Woodstock: the (in)famous concert that is believed to have defined a culture or rather, a subculture. Three days of peace, love & music...that was their anthem, their slogan and one of the largest mass gatherings in history.
I recently finished the 4-hour long documentary film as well as finished reading
The Road to Woodstock by Michael Lang (the brain behind the banner).
I was immediately drawn into the film by the intimate overview of the scene. Throughout the movie- the music kept coming with the opening act from Richie Havens, to songs from The Who, Janis Joplin, Canned Heat, Santana and Jimi Hendrix. In between each two-song set, the film cut to the "happenings." Everyone was covered from the kids who attended the festival to the towns-people scrambling to make food for as many as they could to the port-a-potty plummer (no joke). What caught my attention was how many of the officers and towns-people complimented kids attending, noting that they were pleasant and mannerly. At one point, two men were caught on tape arguing- one said, in a very bitter tone, "they're all happy and on pot!" while the other contorted "well if it makes 'em happy, then why not let 'em have it? we got to feed them, what else are gonna do?!"
The film often went to a split screen of multiple "events" taking place, for example- a reporter interviewing on person in one window, and naked people taking a bath in another. It was an amusing site.
But, I would have to say that the part that stuck out to me the most is Santana's set. He was a new artist at the time and according to Lang's book, one of the latter artists to be signed. His set was one of the longer ones in the film and apparently was the first band to really get people on their feet dancing. At one point, Santana's drummer slipped into an incredible solo. The documentary did a fantastic job showcasing the drum talent with an overlapping-triple split screen: I felt like I could have been part.
Ironically though, Woodstock was not with out backyard drama among the organizers, the town and the musician's managers. Hendrix's managers insisted more money than what Lang & his team were offering anyone and had to settle for splitting him into two acts (an acoustic set at the beginning and the last performer) and therefore two payments to justify a $30,000 compromise. The Who caused problems from the moment they arrived and included rude occurrences at the local hotel accommodations. For some artists, half of their agreed payment was due upon arrival to the Woodstock site, and of course, by that time, the organizing team didn't have a dime and and John Roberts pulled out family funds to make up for the loss. And estimated 500,000 people went to the event, after losing track ticket sales and collectors, fencing problems, it became a free....and the masses swarmed- and stayed through rain and mudslides.
Despite the financial disaster; Lang said that it he felt the weekend had been a success, both interviewed in the film and written in his book 40 years later. Even Max Yugsar, who owned the land, thanked the crowd for being able to show the world that they could gather so many- peacefully and respectfully -against the critics.
Lang's book definitely provided an in depth view of the chaos behind the scenes, while the film itself- grazed the surface of bohemian expression and incredible music.
I'd have to say my only eye-brow raising moment was Michael Lang's comparing the weekend to the 2008 Inauguration. The political accomplishment for Barack Obama- while seemingly symbolic for it's moment could not truly be characterized what would come for better and worse. Not only so, but Woodstock-- the people, the weekend, the music, the equality and even the substance abuse-- will long live judged for that weekend alone. The Inauguration, in my opinion, will fall by the waist side and the political figure will be judged by his Presidential run. Nevertheless, I will agree that today's generation shows some reflection of a previous one.