Barak Goodman and Jamila Ephron’s documentary, Woodstock; Three Days that Defined a Generation highlights the making and delivery of the festival that was to become a quintessential part of the counterculture revolution of the 60s. Woodstock epitomised a generation’s stance on civil rights, the Vietnam war, woman’s liberation, gay rights and environmental movements. While it started as an idea by organisers to bring together the most important bands of the day, it morphed into an event that outgrew the boundaries of a pure music festival. The documentary shines a light on the flower power era that had a profound effect in uniting young people worldwide. Even without toilets, medical care, food or shelter, 500,000 people came together to celebrate the three things they loved most; peace, love, and music. The film features elements of expository, impressionistic, and observational documentary styles, using never-before-seen footage to show the mistakes and triumphs of youth and the relentlessness of the human spirit. Given its realistic portrayal of the hedonistic lifestyle of festival-goers, the film is best suited to a mature audience.
Woodstock; Three Days that Defined a Generation follows the pre-production and mounting of Woodstock, a three-day-long festival of peace and politically charged music. The film opens on a scene of chaos. Huge, dark cloud masses bore through the sky, as 500,000 20-year-olds scuttle frantically to cover up, cover the instruments, and cover the 5000 live electrical wires. The camera follows rain-stained crowds of people covered in plastic, as the members of a popular alternative band, Santana, shout into the microphones,’NO RAIN, NO RAIN, NO RAIN.’ The documentary then backtracks to the very beginning: four idealistic producers conceptualising the event and later follows their attempts to overcome every conceivable and inconceivable challenge. From losing their original venue one month prior, to having no gates, crowd control, or food provisions, these were the very trials that resulted in what we now know as Woodstock. The editors and directors employ the use of continuous narration, with the planners of the festival and participants (who are all now in their mid-70s) speaking about the time and their experiences at the festival. They narrate the footage and in providing further context, move on to discuss the individual aspects of the show; the functions, the staging, the bands, and the founders. This film has a repeated theme of killer music; an example of this is Jimi Hedrix’s show-stopping rendition of The Star-Spangled Banner on a soggy Monday morning, although, unlike other Woodstock documentaries, music is not the focus of this film.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Barak Goodman and Jamila Ephron are both experienced makers of politically-charged documentaries. Ephron is best known for her work on Far From The Tree, a documentary about children with Down syndrome and the challenges they face in everyday life. Goodman is a prolific film-maker, recognised for his work in the Academy-award nominated Scottsboro; an American Tragedy and Oklahoma City, both of which are commentaries on American politics, similar in genre and tone to Woodstock; Three Days that Defined a Generation.
Woodstock was fundamentally a joining of 500,000 like-minded individuals fueled by their hatred of hate.1969 was an incredibly demoralising time for young people; on the heels of the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr, Bobby Kennedy, and John F. Kennedy, they turned to music for solace. Politically aware bands and singers such as Buffalo Springfield, Santana and Jimi Hendrix were all headliners at Woodstock. In 1969, with Nixon wreaking havoc upon anti-Vietnam war protesters, music was a primary source of hope and therefore a joining force for young people worldwide. Although music was a driving factor in the popularity and positive perceptions of Woodstock over the years, the real reason for its success is mostly due to a complete lack of aggression throughout the three-day festival. The film’s purpose is to shine a light on this aspect. As reflected in the documentary, these people were youthful strangers who not only became friends but became allies. Today, we can draw parallels from that generation to this reviewer's own; young people coming together to voice their condemnation on inaction on climate change.
This documentary uses a combination of the ethos and pathos persuasive devices. In employing the use of narration, the film appears more credible as the voices are speaking from experience. The constant voice-overs also create a somewhat poetic atmosphere. It engages the viewer's sense of emotion and in doing so, uses the mode of appeal, pathos. Although the footage wasn’t filmed specifically for this documentary, it still moves in a flowing, continuous movement, none of which is stilted or artificial. The way the documentary is edited adds to the atmosphere it creates; the archival footage runs like a home movie looking back on time come and gone. An example of this is when the camera goes through the crowds, filming whole families celebrating the music and sharing love. The shots the directors and editors primarily employ are close-ups that successfully captures a realistic depiction of the attendees’ experiences, and create an intimate feeling that is repeated throughout the documentary.
Whether the participants were getting groovy, getting soaked or getting high, a flowing visual theme (as seen in the photo) is used continuously. It also uses wide and high-angle shots that succeed in displaying the enormity of Woodstock. Barak Goodman and Jamila Ephron employ the use of narration for the duration of the movie. The film is a cohesive switch between archival footage and narration; the producers of the festival, residents of Woodstock and multiple attendees all speak about their experiences at Woodstock, the stigma around youth at that time, and most importantly of all, the kinship and solidarity felt between everyone who attended.
This documentary offers a new, somewhat unseen perspective to the counterculture revolution that resonates with the youth of today. Young viewers will inevitably draw comprehensive comparisons to current social and political landscapes. In a world led by today’s equivalents of Nixon, it sheds a light on the power imbalance across the globe that is still common. Nowadays, we can draw parallels from that generation to this reviewer's own. The anti-war action of 1969 is akin to the climate change movement of today; young people, both then and now, coming together to voice their condemnation for morally lacking authority. Woodstock; Three Days that Defined a Generation is a powerful insight into the inner workings of a united youth culture. This documentary invites us to question whether we, as young people, have lost that communal sense of love and hope that was so prevalent at Woodstock.
Stuck on your essay?
