Taking Woodstock Review
Posted by Erik Luers on 08.31.2009
The film that takes a look back at 1969 without one darn shout-out to Midnight Cowboy.........
Demetri Martin ... Elliot Teichberg
Henry Goodman ... Jake Teichberg
Imelda Staunton ... Sonia Teichberg
Emile Hirsch ... Billy
Liev Schreiber ... Vilma
Jonathan Groff ... Michael Lang
Paul Dano ... VW Guy
Kelli Garner ... VW Girl
Eugene Levy ... Max Yasgur
Dan Fogler ... Devon
Mamie Gummer ... Tisha
Richard Thomas ... Reverend Don
Most of what Ang Lee’s new film, Taking Woodstock, sets out to do it does so very well. The problem, however, is what it doesn’t wish to accomplish. There is no desire in this story to be compelling, exciting, or something new and fresh. All of the iconic images and symbols we associate with Woodstock 1969 are here front and center, not necessarily begging to recognized, but to be remembered. Do you recall the hippies and their undying desire to be nude? Those “crazy kids” who were all about the love, the music, and sometimes the reefer? Did you hear about the thousands upon thousands of people that traveled upstate via word of mouth to enjoy their fellow youth and the warm country summer air? Did you hear that it wound up raining? Armed with a checklist of memorable Woodstock moments (has it been long enough to introduce the term “Woodstockian” into the American lexicon?), director Lee and frequent collaborator and screenwriter, James Schamus (president of Focus Features, the studio which distributed this movie), copy and paste whatever tidbits they found interesting and form a narrative less cohesive than episodic. Characters, or caricatures, come in, set the time period, wave, and exit stage left.
Take the angry townsfolk, for example. They originally hate the idea of the concert, and then shut up once they find ways to make money off it. Not only are they entrepreneurs but, under Lee’s direction, ghastly hicks with a hint of anti-Semitism. They are grotesque and seen from a distance (usually from across the road where our central setting, an old hotel, resides). Coincidentally, Taking Woodstock’s perspective is all from a distance. In reenacting the peace and love, it almost seems judgmental and close-minded.
The story follows the young Elliot Teichberg, a man who is very busy and active in his community (both in Woodstock and Manhattan). He has organized local annual concerts for the area of Woodstock, and he holds town meetings to discuss upcoming local events. Why Elliot enjoys doing this, we will never know. He is a blank slate the entire way through. While I know there are some people who get off on wheeling and dealing old ladies, Elliot doesn’t seem to get off of anything but extra bacon at the local old timers’ eatery. He has a knack for getting permits, and that will, of course, come in handy later on in the picture, and he looks after his Russian-Jewish parents who own a broken, run down hotel. Oh, and there’s a (usually nude) theater group that rehearses, sleeps, and practically lives in an abandoned barn next door. At this point you can almost hear Lee and Schamus gushing, “those crazy 60s!”
We get to know some of the town folk, an unstable Vietnam vet living back home with his brother and brother’s wife, a farmer who’s cows provide some damn fine chocolate milk, and Elliot’s aforementioned parents, but they all seemed like various types to me. Imelda Staunton, as Elliot’s stern mother, plays her role like a stereotypical Jewish mother from Brooklyn (which, I guess, she is); she’s every Jewish mother we’ve ever known rolled into one. Her accent seems put on, and her frequent Yiddish references seem out of place, as if thrown in to provide comic relief (they do receive some cheap laughs). She is so strict and uptight that you can’t imagine Elliot wanting to stick around much longer.
In a sincere, personal scene late in the movie, Elliot privately asks his father how he was able to stay married to the woman for all this time. “Because I love her,” the father responds before leaving the room. As sweet as that sounds, Elliot would have liked a little more information, especially since just a few scenes earlier a big secret was revealed regarding the Teichberg’s finances. It strangely gets brushed aside. And why is it that pot brownies provide the film with one of the only lively scenes in Taking Woodstock? As manipulative and sophomoric as it may be, seeing Elliot’s parents high as a kite, dancing in the pouring rain, is a very funny moment that shows the family as a cohesive unit. It allows the actors, Henry Goodman and Ms. Staunton, to loosen up and show another side to their characters (to be fair, Goodman gets a lot more juvenile “play time” than Staunton ever does).
The film is really about this family and their struggle to communicate and understand one another, or so I think. You may ask then, is the Woodstock concert just a backdrop for the Teichberg’s trials and tribulations? Well, no, I can’t say that. There’s a lot of time devoted to the preparation for the event (Tony nominated actor Jonathan Groff, as the man with the money in brown paper bags, first shows up in a helicopter and leaves the film on a white horse.......take from that what you will), and the various money issues that ensue. Lee even includes a bizzarre scene where two mafia wiseguys show up to antagonize the Teichberg’s, insisting that they get a cut of the profits. Now that’s a movie I’d like to see. Unfortunately, faster than you can say "stage combat", the Teichberg’s throw the two men out on their keesters and send them home packing. What could have been an interesting subplot quickly turns into a one joke diversion.
In the beginning of the film, Elliot’s mother accuses the bank, and their refusal to loan them money, of anti-Semitism, an allegation that is quickly brushed off with, “it’s the Catskills. Half of our clients are Jewish.” So the mother is a little angry for unwarranted reasons, we quickly gather. And then, when news of the concert breaks out, townies against the festival paint swastikas and the Star of David on the Teichberg’s home. So who’s really crazy? Elliot’s mother’s accusations are warranted, and this is again apparent when Elliot stops by the eatery for food and is denied service. Anti-semetic remarks are shouted at him by customers sitting in the back, and we begin to realize that there is a real disapproval of the Teichberg family here in Woodstock. If only these scenes lead to something more.
Notice how I’ve neglected to mention the infamous concert itself? That’s because Lee has decided to show us none of it. It plays like the Mecca from afar, surrounded by a sea of people, just out of reach. Maybe Lee didn’t want lookalikes portraying Jimmi Hendrix, or maybe it was a complex issue of music copyrights. Who knows. Perhaps Lee felt that the concert itself was the MacGuffin for what really went down over that August weekend in 1969. He may have been more interested in the build up rather than the actual event. There's nothing wrong with that, except that here was a concert that lived up to the hype and was as magical as the story behind it.
Lee must have known this deep down, as I'm sure he had seen Michael Wadleigh's epic documentary, Woodstock, before taking this project on. After all, he steals the multiple camera setups that the documentary was known for (three or four scenes are presented on screen at the same time). While it's true that Lee also used this approach on his 2003 film, Hulk, there the comic book panel style warranted the technique, while here it seems as a direct homage to Wadleigh's piece. I'm not sure imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
There's one excellent shot in the film that is quite memorable, and its reliance on CGI is to be excused. It occurs after Elliot, tripping out on some acid, stands at the top of a hill with a pretty girl (Bully's Kelli Garner) and takes in the entire atmosphere. The people are swaying, the music is playing, and the drugs are taking their effect on our awestruck Elliot. The crowd begins the wave (or so it appears), and all of a sudden they appear as one, a giant moving tsunami of people. Even the hill seems to be moving. The music overwhelms Elliot, the lights get brighter, and then we fade to white, a perfect place to end the film. It's a very special moment. Sadly, Lee chooses to have Taking Woodstock go on for about another twenty-five minutes. Everything lingers.
That's all I can really say about Lee's latest. Like some of his other films, there is an acute attention to detail when it comes to period items like clothing, hairstyles, and pop culture (an old movie theater plays True Grit, Neil Armstrong's landing on the moon is watched anxiously by the Teichberg's) that makes the film feel authentic. It's just the emotional connection which seems forced. A police officer is seen with a flower on his motorcycle helmet after proclaiming that he originally came up to Woodstock to bash hippies heads in. Strange comedy, no? Lee's film is unbalanced and says nothing new, and that's more upsetting that this previously described sequence. Oh well, at least we got a nice tracking shot out of it that made me smile, and that's more than I can say for my overall viewing experience. Although Taking Woodstock is a film which takes place in the Catskills, I'm not sure it would ever be allowed into White Lake, if you know what I mean.
The 411: Taking Woodstock is harmless for what it is, but there's not much of a story to it; it lets history do all the talking. Some of the performances are quite good, like those of Henry Goodman and Liev Schreiber, and others quite awkward, like those of Imelda Staunton, Jonathan Groff, and Emile Hirsch, giving off the sense of a semi-serious, semi-amateurish and confused take on the famous summer from forty years ago. The screenplay goes through the motions, and Lee's direction seems less in command than usual (and somewhat borrowed from other directors). Nice, authentic locations though.
