Shine a Light

• email this story
• read comments (26)
• post a comment
• 
  
  

No two ways about it -- Martin Scorsese's Shine a Light needs to be seen in the IMAX format. It'll be agreeable in regular 35mm -- fun, engaging -- but the wow factor will be missing. The Rolling Stones concert film was shot in a semi-intimate setting -- Manhattan's Beacon Theatre -- and the intense close-ups and gigantic size of the bodies and faces of Mick Jagger, Keith Richard, Ron Wood and Charlie Watts make it seem even more so. This movie is all over you.

An approximation of the IMAX aspect ratio (1.43 to 1) of Shine a Light

Robert Richardson's camerawork (with celebrated dps like John Toll and Emmanuel "Chivo" Lubezki working as camera operators) swings, soars and glides with pulsing rhythm. At times the camera dives and swoops like a hawk. At times it makes you feel as if you're literally dancing alongside Jagger, but with the kind of exacting discipline that Gene Kelly brought to his big dance numbers in those '50s MGM musicals. (With maybe a little Twyla Tharp thrown in.) The cutting is clean and smooth and exhilarating at times. The film has a phenomenal visual energy.

Scorsese starts things off with a 10- or 12-minute short in a relatively small and boxy (1.33 to 1) black-and-white format. Scorsese is the lead character at this point -- the director asking questions, sorting things through, being told he can't do this or that, etc. This is the footage of the show's planning, preparation, logistics. And it's very engaging. But the split-second that the show begins....wham! We're IMAX-ed up -- in color with the images suddenly twice as tall and four or five times louder, and we're off to the races.

It's thrilling in nearly the exact same way that audiences were wowed when This is Cinerama! ('53) went from boxy black-and-white newsreel footage of Lowell Thomas to a sudden cut to the full-color, three-camera Cinerama shot of a mountain range as the music soared and the curtains parted to make room for a much taller, super-wide image.

Approximation of the 35mm aspect ratio (1.85 to 1) of the same shot

I can't imagine how this effect can be delivered on a conventional 35mm screen, and I'm not precisely sure how the IMAX image I saw last night at L.A.'s Bridge Cinema will be presented in a "flat" format. The IMAX aspect ratio is on the boxy side with an aspect ratio of 1.43 to 1. Movies in regular theatres are projected at 1.85 to 1 or, if filmed and projected in Scope, 2.39 to 1. The Shine a Light bottom line is that either (a) the 35mm non-IMAX version will present more visual information on the sides in order to fill out a wider 1.85 to 1 image, or (b) the IMAX will be cropped to create a 1.85 to 1 aspect ratio on 35 mm. Am I being confusing?

I'll try to figure this out tomorrow morning. I tried to get a clear understanding of whether the 35mm image will be wider than the IMAX image but smaller in scale, or whether it will be a less tall version of the IMAX image. I asked and asked and asked, and nobody really knew.

The power of those IMAX speakers...my God! And the re-animated groove that the Stones get into with 80% of the songs is sublime. Before last night I thought I'd heard "Tumblin' Dice" once too often, but the version in the film is so hypnotically cool and soul-freeing that I'd now like to find a soundtrack recording, or at least an iTunes track of this particular rendition. The only rote performances are of the big headline songs ("Start Me Up," "Brown Sugar," etc.) The less well-known ones are mostly transcendent. The relatively quiet and contained performance of "As Tears Go By" is a classic.

The IMAX closeups of all those jowls, turkey necks and crows feet on the Stones' faces are something really new and different in the annals of rock-concert films. This sounds like I'm being a smart-ass, but I found them genuinely cool and fascinating. Keith looks like a Peter Jackson CG creation, a Lord of the Rings troll.

Did director Gore Verbinski put make-up on Richards for his Pirates of the Caribbean cameo? I walked out before Richards' scene (the film was despicable), but I saw an online photo of Richards and Johnny Depp and it looked to me like Keith's face was all gunked up. If he looked this way in the film Verbinksi needlessly embroidered one of the world's great natural weirdnesses.

Shine a Light ends with a knockout Scorsese tracking shot -- a half-real, half digital thing in which a single hand-held camera seems to follow Jagger and the others as they make their way through the backstage throng and out the stage door. Scorsese himself, absent since the early black-and-white footage, makes two appearances in this sequence. And then the camera alights and soars over Manhattan and...I don't want to over-describe, but it's beautiful.

comment #1

Mr. Muckle says ...

Looking forward to a version for my iPod.

comment #2

Arran says ...

I don't think I want to see Keef's face in Imax.

comment #3

Daniel Tayag says ...

Was this shot on an IMAX camera or just regular 35 mm?

comment #4

Walter Sobchak says ...

I'm still baffled at how, (with SO many great, classic songs in their library), "Start Me Up" can still be showcased like it's one of the Stone's three or four greatest accomplishments.

Then again, I'm a big fan of "Their Satanic Majesties Request".

comment #5

D.Z. says ...

So Yari got screwed. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3i50ebeda9643e147b8b3f552d6c2199ad

comment #6

Wrecktum says ...

"Was this shot on an IMAX camera or just regular 35 mm?"

35mm, uprezzed to 70mm. Crock opf shit, if you ask me. I'll be there on opening day...nowhere near a waste of time IMAX.

comment #7

lazespud says ...

Don't forget, the stones already did an IMAX movie, "At the Max," which was pretty damn good. It sounded great and looked great. It's unbelievably to me that it's like 17 years old, because when I saw it, they seemed so OLD, and Shine a Light is half an generation later than that movie.

That said, it was really quite good; just pure documentation of one of their giant shows (actually three or four shows cobbled into one film; it was especially cool to watch all of the other stuff going on on stage that you never notice, like crew hands moving cables, etc.

The stones have a history of great concert films; with the exception of Hal Ashby's absolutely horrible Let's Spend the night together (which was filmed in all wide shots using telephoto lenses on a giant barren stages... just awful), the stones have awesome docs under their belt... Gimme Shelter, Cocksucker Blues, At the Max, and now this one...

One thing about naysayers who don't like 35MM blown up for IMAX, I'm totally with you, but film stock and technlogy over the last five years or so have negated a lot of the noticable differences...

I'd still take one filmed in Imax any day...

comment #8

Mgmax says ...

I suspect the feeling was that the Imax cameras were too unwieldy to allow the freedom of movement the subject required.

comment #9

Mgmax says ...

The IMAX aspect ratio is on the boxy side with an aspect ratio of 1.43 to 1. Movies in regular theatres are projected at 1.85 to 1 or, if filmed and projected in Scope, 2.39 to 1. The Shine a Light bottom line is that either (a) the 35mm non-IMAX version will present more visual information on the sides in order to fill out a wider 1.85 to 1 image, or (b) the IMAX will be cropped to create a 1.85 to 1 aspect ratio on 35 mm. Am I being confusing?

Yes. I'm sure it was shot 1.33:1 but, like so many movies, with an idea of how it would matte to 1.85:1. So the Imax version is close to the full frame, the standard theatrical is probably matted to 1.85.

comment #10

T. S. Idiot says ...

"The only rote performances are of the big headline songs ("Start Me Up," "Brown Sugar," etc.) "

I have seen the Stones in concert five times in this century, and they--or at least Mick--seem to lose a bit of energy when doing the ones they're doing because they're expected to, with the notable exception of "Gimme Shelter." I have never heard a good live version of "Satisfaction."

Keith is almost unrecognizable as Jack Sparrow's father, thereby spoiling the joke of his casting.

comment #11

carla kolchak says ...

The soundtrack is being streamed here: http://shinealight.imeem.com/

comment #12

LuckyWilbury says ...

I share Walter Sobchak's fatigue with "Start Me Up."

But I can answer his question why the Stones keeping
playing it.

It's really their only hit of the past 30 years. And one of
very few from the Ron Wood era.

To ignore it would mean writing off the 1980s, which is
almost a lost decade for the Stones.

comment #13

hiviper says ...

lucky,
no arguments here. The worst song on one of their best records (arguably their last best record)

comment #14

Rich S. says ...

I saw the Stones on their last tour, and T.S. hits it right on the money. They go through the hits so fast they're almost unrecognizable. But when they get to a song they haven't played in concert a billion times, like the revival of Sympathy for the Devil, the band still comes alive. (Oh, sorry, that was Frampton, wasn't it?)

comment #15

cjKennedy says ...

Along the same lines of what people have already said about Start Me Up, it's about the only link between the Stones and people too young to remember Some Girls, their last truly great album. Plus it's been repeated in commercial format and and sporting events and blah blah blah.

Also, Walter is right on with Satanic Majesties.

The one 'rote' classic of theirs that works every goddamn time for me is Jumpin Jack Flash, but yeah I prefer the nuggets they dig up to keep things interesting.

Also, this is the first thing Wells has written in at least 6 months that has actually gotten me excited about a movie. It was nice.

comment #16

christian says ...

Satanic Majesties is still my favorite Stones record.

I have no desire to see this in IMAX or 3-D or ipod. Or at all.

If they blew up COCKSUCKER BLUES to IMAX 3-D and passed out straws with that Peruvian flake and a groupie, then I'd be there...

comment #17

twicks says ...

Good to see Keith's surname (is it Richard or Richards?) is still causing confusion, 30+ years on.

comment #18

hiviper says ...

lazespud,
you just jogged my memory - I forgot I saw "At the Max" back in '91 too. And I saw it at the Beacon Theater, strangely enough

comment #19

corey3rd says ...

Only version of the Stones I'd want to see in IMax is the early '70s with Mick Taylor on guitar. Hunt down a copy of Brussels Affair to hear them when they mattered.

comment #20

oakling says ...

ok mental note... must see this before it leaves theaters. One of these days they'll come up with a way to scale down IMAX for the home viewer....

comment #21

T. S. Idiot says ...

The first two or three American LPs list him as Keith Richard.

comment #22

62Lincoln says ...

"I share Walter Sobchak's fatigue with "Start Me Up."

But I can answer his question why the Stones keeping
playing it.

It's really their only hit of the past 30 years."

This year is the 30th anniversary of Some Girls. I think there might have been a couple of hits from that album.

I echo corey3rd's recommendation of Brussels Affair. If you tryly want to hear the Stones at the zenith of their power, it's a must listen. Midnight Rambler on that recording will always be my favorite live Stones song.

comment #23

62Lincoln says ...

tryly = truly. Sigh.

comment #24

Arizona Joe says ...

"Satanic Majesties Request" has more rubbish than ""Between the Buttons." I mean, Bill Wyman sings lead vocals on a song on the former.

The Stones have had some minor hits that were pretty good in the past thirty years. like "Waiting on a Friend," "Lilttle T&A," "Emotional Rescue,""Love is Strong," "Rough Justice."

"Start Me Up" is one of those songs, while great, gets fulsomely played in other contexts, like the kickoffs in NFL Games. Hence, one gets sick of it.

They are still very productive, soulful, and do their best to put on a good show. I have no idea why they have toured so much the past three years. Padding the legacy of their grandchildren? Health concerns of Watts and Wood?

I think they just like doing it in the main.

You look at what those cats have done, and it's amazing. Jagger and Richards are really smart, and get to the essence. Watts and Wood are superior musicians.

I do miss the X-pensive Winos band. Keith did some of his best work then. I would call the first Richards solo effort a big smash hit for connoisseurs. Just ultra cool stuff..., Waddy, Bootsy some, Maceo a little, Steven Jordan, and Ivan Neville.

comment #25

LuckyWilbury says ...

Arizona Joe:
I guess it all depends on what you mean by hit.

Little T&A, Emotional Rescue, Love Is Strong and Rough Justice all got a reasonable amount of airplay, but I don't think
they did much business as singles.

You're forgetting Saint Of Me, the single best Stones
song in at least 20 years -- and I don't think Keith even
plays on it. No business there either.

Waiting On a Friend did OK as a single, but nowhere
near as well as Start Me Up.

Yes, it's 30 years since Some Girls. The summer of '78
yielded a massive hit for the Stones in "Miss You," which curiously the band rarely plays live. Perhaps because they need Sugar Blue's harmonica riff to do it justice.

But in the 30 years since Some Girls, only Start Me Up
has been an unqualified hit for them.

comment #26

TL says ...

The stones have a history of great concert films; with the exception of Hal Ashby's absolutely horrible Let's Spend the night together (which was filmed in all wide shots using telephoto lenses on a giant barren stages... just awful)

No kidding - I sat through 15 minutes of this when it was the second half of a double feature with "The Last Waltz." Not only does it have the problems you mention, but it was on one of the Stones's first stadium tours, and the band obviously hadn't learned to work that kind of venue yet.

Post a Comment