Taking Woodstock (Ang Lee, 2009)

[Michael Kerpan]

I also spent many years in Oklahoma and Georgia -- and heard enough witless hippie bashing to last a lifetime.

Here'a clue. Lots of young people in the 60s and early 70s supported the Vietnam War -- and it is these people grown up who provided support for Reagan (and then Bush). You can blame "hippies" for lots of things -- but being core supporters of Reagan (et al) as a group (not just idolated individuals) is a bum rap.

[oldsheperd]

I blame hippies for everything. It's part of being irrational.
I also blame them for many people thinking that stuff like the Grateful Dead and Canned Heat is actually good music.
Michael, you obviously don't see the tongue-in-cheek attitude I have.
However, I am sick of being hit over the head with the opinion that the 60s was such a revolutionary, be-all-end-all, history changing, amazing time and the hippies, Woodstock and all that was so integral to it. It's the idea that is portrayed that there was this one big bang monolithic thing that happened in a vacuum that changed everything.
It's very much the same way I feel about the Beatles. I like them alright but it seems like the general idea out there is that the Beatles changed everything. Don't take into account the Rolling Stones, Kinks, Stooges, Velvet Underground, Monks, etc., etc., all you need to know is that the Beatles were single-handedly responsible for everything in music after John, Paul, George and Ringo graced our miserable existence.
To tie it back into film it's like saying that D.W. Griffith was responsible for coming up with close-ups and other film techniques and choosing to ignore that other folks like Edwin S. Porter were also integral in contributing to those very same things as well.

[fiddlesticks]

Aside: this seems like a good time to thank the mods for giving us the "ignore" button (the "foes list.")

[flyonthewall2983]

I am sick of being hit over the head with the opinion that the 60s was such a revolutionary, be-all-end-all, history changing, amazing time and the hippies, Woodstock and all that was so integral to it. It's the idea that is portrayed that there was this one big bang monolithic thing that happened in a vacuum that changed everything.

I certainly see your point. It really didn't change the world the way that people may have hoped back then. We're in an even peace-less world now, and the thought that a rock festival could bring about that kind of change should have been disavowed when they put on that corporate monstrosity of an anniversary 30 years later.

But M.K.'s point about the kids who did support the war and pushed a conservative agenda themselves should not be ignored. And it was the "fortunate sons" so to speak, who later gained a political power the other side couldn't.

[Michael Kerpan]

I guess I just don't have much of a sense of humor about some things (like massive degrees of stereotyping).

I never particularly fetishized Woodstock (it actually had a negative impact on members of my family who had property close to the event). And I always thought the movie Woodstock was a lot of hooey (beyond some of the performances).

I do, however, think much of the music of the Grateful Dead is very good. (I also have long been a fan of the Kinks and the Who).

[aox]

However, I am sick of being hit over the head with the opinion that the 60s was such a revolutionary, be-all-end-all, history changing, amazing time

It may not have been 'amazing' but it was history changing. The world was chaotic during this period. The US was only one chapter. Don't forget the history of France, all of Eastern Europe, China... Probably one of the tumultuous times in the history of the world.

and the hippies, Woodstock and all that was so integral to it.

Not really. It was just a symbolic event mostly as a result of media attention. Most people I know that were there, didn't know what it was or why it was important. They were just going to a show. It was the nest year or two where the mythology built up around it and of course Altamont. I also want to place a lot of emphasis on the Woodstock documentary that helped create the mythology.

It's very much the same way I feel about the Beatles. I like them alright but it seems like the general idea out there is that the Beatles changed everything. Don't take into account the Rolling Stones, Kinks, Stooges, Velvet Underground, Monks, etc., etc., all you need to know is that the Beatles were single-handedly responsible for everything in music after John, Paul, George and Ringo graced our miserable existence.

I am not the biggest Beatle fan, but you are underplaying what a difference they made. And just as an aside, pretty much all of those bands, disagree with you. Each of them are on record about how important the Beatles were to their development. If nothing else, the Beatles were the reason why money grubbing producers starting going to these small bars and clubs where these bands/kids were playing.

To tie it back into film it's like saying that D.W. Griffith was responsible for coming up with close-ups and other film techniques and choosing to ignore that other folks like Edwin S. Porter were also integral in contributing to those very same things as well.

You're really all over the place. You just sound bitter that you weren't apart of it. I used to feel the same way, but at some point when I was 13, I got over it. Sorry you missed the bus. I did too.

[MoonlitKnight]

The trailer looks surprisingly broad for an Ang Lee film.

[Jean-Luc Garbo]

Whenever I think of free love, Alexandre (from The Mother and the Whore) comes to mind. Woodstock looks kinda naive by comparison then - poor hippies.

[oldsheperd]

I'm just having it off. I'm not all that bitter.