"Reviving Rockumentary: Films to Fill in the Sound"
SJG
The ‘rockumentary’ (I.e. rock-documentary) has oft relied on the somewhat seductive art of lulling an individual in to a state of security that is revealing, displaying some significant nuance of the person behind the ‘persona’ with each telling frame. In that instance we are confronted with the actual individuals involved in the volatile existence that their industry inherently makes them subject to; images that are jarringly distant from those of our rock-idols on high. Through these cracks we have a window through which we can see it all: the good, the bad, and-most importantly-the ugly. Mental illness, self-destructive behavior, drug addiction, poverty, and obscurity plague many of these stories. It is a chance to witness the music industry people as they truly are: living mythology dissected. When control of a film’s artistic direction is relinquished to film-makers, the appearance of the music industry becomes markedly different, and often far from its glamorous reputation. Getting to know your Gods…this is the concept that is at the heart and soul of any masterful rockumentary. This notion has been present from the early films of the 1960s and has reemerged as a popular method in effective ‘rockumentary’ film-making of the present day.
Since it is legally possible for ‘Joe or Jane Anybody’ to produce a ‘rock-documentary,’ the genre has unfortunately been riddled with elaborately packaged artist advertisements and numerous attempts to further mythologize rock personalities as demigods living amongst the common folk (the image that American popular culture so often enjoys perpetuating). This mislabeled P.R. is often at the hands of the individuals that represent the business side of the talent in question: record labels, managers, producers, etc. However, since D.A. Pennebaker’s classic ‘rockumentary’ featuring an angsty, young Bob Dylan in Don’t Look Back (1967), there has also been the existence of this elite variation -- another side to the American ‘rockumentary’ that uses the subject matter to show that ‘rockumentary’ absolutely can be a legitimate and serious filmmaking art form.
A true ‘rockumentary’ tells a story that transcends musical taste, despite focusing on one particular identity in music. The subject of this sort of film can be an individual, or a band, or even a whole genre. Whatever the topic, at its core it is a story that tells you something about the artistic personality on a very deeply felt and understood platform that has the potential to speak to any member of humanity. Stories about mental illness, addiction, family, friends, enemies, success, failure, dreams, dissent; and all of this set within the highly volatile world of the modern American music industry. These are the stories that are indeed stranger than fiction: the raw reality of the life of any given musician or group of musicians. The films that I will discuss involve musicians specifically from the United States.
One such film is End of the Century: The Story of the Ramones (2003) directed by Jim Fields and Michael Gramaglia. The footage relies entirely on testimonies, b-roll, and archival footage to describe the Ramones from their roots in early 1970s Queens, New York to the deaths of three of the four original group members via the mouths of the punk-rock pioneers that lived it. The viewer is taken on a journey through the lengthy career of this revolutionary band that was given recognition only at the very end of their careers, and for most of the original members, the very end of their lives. It is a journey through mental illness, drug addiction, lack of success, arguments, sickness, and the birth of a musical genre: that of punk rock.
The Encyclopedia of Punk states, “The film [End of the Century: The Story of the Ramones] was an open and frank account of the dissension within the band precipitated by Johnny Ramone marrying Joey’s girlfriend, Johnny’s role as the taskmaster of the group, Dee Dee Ramone’s drug problems, and Joey’s struggles with obsessive-compulsive disorder.” (Cogan 258) Testimonials via the mouths that were there are invaluable to the proper evaluation of any aspect of history, reality, and ultimately each one’s respective meaning. As Dee Dee Ramone so simply puts it in the film, “It’s not easy being in a rock-and-roll band.”
Indeed it seems that exceptional artistic talent too often coincides with the tumultuous. Lives that are prone to be heavy with hardships in some form or another. This is part of the complex relationship between mental illness and creative genius. It is seemingly set in stone that mental illness does not necessarily inhibit an individual’s creative capacity, but quite the contrary: it somehow allots the artist the mindset to craft such an extreme point of view, that he or she becomes prisoner to his or her own imagined world.
This is where things get tricky…these ‘visionaries’ fall victim to being consumed by the ‘unreality’ their minds create. The artist and self-destruction are practically synonymous. Inherently, tragedy often ensues. Recognition tends to come just a little bit too late--profound artistic innovators so commonly go down in contemporary history books as a mere after-thought. A travesty as well as a true-blue American music industry tradition. Real talent is marginalized and mediocrity mimics the brilliance of these barely known founders and few member of society are any the wiser. What does anybody really care? It is music--entertainment--trivial by definition…not actually ‘important’…and yet to these individuals - these artists - their art is their lives. Rarely simple or easy, the successful artist endeavor is openly mocked; regarded as kite-dreams, or just plain silly.
Still, the artist must sacrifice a significant slice of the normalcy within his or her life. The glamour associated with being an American rock star is so far from the reality of it, it is painful. Musicians are practically guaranteed a great deal of misery; if they are successful or not is irrelevant--it is nightmarish in many respects: isolation, neuroses, rampant substance abuse of everything from LSD to heroin to alcohol, paranoia, instability, failure, critical attack, hecklers, leeches, blah-blah-blah etc.
Much like brewing a potion the musician/artist makes his/her identity his/her creative canvas…constantly tweaking and rebuilding a personality, but never outright owning one. Normalcy, routine, rationality, consistency: these are less common qualities seen in individuals in rockumentaries. Those drawn to creative expression are the children of explorers in so far as self-expression is a journey to the ethereal ‘edge’…the final frontier of the fleshy form; the labyrinthine internal existence within the mind. The human psyche at its most vulnerable: the eighth wonder of the world. The seemingly quintessential subject for a documentary film. Many of these tales are just begging to be told.
Some critics claim that this specific focal point (mental illness, self-destruction, etc.) is entirely exploitative, ‘freak-show’ like gimmickry. However many people live with these same afflictions, and it could be argued that rockumentaries of this kind are no more exploitative than is typical in dealing with subjects that happen to have questionable amounts of coherence featured throughout the documentary genre.
Perhaps the best example of the potential for profundity within rockumentary, is that of The Devil and Daniel Johnston (2006) directed by Jeff Feuerzeig, a harrowing yet hopeful portrait of a man who is both an underappreciated musical genius as well as a severe manic-depressive with a penchants for being impulsive and considerably dangerous when his mental illness goes untreated. The film is part autobiographical in that a great deal of the footage and audio recordings were actually created by the subject himself. The editing is done masterfully, Daniel’s presence on-screen in the beginning of the film is extremely sparse. In the introduction, his parents are presented as essential characters within the story, and they maintain a significant viewpoint throughout the documentary; it could even be argued that Johnston’s mother and father are as essential to Daniel’s story as Daniel is.
Footage of Daniel as a teenager provide some of the most haunting images immersed within this poignant film. His drawings, his music, his films--all contain such raw uninhibited emotion; it is not difficult to understand why his fans are so devoted to him. There is a genuine quality to him as a person that is utterly endearing, and then there is the other, unsettling side of him that is marked by the sheer unpredictability of his actions due to his mental illness. At one point his teary-eyed father tells the story of an evening when he and Daniel were flying back to their home from one of Daniel’s performances, and believing that his father was actually the Devil and not his father, Daniel proceeded to take the plane’s key’s out of the ignition mid-flight and throw them out of the window. This is but one of the tragic events in the artist’s life so far, and his battles with mental illness continue to this day. “Yet in spite of the many drawbacks of working with Daniel - these would include mood swings, and a tendency for the artist himself to abscond suddenly and without warning - the understated case made in Feuerzeig’s film is that so great is Johnston’s talent, and so deeply do musicians and associates respond to his music, that they will put up with a lot in order to help bring it to a wider audience.” (Robinson)
Are those artists that are plagued with severe mental illness inherently susceptible to being exploited in many ways, including as the subject of a rock documentary film? Is Daniel Johnston's story really "sad" per-say? Or is it more of a redemptive story regarding the far removed genius of an undoubtedly tortured, but ultimately genuine man? Either way, it is a film about a man who's life story as well as artistic work is so inconceivably strange that there's no use in ignoring it. Johnston is a captivating musician/artist coming from an incredibly tumultuous existence riddled with such failure that it seemed all odds were against him, and regardless of the hand Daniel was dealt, the most exhilarating aspect of the film is that you find this peculiar yet charismatic man still prevailing in so many ways in the end.
The communal quality is a recurring notion in the masterful ‘rockumentary’ of the modern day: the concept that musicians are as much the experiences that they have had as they are those individuals that were close to them. The act of making music is ultimately a collaborative/group effort within a notoriously competitive industry…a ticking time bomb of broken dreams in a myriad of respects. Above all, it is a profession that sees failure far more than success, with rules much like those involved in warfare…unfair in more ways than one.
The music business is just about as multifaceted as they come. The genres, record labels, band members, managers, producers and fans make up the abstract glimmers in to a multifarious industry in which no one ever gets to play god. As one journalist put it, “There are music documentaries that are all about the music--concert films that focus solely on the artistry and thrill of live performance--and then there are juicy ones that are all about backstage ego and volatility.” (Lemire)
In the documentary DiG! (2004) directed by Ondi Timoner, the story that is based around a mostly autobiographically narrated interpretation of the “rivalry” that existed between two bands that also greatly admired each other: The Dandy Warhols and The Brian Jonestown Massacre. The astronomical amount of actual footage of the two bands available (roughly 2,000 hours of material shot over seven years) immediately set the film’s style apart from many other ‘rockumentaries.’ However it was using this footage artfully in the editing room that made the immediacy of the film seem as though it was fictional drama, not fact; yet so real that the audience is left caring for each and every character exposed by the camera’s eye.
Narration done by Courtney Taylor-Taylor, “pretty-boy” front-man of one of the bands in question (The Dandy Warhols), gives the film a sort of authenticity, almost like that of an autobiographical or ethnographic documentary film. As with the Daniel Johnston film, it is the raw footage--the actuality shooting of life as it is living day-to-day with the two bands, that makes the film so very compelling. As one article puts it:
Basically, it [the film] invites you to decide, what is rock and roll--a form of pop music or a way of life? And if it’s a way of life, does the fact that it can inspire people to see you - for a while - as a prophet without honor make up for the fact that it’s a dissolute, non-productive way of life? (Nugent)
Similarly, in the film American Hardcore (2006) directed by Paul Rachman, a whole American musical movement, the punk-rock subgenre that emerged in the 1980s in the U.S. known as ‘hardcore punk’ or just simply ‘hardcore,’ is being critically examined by many of those involved in its initial cultivation. One aspect of the subject of this film that makes it interesting is that the musicians involved never wanted to be famous or successful: it was a big part of who they were and what their music was about. To this day, the average American could not name a hardcore act off of the top of their heads; those that know and love the genre cherish this aspect of it. Like the Ramones rockumentary, the tale is told only through testimonials given by the bands and people involved; in many ways it is both a rockumentary and sub culturally based ethnographic film. In fact, the film is based off of the book by Steven Blush titled: American Hardcore: A Tribal History. In an article about the book Phil Freeman writes that: “The music was always about the deflation of rock-star myths. Hardcore reasserted the idea that anyone could start a band, that everyone’s ideas were valid, and that unity was more important than grandstanding.”
Not only does the film get in to the sensibilities behind the movement, it gets in to the political climate of the era, and its powerful effects on the overall scene. Freeman goes on in his article to say that: “Indeed, much of the violence in the hardcore scene (and there was quite a bit…) comes from battles between left-wing and right-wing bands and fans.” In fact, the rockumentary begins with an assessment of the social climate of the 1980s in which the genre emerged, politics set the stage for this particular musical movement in a considerable amount of ways.
The revival of rockumentary as a credible sect of the documentary genre could be seen as the result of the emergence of the sub culturally oriented ethnographic style film as well as the autobiographical ‘narci-cinema’ reminiscent, new-journalism influenced ‘via the source’ based storytelling. As much as the documentary style is malleable in respect to a ‘narrative’s’ ultimate representation, in the end the rockumentary film’s subject’s point of view is so essential that the subject necessitates that a certain amount of influence be allotted to him/her/them regarding the final product. Much like the ‘narci-cinema’ tradition, actuality footage is utterly crucial for a filmmaker to convey any ‘message’ through his or her rockumentary.
Yet what makes the exceptional rockumentary different from that of an advertisement incognito is the presence of an ‘outsider’ director--the fact that the ultimate structure of the film is processed by a person that is not the subject is crucial to its potential impact. The warp and woof of the modern masterful rockumentary may be the sub-culture oriented ethnographic documentary with a pinch of ‘narci-cinema’ on the side, but its backbone is most definitely the influence of an objective eye. The influence of the director is elemental in objectively approaching such a subjective topic. “The irony is that the great, iconic images of rock-related cinema, to which bands who agree to be filmed presumably aspire, come from films where record labels and artists relinquished control to filmmakers…” (Petridis)
The filmmaker orchestrates our journey below the glistening surface: the deceitful music industry mirage. Without that objective eye, we would be seeing nothing more than the same old song and dance (literally). Yet through the vision of these directors, we are given the rare opportunity to be able to draw our own conclusions as to what went on behind the music--be it good or bad. “This new wave of rockumentaries reflects a shift in power from bands, who expect directors to make the film that will sell more records and maintain the legend, to directors, who are eschewing the usual film-of-the-concert format to tell more interesting stories.” (Landesman)
The modern rock documentary has become an ethnographic film genre all its own, with those involved acting as the final authority on the subject. From artists to genres to generations, rockumentary films have given context to the creation of music as we know it today. As technological prowess rapidly progresses as does the potential for an individual to create a film that is also a window through which one is able to peer in to the inner workings of the creative mind…it merely takes the innovative minds of our future documentary directors to get us there.
Since it is legally possible for ‘Joe or Jane Anybody’ to produce a ‘rock-documentary,’ the genre has unfortunately been riddled with elaborately packaged artist advertisements and numerous attempts to further mythologize rock personalities as demigods living amongst the common folk (the image that American popular culture so often enjoys perpetuating). This mislabeled P.R. is often at the hands of the individuals that represent the business side of the talent in question: record labels, managers, producers, etc. However, since D.A. Pennebaker’s classic ‘rockumentary’ featuring an angsty, young Bob Dylan in Don’t Look Back (1967), there has also been the existence of this elite variation -- another side to the American ‘rockumentary’ that uses the subject matter to show that ‘rockumentary’ absolutely can be a legitimate and serious filmmaking art form.
A true ‘rockumentary’ tells a story that transcends musical taste, despite focusing on one particular identity in music. The subject of this sort of film can be an individual, or a band, or even a whole genre. Whatever the topic, at its core it is a story that tells you something about the artistic personality on a very deeply felt and understood platform that has the potential to speak to any member of humanity. Stories about mental illness, addiction, family, friends, enemies, success, failure, dreams, dissent; and all of this set within the highly volatile world of the modern American music industry. These are the stories that are indeed stranger than fiction: the raw reality of the life of any given musician or group of musicians. The films that I will discuss involve musicians specifically from the United States.
One such film is End of the Century: The Story of the Ramones (2003) directed by Jim Fields and Michael Gramaglia. The footage relies entirely on testimonies, b-roll, and archival footage to describe the Ramones from their roots in early 1970s Queens, New York to the deaths of three of the four original group members via the mouths of the punk-rock pioneers that lived it. The viewer is taken on a journey through the lengthy career of this revolutionary band that was given recognition only at the very end of their careers, and for most of the original members, the very end of their lives. It is a journey through mental illness, drug addiction, lack of success, arguments, sickness, and the birth of a musical genre: that of punk rock.
The Encyclopedia of Punk states, “The film [End of the Century: The Story of the Ramones] was an open and frank account of the dissension within the band precipitated by Johnny Ramone marrying Joey’s girlfriend, Johnny’s role as the taskmaster of the group, Dee Dee Ramone’s drug problems, and Joey’s struggles with obsessive-compulsive disorder.” (Cogan 258) Testimonials via the mouths that were there are invaluable to the proper evaluation of any aspect of history, reality, and ultimately each one’s respective meaning. As Dee Dee Ramone so simply puts it in the film, “It’s not easy being in a rock-and-roll band.”
Indeed it seems that exceptional artistic talent too often coincides with the tumultuous. Lives that are prone to be heavy with hardships in some form or another. This is part of the complex relationship between mental illness and creative genius. It is seemingly set in stone that mental illness does not necessarily inhibit an individual’s creative capacity, but quite the contrary: it somehow allots the artist the mindset to craft such an extreme point of view, that he or she becomes prisoner to his or her own imagined world.
This is where things get tricky…these ‘visionaries’ fall victim to being consumed by the ‘unreality’ their minds create. The artist and self-destruction are practically synonymous. Inherently, tragedy often ensues. Recognition tends to come just a little bit too late--profound artistic innovators so commonly go down in contemporary history books as a mere after-thought. A travesty as well as a true-blue American music industry tradition. Real talent is marginalized and mediocrity mimics the brilliance of these barely known founders and few member of society are any the wiser. What does anybody really care? It is music--entertainment--trivial by definition…not actually ‘important’…and yet to these individuals - these artists - their art is their lives. Rarely simple or easy, the successful artist endeavor is openly mocked; regarded as kite-dreams, or just plain silly.
Still, the artist must sacrifice a significant slice of the normalcy within his or her life. The glamour associated with being an American rock star is so far from the reality of it, it is painful. Musicians are practically guaranteed a great deal of misery; if they are successful or not is irrelevant--it is nightmarish in many respects: isolation, neuroses, rampant substance abuse of everything from LSD to heroin to alcohol, paranoia, instability, failure, critical attack, hecklers, leeches, blah-blah-blah etc.
Much like brewing a potion the musician/artist makes his/her identity his/her creative canvas…constantly tweaking and rebuilding a personality, but never outright owning one. Normalcy, routine, rationality, consistency: these are less common qualities seen in individuals in rockumentaries. Those drawn to creative expression are the children of explorers in so far as self-expression is a journey to the ethereal ‘edge’…the final frontier of the fleshy form; the labyrinthine internal existence within the mind. The human psyche at its most vulnerable: the eighth wonder of the world. The seemingly quintessential subject for a documentary film. Many of these tales are just begging to be told.
Some critics claim that this specific focal point (mental illness, self-destruction, etc.) is entirely exploitative, ‘freak-show’ like gimmickry. However many people live with these same afflictions, and it could be argued that rockumentaries of this kind are no more exploitative than is typical in dealing with subjects that happen to have questionable amounts of coherence featured throughout the documentary genre.
Are those artists that are plagued with severe mental illness inherently susceptible to being exploited in many ways, including as the subject of a rock documentary film? Is Daniel Johnston's story really "sad" per-say? Or is it more of a redemptive story regarding the far removed genius of an undoubtedly tortured, but ultimately genuine man? Either way, it is a film about a man who's life story as well as artistic work is so inconceivably strange that there's no use in ignoring it. Johnston is a captivating musician/artist coming from an incredibly tumultuous existence riddled with such failure that it seemed all odds were against him, and regardless of the hand Daniel was dealt, the most exhilarating aspect of the film is that you find this peculiar yet charismatic man still prevailing in so many ways in the end.
The Devil and Daniel Johnston received the Documentary Directing Award at the Sundance Film Festival in 2005. This speaks to the film’s credibility as more than a mere great ‘rockumentary,’ but a great all-around documentary film. Yet I find that William Shakespeare put it best in Hamlet, in which the character Claudius says near the end of the play that, “Madness in great ones must not unwatched go."
The communal quality is a recurring notion in the masterful ‘rockumentary’ of the modern day: the concept that musicians are as much the experiences that they have had as they are those individuals that were close to them. The act of making music is ultimately a collaborative/group effort within a notoriously competitive industry…a ticking time bomb of broken dreams in a myriad of respects. Above all, it is a profession that sees failure far more than success, with rules much like those involved in warfare…unfair in more ways than one.
The music business is just about as multifaceted as they come. The genres, record labels, band members, managers, producers and fans make up the abstract glimmers in to a multifarious industry in which no one ever gets to play god. As one journalist put it, “There are music documentaries that are all about the music--concert films that focus solely on the artistry and thrill of live performance--and then there are juicy ones that are all about backstage ego and volatility.” (Lemire)
In the documentary DiG! (2004) directed by Ondi Timoner, the story that is based around a mostly autobiographically narrated interpretation of the “rivalry” that existed between two bands that also greatly admired each other: The Dandy Warhols and The Brian Jonestown Massacre. The astronomical amount of actual footage of the two bands available (roughly 2,000 hours of material shot over seven years) immediately set the film’s style apart from many other ‘rockumentaries.’ However it was using this footage artfully in the editing room that made the immediacy of the film seem as though it was fictional drama, not fact; yet so real that the audience is left caring for each and every character exposed by the camera’s eye.
Narration done by Courtney Taylor-Taylor, “pretty-boy” front-man of one of the bands in question (The Dandy Warhols), gives the film a sort of authenticity, almost like that of an autobiographical or ethnographic documentary film. As with the Daniel Johnston film, it is the raw footage--the actuality shooting of life as it is living day-to-day with the two bands, that makes the film so very compelling. As one article puts it:
Basically, it [the film] invites you to decide, what is rock and roll--a form of pop music or a way of life? And if it’s a way of life, does the fact that it can inspire people to see you - for a while - as a prophet without honor make up for the fact that it’s a dissolute, non-productive way of life? (Nugent)
Similarly, in the film American Hardcore (2006) directed by Paul Rachman, a whole American musical movement, the punk-rock subgenre that emerged in the 1980s in the U.S. known as ‘hardcore punk’ or just simply ‘hardcore,’ is being critically examined by many of those involved in its initial cultivation. One aspect of the subject of this film that makes it interesting is that the musicians involved never wanted to be famous or successful: it was a big part of who they were and what their music was about. To this day, the average American could not name a hardcore act off of the top of their heads; those that know and love the genre cherish this aspect of it. Like the Ramones rockumentary, the tale is told only through testimonials given by the bands and people involved; in many ways it is both a rockumentary and sub culturally based ethnographic film. In fact, the film is based off of the book by Steven Blush titled: American Hardcore: A Tribal History. In an article about the book Phil Freeman writes that: “The music was always about the deflation of rock-star myths. Hardcore reasserted the idea that anyone could start a band, that everyone’s ideas were valid, and that unity was more important than grandstanding.”
Not only does the film get in to the sensibilities behind the movement, it gets in to the political climate of the era, and its powerful effects on the overall scene. Freeman goes on in his article to say that: “Indeed, much of the violence in the hardcore scene (and there was quite a bit…) comes from battles between left-wing and right-wing bands and fans.” In fact, the rockumentary begins with an assessment of the social climate of the 1980s in which the genre emerged, politics set the stage for this particular musical movement in a considerable amount of ways.
The revival of rockumentary as a credible sect of the documentary genre could be seen as the result of the emergence of the sub culturally oriented ethnographic style film as well as the autobiographical ‘narci-cinema’ reminiscent, new-journalism influenced ‘via the source’ based storytelling. As much as the documentary style is malleable in respect to a ‘narrative’s’ ultimate representation, in the end the rockumentary film’s subject’s point of view is so essential that the subject necessitates that a certain amount of influence be allotted to him/her/them regarding the final product. Much like the ‘narci-cinema’ tradition, actuality footage is utterly crucial for a filmmaker to convey any ‘message’ through his or her rockumentary.
Yet what makes the exceptional rockumentary different from that of an advertisement incognito is the presence of an ‘outsider’ director--the fact that the ultimate structure of the film is processed by a person that is not the subject is crucial to its potential impact. The warp and woof of the modern masterful rockumentary may be the sub-culture oriented ethnographic documentary with a pinch of ‘narci-cinema’ on the side, but its backbone is most definitely the influence of an objective eye. The influence of the director is elemental in objectively approaching such a subjective topic. “The irony is that the great, iconic images of rock-related cinema, to which bands who agree to be filmed presumably aspire, come from films where record labels and artists relinquished control to filmmakers…” (Petridis)
The filmmaker orchestrates our journey below the glistening surface: the deceitful music industry mirage. Without that objective eye, we would be seeing nothing more than the same old song and dance (literally). Yet through the vision of these directors, we are given the rare opportunity to be able to draw our own conclusions as to what went on behind the music--be it good or bad. “This new wave of rockumentaries reflects a shift in power from bands, who expect directors to make the film that will sell more records and maintain the legend, to directors, who are eschewing the usual film-of-the-concert format to tell more interesting stories.” (Landesman)
The modern rock documentary has become an ethnographic film genre all its own, with those involved acting as the final authority on the subject. From artists to genres to generations, rockumentary films have given context to the creation of music as we know it today. As technological prowess rapidly progresses as does the potential for an individual to create a film that is also a window through which one is able to peer in to the inner workings of the creative mind…it merely takes the innovative minds of our future documentary directors to get us there.
Works Cited
Cogan, Brian. The Encyclopedia of Punk. Sterling Publishing Co. New York, NY. 2008.
End of the Century: The Story of the Ramones. Dir. Jim Fields and Michael Gramaglia.
Freeman, Phil. “American Hardcore: A Tribal History By Steven Blush.” Culture Vulture. [http://www.culturevulture.net/Books/AmericanHardcore.htm].
Landesman, Cosmo. “The new, nerdy rock documentaries: Today’s best rock docs are about the nerds and nobodies.” The Sunday Times. Sept. 14, 2008. [http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article4 733314.ece].
Lemire, Christy. “Best rock documentaries give viewers more than just music.” Winston- Salem Journal. Sept 16. 2010. [http://www2.journalnow.com/entertainment/2010/sep/16/best-rock- documentaries-give-viewers-more-than-jus-ar-399616/].
Nugent, Phil. “Lost Edens, Unsung Heroes, and Metalheads on the Couch: Recent rock documentaries.” The High Hat. [http://thehighhat.com/Nitrate/005/documentaries.html].
Petridis, Alexis. “24 hour party people: Metallica in therapy, Janis Joplin on acid, and the Dandy Warhols at war. Is the rock documentary making a comeback?” The Guardian. July 2, 2004. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2004/jul/02/popandrock.metallica].
Robinson, John. “Personal demons.” The Guardian. Aug 20, 2005. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2005/aug/20/edinburghfilmfestival2005.popandr
ock].
End of the Century: The Story of the Ramones. Dir. Jim Fields and Michael Gramaglia.
Freeman, Phil. “American Hardcore: A Tribal History By Steven Blush.” Culture Vulture. [http://www.culturevulture.net/Books/AmericanHardcore.htm].
Landesman, Cosmo. “The new, nerdy rock documentaries: Today’s best rock docs are about the nerds and nobodies.” The Sunday Times. Sept. 14, 2008. [http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article4 733314.ece].
Lemire, Christy. “Best rock documentaries give viewers more than just music.” Winston- Salem Journal. Sept 16. 2010. [http://www2.journalnow.com/entertainment/2010/sep/16/best-rock- documentaries-give-viewers-more-than-jus-ar-399616/].
Nugent, Phil. “Lost Edens, Unsung Heroes, and Metalheads on the Couch: Recent rock documentaries.” The High Hat. [http://thehighhat.com/Nitrate/005/documentaries.html].
Petridis, Alexis. “24 hour party people: Metallica in therapy, Janis Joplin on acid, and the Dandy Warhols at war. Is the rock documentary making a comeback?” The Guardian. July 2, 2004. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2004/jul/02/popandrock.metallica].
Robinson, John. “Personal demons.” The Guardian. Aug 20, 2005. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2005/aug/20/edinburghfilmfestival2005.popandr
ock].
No comments:
Post a Comment