The Crowd Breaks Through
By James Anthony Clewley, with comments by Karen Timmerman and Alec Murphy
[1] History is dealt with in many different ways within the film industry. From going by the history books to completely disregarding facts in lieu of entertainment value, films take many stances when it comes to representing things as they actually happened. Documentaries come into the picture somewhere between these two extremes. With a documentary, things are captured as they happened, in real time. Or so you would think. Oftentimes, you get only part of the story with the camera being "at the scene," or the actual events are glossed over, still not giving the complete picture. Though Woodstock: 3 Days of Peace and Music is mostly true to the actual event, it does veer off the course of complete factuality because of some of the scenes it doesn't show or the way in which it glosses over some of the scenes, and in doing so allows for some misinformation to come across. A scene that truly exemplifies both the facts of the event, as well as the misleading eye of the camera, is the section of the film when the crowd first breaks through the gates and the concert is announced as being free from now on (35:10). What this scene shows the viewing audience is how the "participants" of Woodstock came together to put forth an amazing, free concert that allowed for the younger generation of that period to express themselves through their music. What has been left out is the heartache and headaches of the festival going free. The camera also fails to show the backlash from the providers as to why they were no longer reaping the monetary benefits of the show, as well as the way in which the crowd overpowered "the man," forcing the concert to either go on as free, or not go on at all.
[2] Within a documentary, the camera is deceptive. It tricks the mind into believing that what it sees is completely real and can be taken at face value for the truth. This isn't always the case, as can be seen within the opening moments of this scene (35:10). Throughout the entire movie, the people and narration have been giving this gathering an aura of peacefulness and community. This is far from what we see in the opening moments. Though the accompanying music is jovial, and the narrator does nothing to support any observations, we can clearly see the crowd maliciously breaking down and through the fences surrounding the Woodstock Festival. This is one of the instances where the documentary format of this film can lead to misconceptions. The concert wasn't announced free, followed by the mass of humanity. It was the crowd that initiated the breakthrough. This event really undercuts the underlying theme of the festival -- a theme of peace and harmony supposedly conveyed through the music and togetherness of the gathering. By showing this aggressive side to the crowd, the movie takes away the utopian notion of the "peaceful" gathering that Woodstock has since been hyped to be and replaces those thoughts with ones that an everyday concert would evoke. (see comment by Alec Murphy)
[3] Slightly further into this scene we see several of the organizers of Woodstock, in particular Michael Lang, involved in what seems to be a heated debate over the admittance of the crowd for free. As with the rest of the scene, this part is engulfed in light-hearted yet politically charged music, giving it the feel of yet another peaceful and utopian portion of the film. This, however, is not the case. When one listens to the conversation by the three men (of which only a few seconds can be heard), you can hear one of the men sound very irate when discussing the fact that the concert will ultimately be free. The sense of disdain towards the whole event can be heard within the man's voice, clueing the audience into what the governing body really thought of letting 500,000 people come to the biggest rock event in history free of charge. This little slice of a conversation can really alter the way one perceives the entire Woodstock experience, and by denying the audience the complete conversation, the audience could just let the man's body language pass as normal, instead of noticing his enraged style of outward expression.
[4] A final instance of the chicanery of the documentary camera can be seen during a part in the following scene where the P.A. announcer is talking about the "acid tents" (38:10). These were tents set up for people to receive treatment if they were experiencing a bad "trip." Within the movie, this portion of Woodstock is lightly glazed over within this small scene; yet in reality the drug culture present at Woodstock was unparalleled. During the film there are only a few scenes where you see any type of drug activity at all, and when you do see it, it is mostly marijuana. This, however, was only the tip of the iceberg. Throughout the entire Woodstock festival the crowd had hundreds of "drug related" problems. This necessitated the "acid tents." They weren't just created because the organizers thought that it might help a few people here and there; they created them because so many people were passing out and having bad "trips" that they had no other choice. By leaving the complete drug story out of the documentary, it opened the film to a greater audience than if it were filled with hallucinating teenagers within every scene. This allowed for the underlying movement of the film (the anti-war, hippie sentiment) to be more accessible to the everyday viewer, instead of preaching to the converted, with a film aimed mostly at the hippie community. By gaining sympathy for the movement and its related philosophies, greater awareness could be spread. The movie was the transportation of this message, which in turn necessitated the exclusion of some very major areas of the actual concert experience.
[5] Though the medium in which this film was shot allows for the audience to be deceived by some of the exclusions, Woodstock: 3 Days of Peace and Music did, in fact, convey the spirit of the gathering in a respectable manner. Within these two rather small scenes we can see several small gatherings of people expressing themselves either musically or theatrically. This showcases one of the most beneficial aspects of Woodstock: the coming together of man and woman for the common good of one another. Though some of the members were taking illegal drugs and/or having promiscuous sex, they were relating to one another in ways once thought impossible. Towards the closing of the second scene (39:40) we can see a small company of women putting on what seems to be a short play about love. A few moments later we can see a group of both men and women expressing themselves through dance and music. It was all about community, then, and this can be seen within the movie as a whole, and specifically during this scene. Everyone was there for one another. Though the "acid tents" where set up out of need, they were run by the people themselves, because they wanted to assist their fellow fan and human to overcome the hardships that they had just faced. The festival was about the music and the people, and about showing the world that 500,000 people could come together and live peacefully with one another -- showing "the man" that peace was possible. (see comment by Karen Timmerman)
[6] Even though the camera was able to lead the audience away from some of the major sticking points during the Woodstock festival, the film conveyed the overall atmosphere and attitude rather accurately. In spite of the major exclusions within the movie, and these two small scenes in particular, the movie delves into the many areas of the festival quite thoroughly. By not giving the audience the entire picture, however, the movie sets the audience up for several unwarranted conclusions regarding the festival and the demeanor of its audience. Within these scenes we have a mixture of the documentary camera deceiving the audience, as well as several major messages being missed due to the glossing over of the scene by the director. With these two discrepancies coming through in these two scenes, we are allowed to see the documentary style at work. It allows the "truth" to be seen, but it doesn't allow the "truth" to be opposed by messages within the film by either casually glossing over them or by eliminating them all together.
Comments
I feel that although Wadleigh is misleading with his representation of the footage showing the crowd breaking down the fence and hiding the true extent of the copious drug use and sexual activity that occurred at Woodstock, he may have done so on purpose in order to convey what the true purpose of the festival was, as Clewley puts it, "the coming together of man and woman for the common good of one another." By showing the full truths of these scenes and exposing the viewer to the full displeasure of the concert's organizers and backers when it was declared to be free, or by showing the full extent of the drug abuse and promiscuity present at the festival, Wadleigh would risk alienating the film's audience. They would react negatively and miss the real message of the film. In the end, the main purpose of Woodstock was to show how, for three full days, half a million people gathered together and experienced one of the most powerful events of shared peace and love in our history. Despite the millions of dollars lost by the organizers and the dangerous amount of substances present, Woodstock was considered a huge success in that it showed that peace is always attainable and, in the end, human beings will be there to help one another out.
Clewley argues that the production staff fails to show the devastation that comes as a result of the free concert. Contrarily, however, Clewley then remarks how the crowd is shown “maliciously†breaking down the fences and entering the concert grounds. This seems to be, in itself a contradiction. I personally agree with the second point but disagree with his contradictory thesis. The cameraman and the editing team do a great job of representing the trauma that actually occurs out of this seemingly utopian society. I can think of a few scenes off the top of my head, such as the scene in which the crowd takes over and forces the festival to become free. Secondly, the film doesn’t hide from displaying the iniquities of this massive group. People are casually shown doing drugs, and under the influence, as if it were a perfectly normal part of the viewing audience’s society. Generally speaking, it isn’t, and as such, this too jumps out, putting a bad taste in the viewer’s mouth. Thirdly, the hardships that come to the audience members as a result of their recklessness is not hidden either. They are shown being reckless, climbing on scaffolding and walking around this dirt-filled environment in a state of complete grunge and lack of hygiene. It is also made clear from an early point that because so many of these people came in on their own will, for free, without thinking of how they would fare in the future, that they are seriously putting their well-being at risk. Many people had no supply of food or medical aids. Not only was this group of concert-goers shown as doing harm to themselves but another very poignant scene (an interview with a local farmer) illuminates the terrible and life-altering consequences that he had to face as a result of the mob. So, I must respectfully disagree, the film, while perhaps not intending to portray the community in a bad light, inherently does so -- by simply showing the damage they bring onto themselves and others.
