One + One

source: The Rolling Stones: Sympathy for the Devil

Sympathy for the Devil (1968) BOMB (out of 4) Jean-Luc Godard's "documentary" shows The Rolling Stones recording the title track while mixing in footage of the Black Panthers preaching hatred. This is without question one of the worst documentaries I've ever seen and it's the worth Godard film I've seen to date but it's rather amazing how incredibly stupid this legendary director can be at times. The title is going to attract mainly fans of The Rolling Stones but their footage isn't here for fans and I'm still trying to think of why Godard put the footage here. Apparently he's director's cut run eleven minutes longer and features more of the Black Panthers and it's clear that he wanted the spotlight on hate instead of the band so why include the band at all? There's one scene where a couple Black Panthers tell a story of how they want to kill white women and Godard follows this up with a short film of black men gunning down white women. There's non-stop hatred talk coming from this group so I'm really shocked there's not more controversy surrounding this film. There are various short films throughout the movie and there's all sorts of stuff acted out, which makes no sense when put together and you also get constant scenes of men spray painting cars. The Stones footage shows them recording the classic song from the early stages to its complete version but with all the other crap in this film I can't even recommend this to fans of the group.

Here we see the Rolling Stones creating the song "Symapthy for the Devil" in the studio. That footage is entertaining and fascinating. If they had just stuck to that this could have been a fascinating documentary. Naturally director Jean-Luc Godard (who I despise) single-handedly screws it up. He has somebody talking over the footage--some philosophical garbage which (as far as I could tell) had nothing to do with the movie or the song! To make matters worse he cuts to skits done by the Black Panthers in a junkyard (?????) Godard is trying to make some point but damned if I know what it is. I saw this with a roommate of mine (who idolizes the Stones) and he was ready to kick the TV screen in by the end. He was sick of all the endless talking and pointless politics. This may have meant something in 1968 but it doesn't now! Mick Jagger was once asked in an interview if he had any idea himself what those skits were doing in the film. He made it clear that he didn't have a clue and the director added them without telling the Stones. He didn't like it at all. Next to "Let's Spend The Night Together" this is the worst Stones film ever. Avoid---or watch it for the Stones and skip over the parts without them.

Saw this movie back in '72 while at high school. One of the early rock documentaries to make it to New Zealand, it was unfortunately brutally cut by the censor (with over 20 minutes excised as it might corrupt public morality). The images in this film are still so clear in my mind - powerful images that raised political issues such as the environment and revolution long before they had reached mass public recognition. The linking of * and fascist ideology was likewise prophetic. However this film has one thing above all others to recommend it - it is without a doubt the most interesting footage ever captured of the Rolling Stones, providing illuminating insights into their creative processes as Sympathy for the Devil evolves for a few chords on an acoustic guitar to the version we all know and love (and along the way the most amazing percussive version (unreleased) comes into existence). Normally I find the Rolling Stones a little boring - indeed nothing recorded post Exile on Main Street has ever held my interest. However, with this film, the Stones demonstrated conclusively that they were the cutting edge of Rock 'n' Roll at the end of the '60s. A forgotten gem well worthy of revival.

Sympathy for the Devil is one of the strangest, coolest, though oddly off-putting documentary/satires that I've ever encountered. If anything else, the film is also one of the few true time capsules, along with Easy Rider, Woodstock, and The Graduate among others, of what the political, social, and musical climate was like in the late 60's. On that end Godard gets it right. And being more than a casual observer of the Rolling Stones, I was no less than fascinated in the recording process of their classic cut off of Beggar's Banquet. On top of this, Godard does continuous, peerless shots back and forth across the studio, never cutting, just seeing through to what Mick and Keith and Charlie and the others are trying to work through in the studio. Godard doesn't just use this, however- using a narrator perhaps reciting from a book of literotica crossbred with classic literature, he puts together scenes of radical pieces of the times. This is where the flaw button might kick in for some viewers. It took me three times to finally get through all of Sympathy for the Devil- the first two times I turned it off halfway- not because I hated it, per say, but because it gave me a feeling like I was being ambushed by images and messages not of my time. Then the third time it sunk in and I really started to "dig" the feel of the film- Godard, much like his early 60's films, is doing a satire that goes against all the conventions that he got pummeled with as a film critic in the 50's. Like the others in the French new-wave, the attitude was this- either you get us or you don't, and if you don't, we're not sure you ever will. Sympathy for the Devil- or One plus One as its original title- gives a problem for two, or perhaps more, types of audiences. There will be some who have never heard of or seen Godard's works, and seek this out as being fans of the Rolling Stones. To this I saw be warned- you may be interested, maybe even enveloped, by how these guys work through this one song over a period of weeks and months. But, you may want to fast-forward past all the off-beat, supremely ironic vignettes detailing what a foreigner must think of ours and other's counter-cultures (in other words, if you didn't live through the 60's, most of it will pass over your head). And then for the Godard fans who might not be fans of the Rolling Stones, I don't know what to tell you, except to say that as a piece of creative non-fiction (not documentary- like one of Michael Moore's films it's hard for me to call this one a full-blooded documentary) it displays him at the near top of his game before his pits in the 70's. It's lucid despite it being crazy, and it's disparaging even though it's funny. Basically, Jean-Luc Godard gets the feel of the song in and of itself, and on that end he was successful.

In the 60's, having as the background the rehearsal and recording of "Sympathy for the Devil" in the classic album "Beggar's Banquet" by the revolutionary bad boy Rolling Stones – Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, Charlie Watts, Bill Wyman and Brian Jones – plus Marianne Faithful, Godard discloses other contemporary revolutionary and ideological movements – the Black Power through the Black Panthers, the feminism, the communism, the fascism - entwined with the reading of a cheap pulp political novel divided in the chapters: "The Stones Rolling; "Outside Black Novel"; "Sight and Sound"; "All About Eve"; "The Heart of Occident"; "Inside Black Syntax"; and, "Under the Stones the Beach". "Sympathy for the Devil" is another pretentious and boring mess of the uneven director Jean-Luc Godard. The narrative and the footages are awful, but fortunately I love the Stones and "Sympathy for the Devil" and it is nice to see them in the beginning of their careers; otherwise this documentary would be unbearable. My vote is three. Title (Brazil): "Sympathy for the Devil"

Sure, there are lots of reviews that concentrate on the sections that revolve around the African - Euopeans and Americans that interrupt the recroding session or the Rolling Stones' Sympathy for the Devil. But, this is just a small part of an amazing and beautiful record of a process that created a song that will last for generations. Watching the rhythm section work out the song, Mick working out the lyrics, Keith conducting the whole thing, Brian Jones playing remarkable keyboards, reminds us of the process of production. It took time. It took failures and it became an amazing song. Besides that, the film is so beautifully shot is looks like it came out of an 21st century design magazine. And please don't ignore the digressions. It is (in my humble opinion) about the appropreation of black culture by whites and white culture by blacks. An interesting diversion when you think about 1968 and Europe and the Americas. We all switch and use and sometimes it makes beautiful music. This is an important film that should be seen by anyone going into a studio to record a song that will be remebered forever. I Am Media Boy.

As a casual listener of the Rolling Stones, I thought this might be interesting. Not so, as this film is very 'of its age', in the 1960's. To me (someone born in the 1980's) this just looks to me as hippy purist propaganda crap, but I am sure this film was not made for me, but people who were active during th '60's. I expected drugs galore with th Stones, I was disappointed, it actually showed real life, hard work in the studio, So much so I felt as if I was working with them to get to a conclusion of this god awful film. I have not seen any of the directors other films, but I suspect they follow a similar style of directing, sort of 'amatuerish' which gave a feeling like the TV show Eurotrash, badly directed, tackily put together and lacking in real entertainment value. My only good opinion of this is that I didn't waste money on it, it came free with a Sunday paper.

Picked this up for 50 cents at the flea market, was pretty excited. I found it fascinating for about 15 min, then just repetitive and dull. It is neat seeing Mick and the gang in their prime, i wish there was not so much over dubbing of dialog so I could hear what there are saying and playing. The skits are politically dated and incredibly naive and simple, sort of poorly written Monty Python on acid. I spent more time looking at the late 60's England back drops rather then what was actually happening in the silly skits. This movie is a good reminder that times really change,and what was important quickly becomes just plain silly. Good song, but it has now been played to death by this DVD.

Godard's "Sympathy..." was, as I saw it, true, unaltered vision. Raw, if you will. This film reminded me of a Paul Morrissey film very much, improvisational, unique, rule breaking, smart, interpretive. I am a fan of most of Godard's work, my favorite probably being the light-hearted "Une femme est une femme," and "La petite soldat," which "sympathy" doesn't follow, in terms of conventions. Mick Jagger is stunning, and the scene that stands out most in my memory is, I'm sure like most other viewers, is the fascist bookshop, with the man in the purple suit spouting off his speech, demanding a salute. Worth seeing if you don't like your film spoon fed to you.