SubrosaPrime said:
I gotta say: doing a Hendrix Biopic is right up there with the most difficult biopics one could reasonably attempt to pull off. Because not only do you have to find someone to look like him, you've got to find someone who can act, move and PLAY at least a little like him (oh, and it wouldn't hurt if he were left-handed).
I mean, I'm a guitar player and a musician, so I'm intimidated by Hendrix anyway. But it just seems like of all the major musical figures of the 20th century, Hendrix has got to be in the top two or three in terms of hardest to imitate. If someone can pull that off, it's going to make playing Johnny Cash or Jim Morrison look like child's play.
[Edited on Apr 27, 2006 by SubrosaPrime]
Not necessarily. It's not the same as Joaquin Phoenix singing Johnny Cash parts (or Val Kilmer/Jim Morrison), which was necessary if the thing was gonna sound right vs his speaking voice. As long as the actor can manage a convincing enough lefty guitar performance visually, (Michael J Fox in Back to the Future) they can use Jimi's music, which is really what they ought to do.
I have seen plenty of actors COMPLETELY fail to manage a convincing guitar performance when they were trying to imitate an average player. This is the greatest and most visually explosive electric guitarist of all time we're talking about here. I mean, I'm not even particularly talented and I can get up with a guitar and do a passable Johnny Cash or Elvis or Roy Orbison or Buddy Holly or hell, even a decent Clapton if you gave me 6-8 months to get my chops up.
But even if I looked like Hendrix I could never do a moderately acceptable impression of him. Ever.
The worst looking thing I ever saw was Tupac Shakur as a jazz bassist in "Gridlock'd" (a great movie in all other respects, and he was great in it). Tupac had clearly never even held a bass prior to the day they shot that scene. Still, I doubt whether anyone who doesn't play even noticed. I idolize Jimi as much as the next guitar player does, but I still think the bigger challenge for an actor playing him would be to recreate his persona and his physicality. No one could make the same sounds he did, but his hands in action, especially from a distance, looked pretty much like any other players' hands. Eddie Van Halen, a much less profound musician, would actually be harder to imitate because his fingers moved so fast. Remember, we're talking about the visual, not the brilliance of Jimi's playing. With the right director and cinematographer the illusion would be easy to pull off.
I'm glad someone else knows that Gridlock'd was a good movie. And no, I didn't notice that Tupac hadn't held a bass before, but then, I wasn't really looking either, if I'm going to be honest.
Anyway, biopics suck, especially when they're about drugged-out sixties musicians. I fucking love Jimi, but come on, who liked The Doors? Bear in mind that if you say you did, I will kill you.
TedKoppel said:
I'm glad someone else knows that Gridlock'd was a good movie. And no, I didn't notice that Tupac hadn't held a bass before, but then, I wasn't really looking either, if I'm going to be honest.
Anyway, biopics suck, especially when they're about drugged-out sixties musicians. I fucking love Jimi, but come on, who liked The Doors? Bear in mind that if you say you did, I will kill you.
The Doors sucked because it was all hot air and because Oliver Stone=bullshit, not because the subject matter wasn't interesting, and Jim and Jimi were a lot more than just "drugged-out 60's musicians". That's why they're remembered 30-odd years later
TedKoppel said:
I'm glad someone else knows that Gridlock'd was a good movie. And no, I didn't notice that Tupac hadn't held a bass before, but then, I wasn't really looking either, if I'm going to be honest.
Anyway, biopics suck, especially when they're about drugged-out sixties musicians. I fucking love Jimi, but come on, who liked The Doors? Bear in mind that if you say you did, I will kill you.
The Doors sucked because it was all hot air and because Oliver Stone=bullshit, not because the subject matter wasn't interesting, and Jim and Jimi were a lot more than just "drugged-out 60's musicians". That's why they're remembered 30-odd years later
Exactly.
Morrison was a thousand times more interesting than he was portrayed in that movie. That man's internal and external life was way deeper than the swaggering, pouting cliche Stone portrayed. I say forget about 'The Doors', whether the band or the movie, and learn more about the person and artist Morrison was and is. A real biopic about Jim could be brilliant.
Uncle_Screwtape
Los Angeles, CA
February 2004
APR 28, 2006 12:21 AM