Just saw the movie, "Bird."

[Free For All]

You mean Amadeus wasn't realistic either ??!!?

No, Salieri didn't really throw his harpsichord off a bridge after hearing Mozart play at a club.

[Parkertown]

Incredible...

So, how did I end up enjoying this movie?

Perhaps for the same reasons I enjoyed Ken Burns' Civil War and Baseball series: I did not know enough about the subjects to detect (and be bothered by) the many errors and omissions. It was different when I saw his Jazz series--that opened my eyes to his sloppy approach, so I went back and read reviews of the other programs--sure enough, I had missed the flaws.

Guess ignorance can be bliss.

Well, I guess you stated this about as politely as you could. Thanks. Seriously.

Edited July 5, 2006 by Parkertown

[Teasing the Korean]

Late to the party on this one - I've only now just seen it.

Many of you asked questions similar to mine - emphasis on Red Rodney vs. Miles, etc.- but those have been dealt with already.

I agree 100% with Stereo Jack regarding the musical overdubs. The low-fi recordings would have been jarring within the context of a hi-fi film in a theatre. The soundtrack album, away from the movie, however, is a different story.

Also agree with Jack that the film (I'm paraphrasing) dealt too much with the personal details and did not really place Parker within the context of the era, jazz, etc. Maybe that was a deliberate choice, to show the day-to-day reality of being a genius having to pay the bills.

Still, I enjoyed it.

[Rooster_Ties]

You mean Amadeus wasn't realistic either ??!!?

No, Salieri didn't really throw his harpsichord off a bridge after hearing Mozart play at a club.

And I'm late to the party acknowledging this first rate zinger.

[Alexander]

as for Russell's book, the musicians I knew who knew Bird and who read the book - Howard McGhee, Curely Russell, Al Haig, Tommy Potter - were unanimous in telling me that, when it concerned incidents with which they were directly familiar, it was pure fiction -

I remember reading similar things about it.

It's an entertaining read, when viewed as fiction rather than fact...

[Dave James]

The only comment I have about "Bird" or Ken Burns' Jazz documentary is this. Would you rather they were made or weren't made? I vote for the former since anything that makes people more aware of the music is, at least to me, a good thing.

[Christiern]

I definitely vote for the latter. Better not to have nothing than to have history rewritten by people who are cashing in on jazz. Remember, Burns blew a golden opportunity—it will be a long time before anything near that amount of money is allocated to the furtherance of jazz. I believe that Clint Eastwood is genuinely into jazz, but isn't that all the more reason for doing it right? I think it is.

We would also have been better off without Ross' book.

[mikelz777]

I guess I'm the turd in the punch bowl, I hated the movie "Bird". I didn't see it with any preconceived notions about how it should be approached or factors X, Y, or Z needing to be in a "proper" representation of Parker's life. I was ready to take it for whatever it was. It's obvious Whitaker never saw (or wasn't directed or chose to follow) video footage of Parker's playing. He was squirming and jerking around as if every note or phrase required some kind of body movement. The footage I've seen of Parker always impressed me because there was a lot going on musically but he stood or sat stone still, the fleet and economical movement of his fingers on the keys communicating his message, not the movement of his body. A pet peeve of mine is non-musicians unconvincingly trying to play musicians in movies and I recall seeing a lot of unconvincing acting in that regard. If music is an important part of the story, find musicians that can act and leave the poseurs to act in movies where the musicians are in the background. I thought the transitions with the flying cymbal were awkward and clunky. I recall some street scenes with musicians or club patrons where the acting was very hammy, forced and transparent. I was quite bored with it and gave up on it around the 2-hour mark. I appreciate Eastwood's desire to do something more than just put out a straight, run-of-the-mill, chronological story but his efforts seemed to be an attempt at being artsy for the sake of being artsy rather than as an effective vehicle for telling the story. Others may feel differently, but I thought the effort fell short. It leaves me wondering if this movie would be seen in such positive light if it were about some journeyman player rather than an iconic jazz giant.

Edited March 18, 2011 by mikelz777

[Cali]

I definitely vote for the latter. Better not to have nothing than to have history rewritten by people who are cashing in on jazz. Remember, Burns blew a golden opportunity—it will be a long time before anything near that amount of money is allocated to the furtherance of jazz. I believe that Clint Eastwood is genuinely into jazz, but isn't that all the more reason for doing it right? I think it is.

We would also have been better off without Ross' book.

I guess I'm the turd in the punch bowl, I hated the movie "Bird". I didn't see it with any preconceived notions about how it should be approached or factors X, Y, or Z needing to be in a "proper" representation of Parker's life. I was ready to take it for whatever it was. It's obvious Whitaker never saw (or wasn't directed or chose to follow) video footage of Parker's playing. He was squirming and jerking around as if every note or phrase required some kind of body movement. The footage I've seen of Parker always impressed me because there was a lot going on musically but he stood or sat stone still, the fleet and economical movement of his fingers on the keys communicating his message, not the movement of his body. A pet peeve of mine is non-musicians unconvincingly trying to play musicians in movies and I recall seeing a lot of unconvincing acting in that regard. If music is an important part of the story, find musicians that can act and leave the poseurs to act in movies where the musicians are in the background. I thought the transitions with the flying cymbal were awkward and clunky. I recall some street scenes with musicians or club patrons where the acting was very hammy, forced and transparent. I was quite bored with it and gave up on it around the 2-hour mark. I appreciate Eastwood's desire to do something more than just put out a straight, run-of-the-mill, chronological story but his efforts seemed to be an attempt at being artsy for the sake of being artsy rather than as an effective vehicle for telling the story. Others may feel differently, but I thought the effort fell short. It leaves me wondering if this movie would be seen in such positive light if it were about some journeyman player rather than an iconic jazz giant.

I agree.

[CJ Shearn]

I hated "Bird" when I saw it too, not enough focus on what made him a brilliant musician. Too about the drugs, and improper fact checking creates a problem. I have a feeling that, and I hope not, with Don Cheadle (he loves jazz)and Miles' estate (which I hope they are involved for more than just a money grab) the Miles film will focus far more on Miles' drug use, domestic problems and eccentricities more so than the music.

[Teasing the Korean]

Not to change the subject, but I recently went to Youtube to see if there was any Charlie Parker footage. I feel like I should know this stuff already, but you can't know everything, I guess.

Anyway, there is footage of him with Lester Young, and the description reads:

"This is one of two surviving sound films of Charlie Parker playing (and certainly the longest; the other is only 52 seconds long)."

Is this true?

[medjuck]

I don't know of the footage with Prez but there is a film he made with Coleman Hawkins for Norman Granz. And I think it's more than 52 seconds long as is the other piece of footage with him from a tv show with Dizzy in which they play all of (IIRC) Hot House.

[Christiern]

As I recall, some of those Granz films had dubbed in audio.

[Dave James]

Not to be argumentative, but I would be interested to learn how those among us who were unhappy with the Burns documentary would have changed it in a way that made it more palatable, keeping in mind, of course, that the series was geared towards, at best, the casual jazz fan and, at worst, the complete neophyte. Further, like it or not, that ratings and viewership matter. I realize that for many, the marginalization of the free jazz movement was an issue, but if you lean too heavily on that aspect of the music, I'm afraid the clicking sound you'd have heard would have been made by folks all across America turning off their TV's.

LIke I said, I have no interest in arguing. I am genuinely curious about what you'd have done differently had you been behind the wheel.

Edited March 20, 2011 by Dave James

[Christiern]

At this moment, I don't have the time it will take to go into details, but a good step towards improvement would have been to eliminate Crouch, the Marsalises and Margo Jefferson, none of whom contributed anything of substance. Less emphasis on Louis and Duke would also have been an improvement, the freed-up time could have been spent on performers who were either omitted or given cursory treatment. An honest approach would have taken care of some of these shortcomings and, in general, have made a huge difference—this was a dishonest, deliberately distorted series that played with the facts—not always by omission. A true, competent documentarian could have told the story of jazz in less time and for less money.

[Stereojack]

I would have spent less time talking to "experts" with agendas like Albert Murray, Stanley Crouch, et al. More emphasis on the music and less emphasis on the purported social implications. More interviews with musicians. I thought that the time spent with people like Jackie McLean was much more valuable than anything Murray, Crouch, Marsalis or Gerald Early had to say.

[Teasing the Korean]

Agree with Jack and Chris. Additionally, I would not have crammed 1960 to 2000 into a single installment; that was a really bone-headed move.

[CJ Shearn]

Not to be argumentative, but I would be interested to learn how those among us who were unhappy with the Burns documentary would have changed it in a way that made it more palatable, keeping in mind, of course, that the series was geared towards, at best, the casual jazz fan and, at worst, the complete neophyte. Further, like it or not, that ratings and viewership matter. I realize that for many, the marginalization of the free jazz movement was an issue, but if you lean too heavily on that aspect of the music, I'm afraid the clicking sound you'd have heard would have been made by folks all across America turning off their TV's.

LIke I said, I have no interest in arguing. I am genuinely curious about what you'd have done differently had you been behind the wheel.

I definitely agree, a production company like Euroarts that did the "Play your Own Thing" (which I still have not seen) and the Keith Jarrett documentary which I have on DVD and is wonderful.

[Larry Kart]

Not to be argumentative, but I would be interested to learn how those among us who were unhappy with the Burns documentary would have changed it in a way that made it more palatable, keeping in mind, of course, that the series was geared towards, at best, the casual jazz fan and, at worst, the complete neophyte....

I think Chris and Jack have answered the question. On the other hand, Chris' I think crucial call for an "honest" approach (I agree entirely with his "this was a dishonest, deliberately distorted series that played with the facts -- not always by omission") would call for much further talk if one were to convince those who don't already know what he means -- much more of that than I think any of us are willing to engage in at this late date, with the horse not only out of the barn but with the barn also burned down and condo apartments erected in its place.

Surely, though, there are on-line archives of one sort or another where all the chapter-and-verse discussion on the Burns documentary that took place at the time and soon afterwards is still accessible? Some of it may even be here?

Also I believe that Chris is right in saying "A true, competent documentarian could have told the story of jazz in less time and for less money."

[Dan Gould]

Let me know the next time you meet someone who was a neophyte when he saw Jazz, became interested in the music as a result of it, then quoted chapter and verse from it that was filled with assorted falsehoods, half-truths and Crouch-isms.

If it happens, it will probably be the first time.

Or, as I and others have said, if it got anyone else interested in the music we love, its a net positive for that music.

[Larry Kart]

Let me know the next time you meet someone who was a neophyte when he saw Jazz, became interested in the music as a result of it...

Why not just stop there? I'm certainly not saying that it's impossible for that to have occured, but let me know.

And if that did happen very much, how could these people have screened out the "assorted falsehoods, half-truths and Crouch-isms," which were fairly well pervasive?

BTW, I do have at least one anecdotal response to the Burns series from a musically inclined young person I know. IIRC, the footage of Armstrong playing and singing "Dinah" with a European ensemble was played a great many times -- the idea being that it was iconic/symbolic.

For many of the likes of us (and objectively, too), yes -- but my young friend eventually found the repetition of this clip so off-putting that his initial positive response to it was sadly transformed into something like repulsion. You could say, 'Well, so much for him, he's a dope,' but I think he was essentially reacting to having something genuine shoved down his throat so insistently that it began to seem false -- or at least the insistent shoving did. In fact, I too began to groan every time that "Dinah" clip cropped up.

What I'm saying -- and this I think echoes one of the points Chris made above -- is that much of the series had the feel of propaganda (which in many respects was the case). And if there's one thing that a lot of young people (a group that include most of those "neophytes" one was hoping to win over, right?) are inclined to be put off by when they detect it, it's being propagandized -- let alone on a "This is good for you" basis (with in this case an arguable "This is good for us" subtext).

[John L]

Agree with Jack and Chris. Additionally, I would not have crammed 1960 to 2000 into a single installment; that was a really bone-headed move.

Actually, given the way that period was treated, it is a good thing that only one bad installment about it was made.

[Big Beat Steve]

Getting back to the BIRD movie, I am sort of surprised at the reactions (even recent ones) by many of those who commented.

For goodness sake, this is HOLLYWOOD - what do you expect from ANY sort of bio, especially if it involves a musician celebrity? There's BOUND to be a good deal of stereotypes, headline-catching sensationalism and clichés being thrown in. Hard to imagine this is ever going to be radically different. Especially if it should be true that in this case personal vetos may have prevented certain persons from being portrayed in the plot.

It's been a couple of years since I watched "Bird" (the video cassette still is around, someday again maybe ...) but I distinctly remember I was fairly satisfied with the overall results. Because IMHO with this kind of Hollywood fictionalizing you can only hope that fiction doesn't win out totally so you do have to make concessions from the outset IMO.

The only recent musician bio movie where I remember the scores were distinctly higher still is "I Walk The Line".

Though I admit that I haven't bothered to check up on the facts in the Tina Turner bio (am not that much of a fan so don't really care, but at any rate the actor who played Ike Turner fitted the bill even less - visually, above all - than Forrest Whittaker fitted the Bird persona ).

Edited March 20, 2011 by Big Beat Steve

[medjuck]

As I recall, some of those Granz films had dubbed in audio.

According to Peter Losin the music was recorded first then the musicians mimed top it while being filmed.

Edited March 20, 2011 by medjuck

[Dan Gould]

Let me know the next time you meet someone who was a neophyte when he saw Jazz, became interested in the music as a result of it...

Why not just stop there? I'm certainly not saying that it's impossible for that to have occured, but let me know.

Pretty sure there were a lot of Burns-branded CDs sold in the aftermath - proof positive that some people were motivated to seek out the music they heard.

And if that did happen very much, how could these people have screened out the "assorted falsehoods, half-truths and Crouch-isms," which were fairly well pervasive?

I'd say its more likely that hardly anyone remembers anything that specific from the movie and if they were neophytes before there's a good chance they moved on to other sources of information about the music and its makers.

BTW, I do have at least one anecdotal response to the Burns series from a musically inclined young person I know. IIRC, the footage of Armstrong playing and singing "Dinah" with a European ensemble was played a great many times -- the idea being that it was iconic/symbolic.

For many of the likes of us (and objectively, too), yes -- but my young friend eventually found the repetition of this clip so off-putting that his initial positive response to it was sadly transformed into something like repulsion. You could say, 'Well, so much for him, he's a dope,' but I think he was essentially reacting to having something genuine shoved down his throat so insistently that it began to seem false -- or at least the insistent shoving did. In fact, I too began to groan every time that "Dinah" clip cropped up.

I think the only "young people" motivated to watch Jazz already had a predisposition toward the music. Or do you think that PBS reaches a lot of young people with its typical programming? Jazz was aimed more or less at baby boomers who knew that Miles Davis was a cool cat and already owned a jazz CD or two, as a cultural affect.

As for Dinah, so Burns should be criticized for over-using certain clips. If that really prevented a young person from "getting" Louis Armstrong, then I think that's more or less their loss, and their fault. Or maybe you think that if kids today can only write for twitter, facebook or easy text-reading, then all lessons should be delivered in 140 characters or less.

What I'm saying -- and this I think echoes one of the points Chris made above -- is that much of the series had the feel of propaganda (which in many respects was the case). And if there's one thing that a lot of young people (a group that include most of those "neophytes" one was hoping to win over, right?) are inclined to be put off by when they detect it, it's being propagandized -- let alone on a "This is good for you" basis (with in this case an arguable "This is good for us" subtext).

I'd argue that any documentary with a discernible point of view has propagandist-elements. Hello there Michael Moore.