Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Really want to see this one!

MV5BMjA5Nzc2NDUyN15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNjQwMjc5Nw@@._V1._SY317_CR0,0,214,317_.jpg

Searching for Sugar Man tells the incredible true story of Rodriguez, the greatest '70s rock icon who never was. Discovered in a Detroit bar in the late '60s by two celebrated producers struck by his soulful melodies and prophetic lyrics, they recorded an album which they believed would secure his reputation as the greatest recording artist of his generation. In fact, the album bombed and the singer disappeared into obscurity amid rumors of a gruesome on-stage suicide. But a bootleg recording found its way into apartheid South Africa and, over the next two decades, he became a phenomenon. The film follows the story of two South African fans who set out to find out what really happened to their hero. Their investigation leads them to a story more extraordinary than any of the existing myths about the artist known as Rodriguez.

Anyone else heard anything about it? Looking to go?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rodriguez is playing at Lincoln Hall in Sept.

Wonder how fast this will sell out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like a great movie. Gotta see when the show is, It will sell out pretty quickly I would guess but at the moment tickets are still available.

 

Kudos to Light in the Attic for snagging the reissues of his albums a few years back.

 

LouieB

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...

Looks interesting but most of it is bullshit. According to lefshetz

 

Post a text quotation.

 

I refuse to frequent his blog.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Post a text quotation.

 

I refuse to frequent his blog.

why?

 

And even a cursory read of Wikipedia tells you it’s not true. Hell, this is a guy who toured Australia with Midnight Oil!

Did you watch the “60 Minutes” piece? I’m loath to write this because Rodriguez appears to be such a humble, good-hearted soul. But the bastards promoting this movie are not. Hell, they even duped CBS news.

I haven’t seen the movie. I will. But from square one it smelled bad. You mean a guy was hit in South Africa and didn’t know it and labored in obscurity for decades, until some filmmaker in Sweden found out about it and made a movie?

Let’s start there. With the filmmaker. He was looking for a story. That’s what studios do. They swoop down and buy the rights to books, to real-life events, all in the pursuit of cash. That’s why this guy made the movie, for his own personal glory. It’s not like this story was near and dear to his heart, he just needed a story!

And then he gets it into Sundance, who knows what shenanigans he effected to pull this off, and the company that bought the film has been spinning tales for months, trying to get you to go to the theatre so they can get rich. They don’t care about Rodriguez, they just care about your cash.

And you love a feel good story. So you spread the word. You’re doing their work for them. To the point where even weasels like me are afraid to rain on your parade, because of the tsunami of b.s. that’s gonna come down on me as soon as I hit send.

This is old school marketing at its worst. This is why both the right wing and left wing can get away with excoriating mainstream media. “60 Minutes”… Did you just surrender to the hype? Did you do no personal investigation? Did you not want to ruin the arc of the story?

This is no different from Jonah Lehrer. The truth is messy, it’s hard to compartmentalize, it twists and turns and almost never results in a perfect story. If “60 Minutes” said Rodriguez toured Australia with Midnight Oil, that his records were rereleased by Sony long before this movie came out, the story wouldn’t work. But what’s even worse is these facts are hiding in plain sight and “60 Minutes” didn’t even do the research. It’s kind of like my old friend Tony Wilson, who screwed up the football scores in his first TV news gig. His boss almost fired him, not because anybody cared about the results of this minor game, but if the station couldn’t get it right on this trivial matter, viewers wouldn’t trust them on the big issues.

Kind of like the “New York Times.” When Judith Miller supported invasion of Iraq because she liked the access to the Republican brass. They snowed her, she got it wrong, and now even liberals take the “Times” with a grain of salt.

Then again, there are numerous news outlets who refuse to fall on their sword, who won’t admit they’re wrong, like the “Times” did in that case.

In the Internet era, you can’t mess with the facts. Lehrer’s book was in release for months before he got busted, not by a major news outlet, but an essentially unknown Dylan fanatic. The truth always outs. And self-satisfied old wave news outlets decrease in revenue and power when they refuse to search for truth and just publicize press releases.

I love it that this guy made so much of the movie on his iPhone, but that’s probably a lie too…

I love that Rodriguez is getting recognition.

But I hate being manipulated.

Call it fiction. Write a story from scratch. But when you do a documentary, when you do TV news, you’ve got to present all the facts.

Or else you just become a laughingstock.

Like “60 Minutes.”

P.S. Hell, he was sampled by Nas back in 2001. “Sugar Man” was featured in the film “Candy,” released in 2006, starring Heath Ledger. This guy wasn’t hiding, he was in plain sight!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lefsetz raises important questions about whether the film has cherry-picked facts to enrich the fable, but his tone and observations seem rooted in willful contrarianism rather than a searching, accurate take on the film and its makers.

 

The "obscurity" emphasized in the film is of course relative, and relatively speaking, I think the film correctly reports that Rodriguez's talent was virtually unknown among American ears for decades.  A Sony re-issue, an overlooked sample, an overlooked indie film soundtrack, and minor Australian tours (the last in 1981) hardly suggest a notable North American awareness of Rodriguez.  If that qualifies as being in "plain sight," I must be blind.

 

It's true that the film skimps somewhat on Rodriguez's late-term career activities, but it also skimps on many areas worthy of exploration, including a cultural context; for example, there's little effort to connect his '70s albums with the vibrant Detroit scene of the era.  Why?  Well, it's not a full document of a man's life and career.  The film chooses to follow a particular angle, the story of an artist's unusually outsized popularity in one part of the world, and the focus is strictly on that angle.  While the movie could be fairly accused of over-emphasizing the neglect of Rodriguez for simplicity's sake, in a broad sense it doesn't fabricate and doesn't make the case that there was total abandonment of his musical career.  In the film, the interviews with people who knew Sixto in America make it clear that he never completely vanished.  In fact, when asked directly, one of his old colleagues knows exactly where he is living and what he is up to.  Re-issues are acknowledged in the film and a 1996 South African re-issue is a pivotal point in the story.

 

Lefsetz argues that the filmmakers imply that their efforts air-lifted Rodriguez out of his construction job to renewed celebrity via a series of late-stage concerts, saying, You mean a guy was hit in South Africa and didn’t know it and labored in obscurity for decades, until some filmmaker in Sweden found out about it and made a movie?  This is a misrepresentation of the film.  The director correctly places the South African concert series in 1998.  In other words, the film clearly shows that Rodriguez learned of, and capitalized on, his South African popularity more than a decade before the director even began working on the film.  The chronology seems to have escaped Lefsetz, perhaps, as he freely admits, because he hadn't seen the film.

 

There is an element of mythmaking in the film that seemed to me a little too much like hagiography, and it's perhaps fair to charge the film with manipulation in its careful presentation of facts, ordered as a series of (expert?) reveals.  Still, it's not a lie, and I think Lefsetz's main accusations--that the film is contrived and cartoonish--probably are better aimed at his own blog post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going to post about Lefsetz's comments but you nailed everything I was going to say quite nicely Beltmann.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it have been valuable to mention the '79 and '81 tours?  It would have added journalistic texture, certainly.  But I'm not sure it's relevant to the actual story being told.  The film is told from a uniquely South African point-of-view; you could convincingly argue that the two superfans who collaborated to conduct the search--from their own measly and amateurish vantage point--are the main subjects while Rodriguez the man is a secondary concern.  For the superfans, the myth matters more than the vagaries of the singer's career spurts, which is why the film takes time to describe the legend as those two men saw it.

 

Additionally, the comeback effort really was a non-starter; Rodriguez was essentially an after-thought on the Midnight Oil tour and it didn't spark revived interest.  In terms of the overall arc of his career, it was a blip of almost zero impact.  That explains why the superfans, situated in South Africa, had no awareness of the Australian tours.  (Why would they know?  And by extension, why should it be part of their story?)  For Lefsetz to assert that such minor activity proves Rodriguez wasn't truly obscure is a distortion of reality--and ironically places Lefsetz's version of Rodriguez further from the truth than the movie's version.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going to post about Lefsetz's comments but you nailed everything I was going to say quite nicely Beltmann.

I was going to say what a nice job Beltmann did in addressing the comments but GtrPlyr nailed everything I was going to say about what a nice job Beltmann said.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Watched this last night and loved it.  Went back through this thread and couldn't believe how off-the-mark Lefsetz was in his blog entry.  The story of the film was just as much about South Africa as it was Rodriguez.  Especially his music's importance to a part of the anti-apartheid movement, and the censorship and insularity that existed under the South African government.  That's why the small blip of a tour in Australia in the early '80s means nothing to this story. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Watched this last night and loved it.  Went back through this thread and couldn't believe how off-the-mark Lefsetz was in his blog entry.  The story of the film was just as much about South Africa as it was Rodriguez.  Especially his music's importance to a part of the anti-apartheid movement, and the censorship and insularity that existed under the South African government.  That's why the small blip of a tour in Australia in the early '80s means nothing to this story. 

 

Agreed.  I re-watched the film last Friday with my wife, a few days after writing my earlier posts about Lefsetz.  While watching, I kept one eye on whether I had been too generous towards the film.  I think it's fair to observe that the film is skimpy on certain facts, and perhaps guilty of cherry-picking for simplicity's sake without acknowledging that more happened outside of the frame, but overall I think its omissions are justifiable--as you said, the story told is a particular one, and that story centers on Rodriguez's unique relationship to South Africa, not his entire career.  It might be slightly (inadvertently?) misleading, but not in a nefarious way that undermines the intended story.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...