From the Sky Down
I've actually gone back and forth for a little while now on whether I should include this. From the Sky Down is the U2 documentary that revolves around the band looking back at their 1991 classic album "Achtung Baby". The movie is included in their extremely pricey, comprehensive boxed-set anniversary release of the album. It also debuted on Showtime. Which is where I caught it, because as much as I'd love to swim in that pool of rarities, archival material, and rough cuts, I just can't see dropping more than $100 on it. But none of that addresses my hesitancy to include a review here. There were two reasons I wasn't going to include it: 1.) I'm not sure it's ever going to be released any wider than those two avenues... thus making it more or less a TV movie and I've never reviewed TV movies before... and 2.) I love U2. LOVE them. They are my all-time favorite band. I've never heard a U2 album or song I didn't at least like. And many I have loved. For awhile, I mistakenly thought the Black Keys had jumped into my top favorite band spot. Then I just happened to pop "All That You Can't Leave Behind" into my car's CD player and I was awakened again. Felt silly for ever doubting them too. I don't know what it is that makes me love them so much, but it just clicks for me. In fact, if I stumbled onto a rough cut of Bono having a bout of diarrhea on the microphone- so long as he also sang and The Edge, Larry Mullen, and Adam Clayton backed him up with sonic delights... I'm pretty sure it would find regular rotation on my iPod. So, with adoration on that level... would it even make any sense for me to try to "analyze" (always in quotes with me) a U2 doc? Um, no, it wouldn't. But I'm going to write about it anyway. You can use the above as a disclaimer.
As you can imagine any U2 concert film or documentary is going to start as an A+ with me and work its way downward if the case should warrant it. And actually, From the Sky Down does have a few chinks in the armor. Most of them are stylistic. I'm not sure if you've heard the members of U2 speak, but they all sound alike- other than Adam Clayton who has a deeper voice and- as his band mates put it- "a posh British accent". During the first... maybe... half of the movie Director Davis Guggenheim has the band speak about their music, about what was driving them apart following their smash success "The Joshua Tree", and about their process of making music as a band. All great insights into the world of U2. But, I think, each perspective would have been made more- or perhaps less- interesting depending on which member of the band is speaking. And there lies the problem. Guggenheim didn't identify- or show- each member as he spoke. It was just words over images. And I had a devil of a time figuring out who was saying what. Some was evident just based on the content of what was being said. Some... well, I could only guess. The real problem here was actually Bono. It sounded like the band had agreed to give interviews on the album right after rehearsing (the movie- as I mentioned- involves the band looking back at the process of making Achtung Baby- their make-or-break album in 1991 [they indicated if the album didn't work for them, they were done as a band]. Their trip down memory lane- in terms of the doc- takes place as they prepare for their first appearance at the Glastonbury Music Festival where they will perform Achtung Baby in its entirety- or at least in heavy doses-during their set), and Bono's voice sounded weirdly distorted... or spent (Bono being notorious for having no concept of "holding back"... in anything I suppose). I can usually pick Bono's voice out pretty easily, but here he seemed to sound like a mix of both Larry and Edge. It made it difficult. Maybe that was Guggenheim's point. Maybe he wanted us to focus on what was being said over who was saying it as a way of stressing the band's mantra that everyone has a voice. But still, I wanted a better idea of whose voice was voicing at the time. This is hardly a fatal blow to the movie but it was irksome.
As was the band's penchant for skimming the surface when talking about their music. Or rather- speaking broadly. Don't get me wrong, it was interesting. Very interesting, but in the end, I felt like I didn't learn anything particularly new. Maybe just had a different spin. This could be because I'm way too big a fan and have read way too much about them. But, I actually think back to the Joshua Tree documentary and remember how in depth that was in terms of their crafting that album. This, again, seemed to talk more broadly about their overall approach to the music, why they chose Germany, how they were feeling after their failed Rattle and Hum movie adventure... but in terms of crafting the music, there wasn't much included. When they did go into, it was incredibly interesting- as when they described how the song "One" just sort of evolved. Awesome stuff. Wish there had been more.
I think part of the reason that it only really skimmed the surface is that Bono has maintained that the surest sign of a band falling apart is when they feel the need to look back. And it's clear that U2 still- in their minds at the very least- has a lot they are working towards. I don't know for certain that the whole band feels that way, but it might explain why Bono wouldn't want to dig deep into the process at that point. It should be noted that the richer detailed Joshua Tree doc- and Rattle and Hum- movie both were filmed right around the time Joshua Tree came out.
In the end, though, as you can imagine, I loved the documentary. I can't get enough of the band talking about their music, their process. It's especially great when they all participate in the action. Usually, Bono and to a lesser extent The Edge are the mouthpieces for the band. My favorite band member- in terms of speaking on camera- is probably drummer, Larry Mullen, Jr. To me, he always has keen insights, he just struggles to actually spit them out. I guess I can just relate to that. In any event, movie had several other gem-worthy tidbits. The Edge singing a stripped-down take on "Love is Blindness" was haunting and beautiful- this alone made the doc watchable. Learning that Rattle and Hum was a failure (I think it's a phenomenal look at a band searching for something bigger and better than themselves, about a group going on a journey to help them grow as musicians- while also hoping to share something with the world... like an information exchange... I guess most everyone at the time saw it strictly as an overly pompous vanity project) and how that both nearly drove the band apart and ultimately made them better at what they do was incredibly interesting. Then- of course- all the archival footage of the band from 20 years ago and the rehearsal takes from their Glastonbury practice sessions were awesome to see. So, for a fan, it definitely had a lot going for it. And for a fan on the level that I'm on it had a whole shit load going for it, namely 90 minutes of U2.
But I wonder from a casual fan's perspective whether it would have amounted to much. A few tidbits here and there maybe? Maybe it would have been 30 minutes too long? I don't know... because I'm nowhere near a casual fan. And despite the few flaws, I thought it was a treat to watch.
Grade: A
No comments:
Post a Comment