It’s the late 60s and things aren’t going well for Elliot’s family. Their motel in a Catskills backwater is hardly making any money and things only look like they’re going to get worse. However Elliot, who left New York behind to go back and help his parents, is always looking for way out of the financial mess.
When he hears that plans have fallen through on a music festival in another town, he contacts the organisers to say he already has a permit (even though his previous ‘festivals’ have only involved him playing records on his lawn) if they’d like to bring the event to White Lake.
Soon festival organisers have descended on the motel, and as the locals realise the scale of what’s going on, they turn against Elliot and his family, feeling that a gathering of hippies will destroy their community. However as things get bigger and bigger, being involved in the festival starts to change Elliot’s life, culminating in three days of love and peace – Woodstock – happening on his doorstep.
I love Ang Lee, but unfortunately even the best directors can’t bat 100%. After the wonderful Brokeback Mountain and Lust, Caution, Taking Woodstock is a bit of a disappointment. It’s not a bad film by any stretch, but it’s just a bit, well, blah. It’s the sort of film where it feels like there’s a fascinating story to be told, full of interesting and well drawn characters, but the movie never quite finds them, instead mildly entertaining while hinting at better things it never successfully masters (despite expending a lot of effort trying to).
A lot of the problem is to do with the script. Writer James Schamus, who’s worked with Lee on numerous occasions, has a commendable tendency not to overwrite things and explain every little detail to the point that they become meaningless (which worked brilliant in Brokeback), but with Taking Woodstock his restraint perhaps goes too far. The movie raises ideas and seems to think it’s followed through on them, while actually leaving too much feeling muddy and confused, particularly in regard to the characters.
For example, Elliot’s mother, wonderfully played by Imelda Staunton, is a great character with an intriguing backstory, but revelations at the end are left dangling with frustratingly little explanation, although the film seems to think it’s told you everything. Similarly much of the first half of the film concentrates on building up the conflict between the festival and the locals, but that later gets dismissed, other than a few scenes that resolve little. Similarly, bits of historical info that would have been useful to know are omitted, so the film constantly feels like it’s missing something. The result is a film dealing with lots of ideas surrounding a major cultural landmark (Woodstock), but nevertheless feels rather slight.
It’s the same thing with the film’s humour (the film is a lot more comic than most of Lee’s other movies), as there’s some material that should be a lot funnier than it is, but is paced badly so never quite hits in the way it should.
It’s rather like Lee’s Ride With The Devil, a movie which looks great and has an interesting story, but feels underwritten and relies on the audience gleaning things about the characters and situation that aren’t ever shown on the screen.
However, like I said, it’s not a bad movie. The performances are good, particularly from Demetri Martin in the lead role, as well as Liev Schreiber, who brings surprising complexity to transvestite security guard Vilma. Although the plot is occasionally frustrating, it moves along at a decent pace and has a few surprisingly moving moments.
As always with Ang Lee, it looks spectacular. No director is as good as he is at building totally convincing recreations of past eras. Particularly for someone who wasn’t even born into Western culture (he comes from Taiwan), his ability to completely immerse viewers in places as diverse as 19th Century Britain (Sense & Sensibility), the American Civil War (Ride With The Devil), 50s Wyoming (Brokeback Mountain), 70s New England (The Ice Storm), and now Woodstock, is astonishing. The sense of the Hippie era is palpable, and helps ensure that while the film itself is flawed and slight, it’s not difficult to enjoy what there is. While watching it’s clear this is a minor work from a major talent.
If you’ve ever wondered how Lee and his crew go about creating the past in his films, there’s some fascinating info on the DVD’s ‘Peace, Love and Cinema’ featurette. It shows things such as how they use enormous whiteboards covered in post-it notes, which are filled with ideas that don’t just lay-out the main action of each scene and the setting, but go as far as deciding what everyone in the background is doing. The attention to detail is incredible, ensuring the sets are perfect and everyone on camera, whether a main character or an extra, knows exactly what they’re doing. The results is that often there may be five or six stories playing out at once in a shot, even if the main action only follows one of them. The featurette certainly gives you a flavour of what makes Lee’s films so impressive to look at.
There’s more interesting info in the Audio Commentary with Lee and Schamus, while the ‘No Audience Required’ featurette and deleted scenes are less essential, but still worth a look.
Overall Verdict: A very flawed but nevertheless watchable look at the story behind Woodstock. If nothing else it shows off Ang Lee’s mastery of period settings, even if the film itself isn’t up to his usual standard.
Special Features:
Audio Commentary With Ang Lee and James Schamus
‘Peace, Love and Cinema’ Featurette
‘No Audience Required: The Earth Light Players’ Featurette
Deleted Scenes
Reviewer: Tim Isaac
