed as the viewers of By Gimme Shelter, the masses have be- Gimme Shelter can readily attest. The

Downloaded By: [University of Leeds] At: 15:36 26 July 2010

96

REMEMBERING THE DANGERS

MARCH 2000

Downloaded By: [University of Leeds] At: 15:36 26 July 2010

We knew the symptoms of the State, so that we could try to approximate it It was like Jim was an electric shaman and we Monterey Pop: An Alternative were the electric shaman's band pounding We must now turn our attention to a away behind him. Sometimes he wouldn't third film, Monterey Pop, and ask why is feel like getting into the state, but the band it "excluded" from the narrative and would keep pounding and pounding, and by the detractors of rock? An answer to little by little it would take him over. God, I this question may be gained by looking could send an electric shock through him the organ. John could do it with his at the relationship between the visibility with drumbeats. You could see every once in a of music in these films, conspiracy logic, while-twitch-I could hit a chord and make and narrative theory. Walter Fisher him twitch.... And the audience felt it, (1984) characterizes a "good" narra- too. (p. 276) tive in part by its coherency (probability) and the degree to which it concurs One way to make sense out of such a with "common sense" (fidelity) (p. 8). recollection is through the narrative. It This characterization of narrative in is this very "state" that becomes suspirelation to the (in)visibility and (im)po- ciously characteristic of the audience tency of "the music" in these films portrayed in Woodstock. Hofstadter furprovides an avenue to explicate the ther writes that the paranoid style earns rhetoric of the rock narrative. its plausibility through its "coherent The narrative in large part seduces application to detail" (p. 37). Such a and persuades through the invisibility style obviously bleeds over into of its music which implies a conspiracy Bloom's and Knight's critique with their logic. Woodstock, by obscuring its music careful attention to MickJagger, Gore's and portraying only its "effects," im- targeting of Woodstock generation rock plies in the words of Richard Hof- bands, and even in Manzarek's rendistadter (1966) a "gigantic yet subtle tion above. Such detailed targeting of

viewer witnesses Jagger prancing on stage, at his feet a berserk mob becoming increasingly violent, and ultimately a white on black murder. Moreover, as was clear from the film's reviews, many of the (re)viewers already harbored such opinions toward Jagger. From the conclusion of this narrative Bloom can persuasively offer his own and claims that, though Jagger has faded, "the essential character of musical entertainment is not changing," a contention followed up by authors like Knight who clearly links rock, sex, and violence when he characterizes Altamont as an "orgy of beatings" (p. 209). There is, however, an alternative text to which we can turn that not only offers a different conclusion but that can help explainand dismantlethe logic that informs our narrative.

machinery of influence" at work (p. 29). After all, we learned early on from a wise old man that "this thing" was "too big for the world" and that the music would become not only subtle, but invisible. The music, then, like a conspiring agent, is invisible, elusive, and subversive. Like an ingested drug it remains imperceptible throughout Woodstock, showing only its effects on an "as yet unaroused public" (Hofstadter, p. 31). We would however learn what the nature of such "arousal" would become. Knight quotes Doors keyboardist Ray Manzarek as he recalls the sort of arousal his band's music could affect in lead singer Jim Morrison by comparing it to a Siberian shaman's trance-like "state" claiming:

97 CSMC SCHOWALTER

genres, bands, and lyrics continues to- visible. This film not only robs the day. narrative of its potency and commonRendering the music invisible and sensical foundations but also exposes sinister requires that the myth of a the narrative trappings and conspiratopolitically oppositional culture express- rial assumptions upon which it deing itself through music be subverted. pends. The Woodstock-Gimme Shelterna.rra.tive Monterey Pop is recognized as the paris able to provide probability and fidel- ent rock music festival documentary. ity, and, thus, a foundation for attacks Filmed at the Monterey International on rock music only by masking, hid- Pop Festival in Monterey, California, ing, and displacing the music as a form in June of 1967, this documentary is of critiquea task thoroughly accom- distinct from the others on several levplished in Woodstock. Impotent, the mu- els. The most striking difference is the sic becomes defined only in relation to paucity of audience representations. the "reality" of a passive, enraptured The film is predominantly concerned mass of people and ultimately a vio- with capturing the various perforlent, stupefied mob. That such a coher- mances at the festival, often in their ent and compelling narrative gains fi- entirety. It becomes clear early on that delity is evidenced by the film reviews this is not a film concerned with repreabove which suggest that not only did senting the festival. Rather it is preoccuthis narrative ring true but that it was pied with "the artistry of the perform"real," reaffirming common sense no- ers," their colors and music (Barsam, tions about youth culture, rock, and 1973, p. 266). Even the letters of the even the Rolling Stones. film's opening credits, artistically and I have attempted to uncover at least psychedelically shaped and colored, a trace of a narrative which fortifies emphasize the artisan's craft while the and informs attacks on rock music. footage throughout "understands musiThis narrative can also help to make cians at work" (Barsam, p. 267). sense of these arguments within the Musician David Crosby is seen early larger reading public. Reviews of the on tapping a microphone and grinning films suggest that they were viewed as as he examines the sound equipment, an adequate-even uncanny-represen- "Oh groovy, a nice sound system at tation of the rock festival, its elements last." Suddenly the Mamas and the and consequences. There is, of course, Papas, one of America's few "superan alternative way to make sense out of groups," perform in full regalia, singthe character and consequences of rock ing "California Dreaming" (Wolman music and its festivals. In fact, a pro- & Hopkins, 1970, p. 34). A ticket foundly different representation of the checker warns concert-goers as they rock festival is available for critique file in that once they leave they cannot which is excluded from the moments reenter. The occasion is for the enjoyin our narrative. D. A. Pennebaker's ment of music and little else. Simon Monterey Pop (1968) is a film which does and Garfunkle do their entire rendinot exploit the audiences it represents, tion of "The 59th Street Bridge Song" and the very exploitations upon which drenched in red light, and then Hugh the detractors of rock and roll depend. Masekela belts out high energy jazz as Paradoxically, as a palliative to the the camera focuses on his brass. The rock narrative, it makes its music highly musical mood changes a bit with acts

Downloaded By: [University of Leeds] At: 15:36 26 July 2010

98 REMEMBERING THE DANGERS MARCH 2000

likeJefferson Airplane and Big Brother cause the majority of attendees came and the Holding Company, but the from the two nearby areas of San Franmusic and musicians retain their cen- cisco's Haight-Ashbury and Los Angetral and privileged position as the cam- les, each regarded as birth-places of the era's exclusive subject Otis Redding counterculture (Wolman & Hopkins, electrifies the stage, his projected name 1970, p. 37). As Nichols has shown, continuously flashing behind him, and however, such deviations from viewer Jimi Hendrix not only plays but then expectations can serve as persuasive ritualistically ignites and destroys his "commentary" in a documentary film. guitar as The Who smashes their entire In this instance, by deviating from stage set upon completion of "My Gen- Woodstock-like rapture, these filmic eration." These forms of artistryas op- characteristics further highlight the cenposed to preoccupation with enrap- trality of music for the rock festival and tured fansfurther emphasize the its attendees as it begins to subvert the musician's central role in the pop festi- narrative. val and make visible the various levels Likewise, as Canned Heat performs, of their music. The film climaxes with scarce shots depict the crowd as seated a stunning and lengthy sitar perfor- and docile, eating, and tapping their mance by Ravi Shankar. feet to the music. Professional organizHere, the viewer is provided with an ers and dedicated volunteers are briefly alternative reading of the rock festival. depicted readying the grounds, and a It celebrates an artistic institution where young woman is interviewed as she musicians exhibit their work for an busies herself cleaning rows of chairs audience. Portrayals of the concert- before the day's music begins. A small goers are minimal and unspectacular group of "campers" is shown waking because they are not a definitive ele- and slowly crawling out of a tent. These ment of the pop festival. Rather, it is few camera depictions of audience are they who become invisible in relation limited to the mundane and convento the music which they are there to tional. Moreover, the audience seems consume. Interestingly, at the film's detached and even bored with Counbeginning, a young woman shares her tryJoe and the Fish while the strongest thoughts with the camera which are crowd reactions depicted are a standcomparing the event to Christmas, New ing ovation for Ravi Shankar and what Year's Eve, and a birthday all rolled appears to be genuine shock and disinto one. Reminiscent of Woodstock, she may atJimi Hendrix's "sacrifice" of his asks the interviewer if he had ever guitar. Again, these are explicit rebeen to a love-in. This brief segment in sponses to the highly visible music. the film, ostensibly preparing the The audience appreciates the quality viewer for what lies ahead, is strangely of Shankar's music but is repulsed by out-of-place as the film never depicts Hendrix's move to distract from his any "love-in" or other countercultural own. The fans are there to enjoy the behaviors. In fact, the festival-goers that conventional art of music which unare seen look strikingly, perhaps sur- equivocally defines the festival and prisingly, older, more mature, and less which maintains a highly visible presroguish and psychedelic than one might ence throughout Pennebaker's film. expect This is especially notable beA final distinctive quality of Monterey

Downloaded By: [University of Leeds] At: 15:36 26 July 2010

99 CSMC SCHOWALTER

Pop is the complete absence of depicThese reviews clearly mimic the mutions of drug use. This is notable not sical fabric of the film. They are not only because it contrasts with the omni- concerned with extraneous filmic ispresent drug use in Gimme Shelter and sues but focus insteadas the film itself Woodstock, but also because it would doeson the music and musicians. In contrast with the centrality of music for this instance, the viewer discerns that the pop festival. In effect, drugs have rock festivals are just as they seemlittle to do with music. The audience, they are defined by their music and then, becomes immune to critique- little else. Monterey Pop, then, provides they evince no pathological reaction to us with an alternative reading on rock the music which is plainly visible for music. all to see and openly consumed by festival-goer and viewer alike. Their Conclusion restrained and respectful conventionality foregrounds the true significance of Contiguous documentary films have their relationship to the rock festival, to the rhetorical cogency to contribute to rock and roll. a potent and compelling historical narrative. Attacks on rock music can draw Reviews of Monterey Pop mirror the festival itself as they almost exclusively their potency and information from discuss the performers depicted, their the specific narrative explored in this music, and the sound and image qual- essaythe inevitable, inherent dangers ity of the film. The Village Voice (1969)of rock and roll to its auditors, and the suggested that Monterey Pop was "well ultimate decay toward violence. This worth seeing if you've never seen or narrative, and all its implications, can heard the late Otis Redding, Janisjop- help explain why such arguments conlin with Big Brother and me Holding tinue to resonate with the larger public Company, the Mamas and the Papas, and provide at least a convenient dis[and] Jefferson Airplane . . . " and that course with which to make sense of the the filmmakers didn't sacrifice audibil- rock and roll experience. ity for authenticity (pp. 53-55). That is, The link between music and viothe film is most useful for introducing lence is as pervasive today as it has viewers to rock bands rather than ever been. In May of 1993, three teen"freaking them out" or "changing their agers were accused of murdering and heads." Likewise, Georgia Straight (1969) sexually mutilating three 8-year-old urged that the film only be shown in boys in West Memphis, Arkansas. stereo and that it "has everything going Some of the most prominent "evifor it." This "everything" was in refer- dence" utilized by prosecutors and ence to the bands that performed there, many in the community included the which the review went on to discuss in teen-agers' affinity for heavy metal mudetail. Finally, The Fifth Estate (1969) sic, specifically Metallica. Likewise, a claimed that the film depicted "great per- school teacher injonesboro, Arkansas, formers in their natural environment" (p. recently testified before a U.S. Senate 15). Even reviews that criticized the film committee that rap music played a key focused almost exclusively on the musi- role in the shooting spree that killed cians it depicted, implying that they four students and a teacher at Westside were to blame for the film's flaws {The Middle School. Ozzy Osbourne's "SuiGreat Speckled Bird, 1969, p. 14). cide Solution" gained notoriety when

Downloaded By: [University of Leeds] At: 15:36 26 July 2010

100

REMEMBERING THE DANGERS

MARCH 2000

it was singled out as a major contribut- "story." It is for this reason that fidelity ing factor to a young listener's suicide. is largely precluded as well. WoodstockThese are but a few of the more recent Gimme Shelter, however, as it unfolds linkings of violence and music. One through the films and their reviews, way to read such incidents is as an evinces a coherent narrative progresimportant part of our narrative. That sion which "rings true" in relation to is, the music on some level has "con- other stories-namely those told by critspired" with its auditors in a murder- ics. As seen, again borrowing from ous plot. These kids alone cannot be to Fisher, this narrative is both probable blame, but once induced by the insidi- and accurate as it reconfirms often comous effects of music, terrible things oc- mon-sensical notions. cur. The conspiracist's attention to deThe extent to which these films intail is notable here as well. Always in form critique also hinges on the degree these instances specific genres, artists, to which they exploit representations tracks, and even lyrics are isolated as of the rock audience. Woodstock and conspirators to murder. One of the Gimme Shelter are clearly preoccupied most important implications from this with this audience while Monterey virtureading is that the same source potenally ignores it. The viewer is left to tially seduces viewers of our film narraexperience the sounds and images on tive and attacks on rock musiccontheir own terms. Documentary film enspiracy. joys a special status in cinema as it It is on this level that Pennebaker's wields a certain authority in its disMonterey Pop becomes a valuable, criticourse. Though rarely matching the cal tool that calls the conspirator's bluff and questions the narrator's apparatus. popular appeal or budgetary commitFundamentally distinct from the narra- ments of Hollywood cinema, it has tive formed by Woodstock and Gimme always enjoyed a special presumed liShelter, it contains no elements (or war- cense on "truth." For this reason docurants) which would incline one to sub- mentary rhetoric's ability to move audiscribe to the attacks on rock. Because ences, to make history, can be formidable, the audience is wholly subordinated to and its ability to "make sense" of the the music, the exclusive subject of the world often powerful. It is important film, visible for all to see and openly for critics and viewers alike to pay consume, Monterey's narrative is less close attention to these sense-making coherent insofar as it is limited to por- mechanisms and their potential to cretrayals of performers at the festival from ate historical narratives, to exploit audiits ostensible beginning to its end and ence representations, and to inform pocannot be said to form a probable litical and moral argument

Downloaded By: [University of Leeds] At: 15:36 26 July 2010

References
Baez, J . , &Shurtleff,J . (1969). Drug store truck drivin' man. On Woodstock/part 1: Music from the original soundtrack & more [cassette]. New York: Columbia Records. Barsam, R. M. (1973). Nonfictionfilm: A critical history. New York: E. P. Dutton & Company. Bayles, M. (1994, August 17). Lost at Woodstock. New York Times, p. A27.

101 CSMC Berkeley Tribe. (1971, March 5). p. 16. Bindas, K.J., & Houston, C. (1987). "Takin care of business": Rock music, Vietnam and the protest myth. The Historian, 47, 1-23. Bloom, A. (1987). The closing of the American mind. New York: Simon and Schuster. Chinook. (1970, April 9). p. 5. Chinook. (1970, May 21). p. 6. Denisoff, R. S., & Romanowski, W. D. (1991). Risky business: Rock in film. New Brunswick: Transaction. Drowne, T. B. (1971). The rock documentaries. Films in Review, 22, 369-371. The Fifth Estate. (1969, April 3-16). p. 15. Fisher, W. R. (1984). Narration as a human communication paradigm: The case of public moral argument Communication Monographs, 51, 1-22. Georgia Straight. (1969, July 30-August 6).
Downloaded By: [University of Leeds] At: 15:36 26 July 2010

SCHOWALTER

Georgia Straight. (1971, March 17). p. 21. Good Times. (1970, April 2). p. 10. Good Times. (1970, May 1). p. 14. Good Times. (1971, March 5). p. 2. Gore, T. (1987). Raising PG kids in an X-rated society. Nashville: Abingdon Press. The Great Speckled Bird. (1969, May 19). p. 14. Grossberg, L. (1987). Rock and roll in search of an audience. In James Lull (Ed.), Popular music and communication (pp. 175-197). Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Grossberg, L. (1993). The framing of rock: Rock and the new conservatism. In Tony Bennett, Simon Frith, Lawrence Grossburg, John Shepherd, & Graeme Turner (Eds.), Rock and popular music (p. 193). New York: Routledge. Guardian. (1969, May 9). p. 16. Guardian. (1971, February 6). p. 13. Hardwick, E. (1971). Militant nudes. New York Review of Books, 25, 3-4. Harry. (1970, April 17). p. 16. Harry. (1971, February 19). p. 13. Haycock J . (1971). Gimme shelter. Film Quarterly, 24, 56-60. Hebdige, D. (1979). Subculture: The meaning of style. New York: Routledge. Hoberman, J . (1994). Moon dance. Artforum, 32, 10-12. Hofstadter, R. (1966). The paranoid style in American politics. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Knight, R. (1998). The age of consent: The rise of relativism and the corruption of popular culture. Dallas, TX: Spence. Los Angeles Free Press. (1970, April 10). p. 56. MacDonald, S. (1971). Woodstock: One for the money. In Lewis Jocobs (Ed.), The documentary tradition: From Nanook to Woodstock (p. 492). New York: Hopkinson and Blake. Mamber, S. (1973). Gimme shelter. Film Comment, 9, 8-15. Nichols, B. (1991). Representing reality. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Philadelphia Free Press. (1970, April 27), p. 8. Pirie, D. (1971). Gimme shelter. Sight and Sound, 40, 226-227.

102 REMEMBERING THE DANGERS ' MARCH 2000

Sandahl, L.J. (1987). Rock films: A viewer's guide to three decades of musicals, concerts, documentaries and soundtracks 1955-1986. New York: Facts on File.

Sarchett, B. (1994). Rockumentary as metadocumentary: Martin Scorsese's The Last Waltz.

Literature-Film Quarterly, 22, 28-35.

Shapiro, L. (1971). Gimme Shelter:2 views. Win, 7, 26. Sohodski, C. (1971). Gimme Shelter: 2 views. Win, 7, 26. The Village Voice. (1969, February 6). pp. 53-55. Wolman, B., & Hopkins, J. (1970). Festival. New York: Macmillan. Received November 29, 1997 Final revision received August 3, 1998 Accepted April 14, 1999

Downloaded By: [University of Leeds] At: 15:36 26 July 2010