Warning--if you want to be surprised when you see the movie, don't read. Let me also preface this review by stating this is a fictional movie, and as such I don't take it seriously or expect it to be a documentary.
I saw the North American premiere of Stoned Sept 11, 2005 at the Toronto
International Film Festival. This is the first time Stephen Wooley
takes a turn at directing a movie. I was amazed when I got there 30
minutes early that there was such a big crowd to see this movie there
was already a big lineup of people who already had tix, waiting to get
in! Whether or not these are fans of BJ, or stones fans, or just film
fest aficionados, I don't know. A woman sat next
to me and said she is not a BJ fan, but after this movie might be more
interested to find out about him. The director
announced the movie and said there would be a Q & A afterwards. Stephen
Wooley appeared to be a bit nervous at this premiere of the film. He
was introduced as having been a long-time regular at the TIFF, and he
commented that he knows Toronto is a stones city, but apologized that
this film is about Brian Jones's life & death, not the stones, and has
little to do with the stones themselves. He also prefaced the movie by
letting us know that different time periods in the film are portrayed
by differences in the photographic depiction, ie- change to color or
black & white, or a more grainy texture to the film.
When the film started, it was rather jarring & disturbing to see Brian
in the water in the opening scene, being desperately pulled to the side
of the pool by a screaming Anna & Janet, while Frank stands over very
coldly smoking his cigarette. It was an emotional reaction I was
unprepared for, and for that this film was very effective. During this
scene Brian has flashes of his life passing before him, this was one of
the best parts of the film from an artistic standpoint....alot of
flashes of Anita, Jajouka, flash of Anna, the stones etc. I'd like to
see it again to focus on all the images that were flashed forward so
quickly.
The film jumps back and forth between different time periods,
which I thought was a refreshing way to tell the story. A story which
is FICTION, and if you keep that in mind you will enjoy the story and
the artistic & creative liberties Stephen Wooley has taken with the
film, as some scenes are in direct contradiction to the truth of what
happened, and without a doubt the truth cannot be portrayed in film,
not written about in a book, and no doubt this is why it has taken 10
years to bring this film to light, under the watchful eye of approval
from Tom Keylock.
In this film, Anna was a composite of herself & Suki, as Wooley
confirmed in the Q & A session afterwards. Suki as a character is not
in this movie, just Anna as both of them. Her Suki persona is the more
standoffish, whereas Anna was more involved in taking care of Brian &
looking out for him. Clearly Wooley envisages that Anita was the love
of Brian's life, and that he never got over her, with many Anita
flashbacks in the movie, and in one scene when Anna leaves Brian at
Cotchford after discovering photos of him & other women, Brian watches
her leave and sees Anita's face, then Anna's face, alternating. In
another scene Brian calls Anna "Anita". The time at Cotchford seems to
be portrayed as a reckless time, not a time period when he wanted to
settle down, gain some peace of mind and establish a bond with his
offspring. The actress playing Anita actually reminded me more of Patti
Hansen at times, just her face. There is alot of nudity, both male &
female, in this movie, which one would expect about a decadent 60s rock
star in swinging London.
Tuva Novotny turned in an excellent performance as Anna Wohlin, and
Luke de Woolfson as Jagger was also very good. I'm not sure Leo
Gregory as Brian was the best choice, but a convincing performance.
The obvious theory portrayed in this film is that Frank killed Brian in
the pool after some joking & teasing from Brian is taken the wrong way,
and this after Brian had fired Frank. However, what I liked about the
film is that it also hinted at other theories behind Brian's death, but
unless you've read up on Brian, you most likely wouldn't pick up on
these subtleties, they are quick and "barely there", almost like a
ghost. For example, the Brian in the film makes an offhand comment at
one point in the film, while at Cotchford, that he & Hendrix were going
to put something together, and it's off in a different direction in the
next breath. There is a scene that shows Frank had been ripping off
Keith, and this job with Brian was to be a new beginning, then later on
show the beam in the kitchen fall down from the botched building.
Another scene shows Tom Keylock trying to reach Frank for days,
couldn't get hold of him (the phone tricks and mindgames). There is
another scene where Klein is complaining to Keylock about Brian's
flamboyant spending, and this can't continue. Keylock tells him "It's
Brian's band". Klien responds "Is it?".
Another scene has Janet, Keylock's pregnant mistress, telling Frank a
woman scorned can be a dangerous thing; is this another hint at a
possible theory? Another scene at the beginning of the movie has
Keylock telling Brian he found his lost tapes. There is also a later
scene where Brian is shown working on his music at Cotchford, and
another scene shows him drunk, not on drugs, and pulling the reels of
tape out of the recorder. All these scenes are back & forth, not in
chronological order, so noticing them for what they are isn't so
obvious.
Interestingly, there is a scene where Anna is taking drugs at
Cotchford, and it shows how controlling Frank was by taking the drugs
away from her, and telling her she doesn't care about Brian to do
that. The Anna character accuses him of trying to ingratiate himself
to Brian.
Wooley answered in the Q & A afterward that "Anna was just a
tool for Brian". I don't agree with that.
Wooley takes great care to portray Keylock in a positive light, after
all he was keeping a close eye on the project during the making. There
is one scene, however, which I thought was very clever, at the end,
after Brian is dead, you can see a quick flash of Keylock watching, and
the 2 guys in the woods watching (Nick Fitzgerald & friend), then
Keylock tells Frank he doesn't want to know the truth because either
way it's Frank's fault. And as Keylock burns Brian's things (to keep
away young thieving fans) he says about himself "I always look after my
boy, he's trouble when he's alive and even after he's dead". Read
between the lines, this is very clever.
As for how Brian is portrayed in the movie, he is both a sadist and a
masochist, sexually and otherwise. There is also a quick scene which
references the abuse and Brian's harsh upbringing. But the film also
shows a nice side to Brian, although I wish there had been more of that
shown, to emphasize his complexity. I thought it was a sad ending to
portray him as so masochistic, but the scene of Brian approaching an
elderly Keylock at the end was wonderful. I would have liked to see
more about Brian's relationships with his musical peers.
Wooley also took great care not to portray the stones in any negative
light, as evidenced in the scene where Mick gently breaks it to Brian
that he is out of the band, while Keith is more direct "You're out,
cock". Wooley has further to this cause, painstakingly taken the
creative liberty of inventing a scene where Brian picks up on the
attraction between Keith & Anita in Morocco, and outright proclaims
they want to sleep together, and it's cool with him, go
ahead...."Brian" even goes so far as to try to persuade Anita to sleep
with Keith, Anita tells him to stop, then Brian says this is free love,
he demands they do!!! Of course, I was stunned watching this, and at
times I was outraged, how can this be shown, it's not true. Keep
pinching myself when I forget, this is a FICTIONAL movie, and the truth
cannot be shown! As a fictional movie, I appreciated the visceral
appeal and aesthetic sense it was presented with, the flashbacks, flash
forwards, photographic style, the acting, costumes, and especially the
scenes in Morocco-- are all fantastic. Another of the best scenes in
the movie was the scene to the tune of "Not Fade Away", an uplifting
sense that Brian in 69 will get back on his feet and come back with a
bang, maybe "a bigger bang"...? Which maybe was a threat to certain people.
Enjoyed the Q & A afterwards with Wooley. There was many questions of a
more generic film insider nature, ie: how a certain effect was done,
the technical aspects of the film, of choosing someone with a slight
lisp as Brian had, where the scenes were shot, etc. Wooley was
clearly concerned about how the stones are portrayed and asked if the
audience thought they were portrayed in a good light. Someone asked if
the stones have seen the movie yet, he said not yet. One person asked
about Keylock and Frank's deathbed confession. Wooley answered
honestly that this was what Keylock says Frank told him on his deathbed
(about Frank killing Brian) and that it was later recanted.
Maybe it was the part of me that always wants the truth to come out,
but if the film was fictional, I at least wanted an honest discussion
about Brian & his death afterwards. So I had the last question, and I
stood up from the far centre of the theatre and asked Wooley what
obstacles he has faced in making this film. He answered it has taken
him 10 years to make it and research it, so obviously there were quite
a few, and he went into describing the more aesthaetic obstacles, and
that he didn't have the same experience of that era etc. I told him I
like that there is one central theory of Brian's death, but that the
film also hints at other theories throughout, such as that Brian was
putting together his own band & this was a perceived threat. He smiled
and nodded in agreement, and commented that Brian was in the band for 7
years, and for the stones to have kept Brian around for the last few
final years when Brian was clearly not into it, and was even missing
sessions, could be argued that the stones clearly did not want Brian to
leave to join his many other prestigious musical friends such as
Hendrix, or Janis Joplin, or the Beatles. To my delight, Wooley
elaborated at length to my question, so much so that he went off on a
tangent and almost forgot what my question was. It was great to hear
someone knowledgeable talk about Brian, and able to pull together bits
& pieces to express their opinion in such an eloquent way. He answered
also that the "Keylock having Brian's photos" episode was to show that
Brian had slept with many women, and Wooley asked why I thought that
scene was in the movie. He did make some positive comments about Brian,
that he was very "old" when he died, although at such a young age, and
that Brian could talk to anyone, was so intelligent but yet also so
emotionally immature still, and portraying his complexity was an
obstacle in the film also. I asked if Frank's family was an obstacle;
he answered he's learned from the Perfumo Affair (the movie "Scandal")
not to bring relatives into the equation.
He also mentioned he was influenced by "Performance" and by "The
Servant" in making this film.
As I mentioned, there are elements of truth to the film, but Wooley has also taken artistic & creative liberties, which I have now had a chance to come to terms with as a fictional film. That is the business he's in, of course. Just as a musician who writes a song can have it redone in a different way by another band trying to put their own artistic stamp on it, which may lose some of the original concept, but will still keep it in the public consciousness. And if that is the end result, that can't be a bad thing for Brian. In the end, I came to realize this film is Wooley's work of art to do with as he wishes, and although it's based on Brian's life, the film will take on a life of its own, like a butterfly changes its colors, and we have to let go. If you think it, Brian in all his badboy glory is a dream for an actor to play, or to do a movie about, from their perspective. There is so much to sink your teeth into. No one goes to a movie to see a greeting card, they go to see a life, with its ups and downs, and a person with both bad & good qualities.
To his credit he was frank and mentioned upfront in the Q & A afterwards that he did take some artistic liberties and invented some scenes out of his imagination. He also said the Anita/Brian relationship was "mutually detrimental and destructive" so I give him credit for that, even if the film depicts Brian pining for Anita at Cotchford.
There is a point in the movie at the very end, where an elderly Keylock says to Brian, "why couldn't you have just been happy, the others were." And Brian says he was happy for a bit, in the middle years, "but that's boring". I think Brian wasn't happy because he was a true musician, and of course because of the way he was treated in the band, losing Anita etc. It's sad because his dad has said when he visited Brian at Cotchford he was happier than he'd ever seen him, things were looking up, and that's the tragedy of it. We don't feel sorry for Brian in this film; I think it could have presented that aspect to it, but I guess chose not to.
I was only 2 when Brian died, so have no recollection of the sixties atmosphere, hard for me to judge this in the movie therefore. I do think they should have made Brian more sympathetic, but that would mean showing the living characters for what they really are, a risky move which probably would have prevented the film from ever being shown.
I think I would have felt alot more let down by this movie if I had gone into it thinking it was a documentary about Brian's life, but I knew already from advance articles it was part fiction, and focussed mostly on his last few weeks. Even so, I was still a bit peeved at some parts of the movie which were not what really happened; that's a natural response. After the movie, I didn't spend as much time as I could have talking to Wooley because I needed to evaluate how I felt about the movie before opening my big mouth....LOL. After having time to think it over, I decided the film has a life of its own, and it's Wooley's "work of art", with all the distortions a work of art brings to it, like a watercolor painting has a different purpose than a photograph. As a bit of an artist myself, and given that I know Wooley has spent 10 yrs of research and must know the truth despite the film's depiction, I felt more of an understanding and more appreciation looking at it from an artistic and political standpoint. And given that the truth could not be shown, and certain parties represented in the film had to be presented in a more positive light than they really deserved to be....so that affected the script and plot of the film, and some scenes being left out, and so a less sympathetic portrayal of Brian was the result.
Given all this, it didn't depict Brian as evil as I had thought from all the advance opposition to the film...and I think it's the big picture that counts---Brian is out there in the public eye to be rediscovered.
The soundtrack was good; I would suggest to maybe include bands we know he was listening to at Cotchford, such as CCR and Lennon, or to include music from peers he liked, such as Hendrix. The film did include one Bob Dylan cover of "Ballad of a Thin Man".
Pardon the caps here...
THE ONE NEW ELEMENT I SAW IN THIS FILM CONCERNED JANET, THE TRIANGLE
BETWEEN HER, FRANK, TOM, AND HINTS THAT JANET INITIALLY WAS INTO
BRIAN, AND THAT'S HOW TOM GOT HER INTEREST, AND GOT HER PREGNANT. THE
INTERESTING BITS ARE THE DETAILS THAT ARE NOT SO OBVIOUS....FRANK
STARING AT JANET'S MOROCCAN-STYLE BELT WHILE SHE PREPARES DINNER AT
COTCHFORD. THEN FRANK TELLING HER KEYLOCK DOESN'T WANT TO SEE HER
ANYMORE, THEN MAKES A REJECTED PASS AT HER....IS THIS ANOTHER POSSIBLE
HINT AT A NEW THEORY ABOUT HER MOTIVES/INVOLVEMENT IN BRIAN'S DEATH,
OR JUST MORE MOTIVE FOR FRANK TO BE ENVIOUS OF BRIAN,AS PER THE FILM'S CENTRAL THEORY??
This film also portrays Brian as a bisexual and androgynous character, although very manly nonetheless. A bit like in Performance. There is a great scene where Frank is sleeping, it's the middle of the night, Brian swaggers into his room like a diva in a long cream ruffly housecoat, we see Frank looking at him, he appears blurry and feminine, sexy, then comes clearer into focus as we see it's Brian demanding Frank get him some female company! Ultimately Frank was envious of Brian, maybe a bit attracted to him but would never admit that to himself, and it was this and his homophobia in the end that is depicted as prompting Frank to drown Brian. The film took alot from the books "Who Killed Christopher Robin", Anna Wohlin's book "The Murder of Brian Jones", and "Paint It Black". There is an accurate portrayal of the coldness of the stones organization (not the stones themselves). I don't think Brian Jones fans need to be overly concerned about Brian's image to those who are unfamiliar; as Wooley said the 16-24 age group does find it appealing, esp the hedonistic aspects of it, so no doubt they will be intrigued enough to read more about Brian which will lead them to search for the truth.
Wooley mentioned he is looking forward to showing the film to Anita in London.
I gave him my card afterwards, with this BJ site on it.
Check out images of STONED here:
STONED PIX