| Scoop's notes in white: Great idea, humanistic attitude,
beautiful and authentic music. Do you need more?
A story? Well, that
couldn't be much worse, so just ignore it. It isn't necessary anyway.
It really doesn't get in the way of the concert. I was able to see how
bad the story was and still liked the film a lot.
For the record: a pompous, condescending musicologist comes to
the backwoods and starts archiving the local songs. She eventually
comes to love the locals. In terms of the script, this one-dimensional film has every
possible cliche:
-
the condescending attitude of the
male professors toward her discovery
-
the lesbians
-
the lyin', cheatin' husbands
-
the women abandoned to despair by
lyin', cheatin' husbands (have you determined yet that the script
was written by a woman)
-
the shifty coal company official
tryin' to hornswaggle the honest mountain folk out of their land
-
the coal company owner who refers
to the mountaineers as savages
-
the fact that the simple folk
turn out to have true wisdom and intelligence
-
the scene where the
retarded-lookin' bumpkin plays his musical instrument better than
Eric Clapton
-
the ol' black musician
-
the loveable, feisty ol' grannie
who says stuff like "you boys is actin' like a right buncha
assholes"
-
the moonshine stills
-
the city musicologist who falls
in love with the sensitive country bumpkin
-
numerous tragedies, calamities,
and melodramas
Watching this without the singing
would be like watching Oklahoma! without the singing. Not only that,
but it's pretty goddamn uplifting and worthy, and does more preaching
than Sunday morning cable TV.
But frankly, I don't really know if it makes sense to
say that the movie would be bad without the music, because the singing
and pluckin' is the whole point, and the music
is there to enjoy.
So enjoy it. I did.
|
| Tuna's
comments in yellow:
Songcatcher (2000) is a
Maggie Greenwald film about a female musicologist who is passed over for
a full professorship at an anonymous eastern private college, and joins
her sister at a mountain "settlement school" in the mountains. There she
discovers a musical tradition going back to ancient English and Scottish
ballads, literally unchanged from when their ancestors first immigrated.
The story is set at the turn of the century, which is several years
early for this discovery, but nonetheless is based on an historical
event that marked the beginning of country and western music. In a good
commentary track, Greenwald explains exactly where she took artistic
license with the true story, and why. Where she didn't take any license
at all was in the music, which was performed exactly as collected in the
20s.
The initial settlement of the mountain folk was prompted as much by coal
mining companies as anything. Missionaries lived among them, and started
schools to turn the hill folks into modern citizens. There were also lay
settlement schools, privately owned, which had the goal of educating,
but preserving the local culture. The musicologist, played by Janet
McTeer, gradually manages to become accepted by the suspicious local
residents and starts collecting this amazing work. Meanwhile, we learn
that her sister, played by Jane Adams, is in a lesbian relationship with
the director of the school. The writer/director essentially doesn't
believe that all school teachers were sexless old spinsters, and wanted
to give them some sexuality. In fact, she created a love interest of
some kind for every woman in the film. The musicologist herself ends up
falling for one of these crude hill folk.
I adored this film, but then it is decidedly my sort of film. The
scenery was breathtaking, and the performances very convincing. I also
enjoyed the cultural insights. Overall, however, it was the music that
carried the story. As a 60s vintage folk aficionado, I recognized most
of the songs in the film as the ones that influenced people like Joan
Baez, The Kingston Trio, and Bob Dylan. Taj Mahal even stopped in long
enough to write and perform a traditional sounding banjo piece. |
The
Critics Vote
|
The People
Vote ...
- With their
dollars ... $3 million domestic gross. Maxed out at 104
screens.
|
| IMDb
guideline: 7.5 usually indicates a level of
excellence, about like three and a half stars
from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm
watchability, about like two and a half stars
from the critics. The fives are generally not
worthwhile unless they are really your kind of
material, about like two stars from the critics.
Films under five are generally awful even if you
like that kind of film, equivalent to about one
and a half stars from the critics or less,
depending on just how far below five the rating
is. My own
guideline: A means the movie is so good it
will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not
good enough to win you over if you hate the
genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an
open mind about this type of film. C means it will only
appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover
appeal. D means you'll hate it even if you
like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if
you love the genre. F means that the film is not only
unappealing across-the-board, but technically
inept as well.
Based on this
description, both reviewers conclude that the film is a C+.
Scoop says, "Fantastic movie if you are
interested in the authentic folk music of Appalachia, but if
that doesn't ring your chimes, the movie itself is about as
profound as Oklahoma!" Tuna says, "
If you don't like folk music and have no interest in the
culture, you won't find much to like here. If this is your
kind of film, it is amazingly good."
|
|