i think Glastonbury provides a good example of a documentary style film. documentary films are meant to bring people into a certain place, issue, or idea and let them see what happens in the film so they can judge an opinion for themselves. and in this film it covers and exposes what happens at this music festival that has been going on for many years in Glastonbury, England. it gives you a first person experience into what it is like to be at this festival, it lets you see all the wild things that can happen at the festival, and even lets the audience hear from people who have gone or are involved in the process of the music festival.
This documentary is interesting in that it covers the entire history of the festival. The cuts between the different era's in Glastonbury's history gives the viewers a chance to see how much things have changed and how similar they still are. The interspersed performances give the audience a break from the crowds, and chaos of large scale festivals and a chance to see why these people are all there. Just seeing the extreme variety between the different performers was fascinating. The differences between the acts are exemplified by the people watching them.
This film was highly entertaining. Whether it's somebody who loves music festivals, or just likes the idea of doing drugs with a large group of people, this film is relatable. I think it's good to have insight to different renowned music festivals. I now have one more thing added onto my bucket list.
As far as the form of this documentary goes, I think it gave sufficient historical information about the festival and the site that it's on. I think it created a whole other angle by involving the owner of the land and showing footage of him through out the years. That showed me a great deal of dedication from the film maker to put forth the effort to compose all of this footage. I did have one question though. Who actually made this? I know that Julien Temple's name is on the documentary, but I'm confused on a few issues. In the beginning of the film, it introduces a group of friends. They're getting ready to go to Glastonbury. As the film progresses, we lose sight of them. We get the idea that this music festival is bigger than they are. As an audience member to the film, and the documentary, I felt that it was nearly impossible to keep track of anyone in the crowd, yet we keep on seeing them through out the film. I liked the reincorporation of those characters, but what was the point? why go back to them, when they offer no development to the story of the film? Secondly, as i previously mentioned, the film was clearly composed of footage from over the course of several decades. Did Julien Temple take that footage? Did she have this idea in her mind 20 - 30 years ago? Did she hunt down people through out Europe that she knew had old footage? Did she have a large group of camera men and crew to go around during this festival and take video? Did she talk to those characters that we see in the beginning and through out the film and ask them for the a copy of the footage that they took on their camera? If I don't think about those questions, the film seems magical, and perfect. However, magic isn't real, I'm very curious as to what means she used to make this film.
I think this documentary gave its audience an amazing view of what Glastonbury was and who the people were who attended these festivals. Julien Temple not only portrayed what activities went on at Glastonbury but the film did an amazing job at really letting the viewer get to know who was there and why. The people who came in caravans literally living out of a truck just to be part of the music and the scene. I thought that was incredible. It was interesting how the film cut from different generations at the festival, I think it helped show how big Glastonbury has consistently been over the years and not just one time, like Woodstock. I really enjoyed the film, it was entertaining to watch, relatable, and very informative.
Glastonbury was a very entertaining and visually pleasing documentary that set out to inform and excite their audience and succeeded in doing so. They took the simple idea of showing off a music festival and made it into a piece of art. The way they showed off the festival's history with old footage was very interesting and i loved it. The one part of the film that i liked the most is probably the way they showed the highs and the lows of Glastonbury; it doesn't just take one viewpoint and show off the festival in that way. They show how people have rioted and how people are arrested while trying to sneak in along with all the other negatives, but then they show the beauty and culture of the people in the festival as well. I thought this was an overall great film.
I thought this documentary was very entertaining. I liked how the director used old and recent footage from the same festival. This way the audience could compare how Glastonbury is now and the way it used to be. Seeing the chaos and the masses of different people was great. Even though there were some crazy characters, everyone was there for the same reason. I feel like this film had some elements of a typical documentary with interviews here and there, but what sets it apart is that it does not focus on just one person or group. It focuses on the people, music, and just the festival as a whole.
Julien Temple's documentary "Glastonbury" is an excellent example of a specific style of documentary filmmaking. Mike Crocker pointed out in one of the above comments that a documentary film is supposed to allow the viewer to see into a world they are not typically exposed to. In this case, that world is Glastonbury. A documentary does not necessarily have to be narrated and contain interviews, it simply has to let one see into the said topic.
Julien Temple's documentary was done very well because he takes collected footage from the many years Glastonbury has been running and shows the viewer every detail of the music festival; everything including drug usage, security, costumes, concession stands, waste removal, and of course, the music. I found the film to be very entertaining and insightful; one never really thinks about all the different elements that are included when trying to run a music festival, so it was interesting to see how each aspect of the festival plays a part to create something so big and great that everyone enjoys. My only wish is that they spent a little more time explaining the food situations there because from my own personal experiences with music festivals, I know that they are usually picky with who the allow to sell food. In Glastonbury, they are not as strict; they pretty much let anyone sell food, which made me wonder how they regulate that, or if they even try to regulate who sells food, and if so, how well do they regulate it?
I thought Julien Temple's Glastonbury was a primary example of what a documentary is. The film gave a clear insight into the festival as well as the history behind it. Temple provided lots of footage of the festival from both the present and the past to show how major of a scene it truly is. My only objection was that parts of the film could have been narrated because there were parts that seemed dry and needed some narrated guidance. On another note, I had never heard of the Glastonbury Festival. Now that I have, I think I might have a reason to go to England much sooner than later.
Glastonbury was a fun watch and a well done documentary. I felt like I was a part of the festival, and I loved their uses of music performances as a way to separate each segment. However, the one criticism I find about most music based documentaries is that they tend to become promotional pieces. Glastonbury could have very easily turned into a promotional video to get viewers into visiting the festival itself, but thankfully it did not go in that direction. The focus was more so the attendees there and their experience at the festival.
I feel as if this film had many elements of contemporary cinema verite. Some of the stylistic elements we discussed in class could be found in this film such as impromptu performances (not by the artists but by people being filmed at Glastonbury. There were also mixed shots that were blurred grainy images and wandering movements, that are associated with a handheld camera. Although these stylistic elements exist the film also incorporated high definition concert shots. These scenes looked more professionally done and lacked the home-made feel. This film attempts to provide a typical documentary element by giving the viewer background on the creation and evolution of the event and shows both historical and more current footage. The film also takes viewers into different areas and aspects of Glastonbury such as performers, attendees, the founder, and security. This is informing the viewer of what makes up Glastonbury as a whole. With that being said, The filmmaker shows this festival in a positive light and could have chose to leave out aspects such as crime that exists as an aspect of Glastonbury
I think that this film did provide the typical documentary experience. Before viewing the documentary I knew absolutely nothing about the annual Galstonbury concert festivals. Now I feel that I have a fairly decent knowledge about the history and meaning behind the festivals. I feel that is the goal of documentaries, allowing viewers to understand something by showing film that represents the history and meaning of that thing. Although I do feel that the film was a typical documentary experience, I do feel that the film was unique in several ways. The way the filmmaker didn't follow a strict timeline was very interesting to me. The filmmaker jumped from decade to decade without losing sight of the ideas and points they were trying to make with the clips. The festival itself is a very unique event so just by making a documentary about it makes the documentary unique.
Glastonbury's one of those films that completely relies on editing to create an engaging experience. Not that that's a bad thing, but it was one of the major elements that I noticed. Obviously, the some 40 years worth of footage was obviously not all shot by one team, so it was important for the filmmakers to put all of the pieces that they had in a distinct position. In this case we have a film completely interwoven with footage from four different decade documenting the longest surviving music festival in the world. Also, the atmosphere of music festivals is just like that of this film: all over the place and over your head. But most importantly, the film covers all aspects of the festival, from its conception, through its more vulnerable fazes, and to its modern atmosphere. A very unique and interesting film.
I thoroughly enjoyed Glastonbury. I thought it was a really interesting look into the iconic music festival. In my opinion, thus far this has been one of my favorite films because it was the type of documentaries that I enjoy. It took a glance into the Glastonbury music festival, its attendees, its history etc and showed the truth of what it is like at this event. The raw moments where they showed the people at the festival drinking alcohol, doing drugs, being reckless, climbing the wall to get in, those moments are the ones that truly caught my attention as an audience member. When the security teams were patrolling outside the fence of the festival trying to catch the people hopping the fence, I was extremely intrigued because we the audience were now seeing the festival in the eyes of the people who work it. One of the most interesting aspects of the film were the numerous perspectives that we got to see. We got to see the festival through the eyes of the landowner, the attendees, the security guards, the facilities team who clean the Port-o-potties and even the performing artists. Seeing the immense crowd gathered in front of those stages really shocked me and put the immense size of the festival in to perspective. After seeing this documentary, I am definitely more interested in this festival and would even go as far as saying I would attend it.
I find it very curious that I've never heard of Glastonbury music festival previous to the documentary viewing. It can be inferred that the infamous local Woodstock instance was inspired by this event, being that Glastonbury happened two years earlier. Glastonbury is different from Woodstock in a couple of ways, however. For one, the performing artists are more commonly British, especially in the initial years of the festival, whereas Woodstock consisted of American musicians. Another difference is that Woodstock did not continue after its launch. Glastonbury, despite many attempts to prevent its repeat, has gone on to be held for over forty years. The documentary was extremely entertaining and engaging. It effectively captured the essences of the performances, the crowds, the mass, the intoxication, and the what seems to be the general Glastonbury spirit. With multiple performance interludes, there are clips that capture both the negative and positive associations with the festival. The film incorporates the feelings of locals, the perspective of the landowner, and of the festival goers.
What I found the most interesting part of Glastonbury was the back that they used footage from the past and the present to tell the story about what the Glastonbury festival was, what it has become, and what it will be in the future. By doing so, they gave the full story of the festival without having to summarize it for us. The footage spoke for itself. Another interesting aspect of the film is how the live music from the year this film was documented was used at times as diegetic sound and other times as non-diegetic sound. This engages the audience far more than any soundtrack not from the festival would have. It also gives the audience an idea of what to expect when attending Glastonbury if the opportunity ever arose.
I found this film to be highly entertaining, but maybe that's just because I would love to go to Glastonbury or any other music festival for that matter. There were a few aspects of the documentary that I found to be particularly important. First was the chronology of it. At many points during the film, a clip from the past was shown, and it compared and contrasted itself to the clips from present day. Another aspect I found intriguing was the interviewing of the land owner, then and now. It was interesting to see this man throughout the years and the ups and downs of the festival. I also found the variety of the people that were filmed to be interesting. The film captured all different types of people doing all different types of activities, I liked that it didn't just focus on one sub-culture of the festival.
I enjoyed this documentary very much. Coming off of the Nazi documentary, tensions were running high. This mellowed the mood down a ton and was a fun mix of pace. There were some bands playing that i really love such as Toots and the Maytals. The feature i loved the most was its realism, we sometimes find these documentary's staged a bit for production value but this piece lagged on that negative detail. The concerts were live and not done specifically for the film, some of the music was entertaining, some too crazy. One of the features that stuck out to me in my mind was that the film took place over a number of years, and each year the festival was unique in its own way. Whether it be that one year the cops raided the show, or one year there was an overflow in the Portipotty's, there was always something unique and different about each show.
I thought that this was an interesting documentary that dealt with an intrigueing subject. The way that the festival was shown in this documentary was quite nice, because it gave us a view into the history and back story to this event. I found the people who dressed up as charecters also to be very interesting and a well placed humor moment in the film. Im not sure what other purpose than that they fullfilled but i thought they evoked those who saw them to think and ponder what there intent was. All in all, i thought that this was a well done film that gave the viewer an interesting look into a massive event that has transformed over the course of time.
Glastonbury was a very effective music documentary. It took into consideration many fundamental aspects of producing a documentary (archival footage, exposing, etc.) and bam, Glastonbury was created. It was entertaining as well as informative. The documentary easily made me wish that I was alive to attend previous events as well as wanting to go there now. It was informative because it showed a history that was very different than what is celebrated today in terms of lineup and style. It's interesting to see the progression of the history of musical styles through the years and how quickly trends change. The only thing that seems to not have been changed is the rowdiness, drug use and overall somewhat crazy behavior that seems to follow any type of music festival of size. Seeing this festival reminded me of music festivals in the United States like Bonnaroo and Coachella Festival except I don't believe those are on private lands. That's another thing, I found the fact that Glastonbury took place in someone's backyard (literally), was amazing. I think the festival organizer Michael Eavis's choice to host the first Glastonbury event says a lot about the festival itself, very laid-back and easy going- a tradition that continues to today.
I enjoyed everything about this documentary because I enjoy going to music festivals. This film made me want to go to Glastonbury and experience the festival myself. The style of the documentary was interesting as well because you got to feel as if you were inside the festival yourself. You learned the history of why the festival was created and why it is so important to many people. My favorite part was watching clips of the most recent festivals where performers like The Bravery were on stage. I do enjoy The Bravery and I have seen them in concert, but not in that kind of atmosphere. For me, watching this festival made me think about all the festivals I have gone to and how "mild" they are compared to this one. This film engaged its audiences and made you a part of the film. It was exciting and it kept your attention through out the entirety of the film. Glastonbury did inform its audiences and gave you the experience of being at the festival without leaving your seat. In my opinion it was one of the better concert documentaries that I have seen.
i think Glastonbury provides a good example of a documentary style film. documentary films are meant to bring people into a certain place, issue, or idea and let them see what happens in the film so they can judge an opinion for themselves. and in this film it covers and exposes what happens at this music festival that has been going on for many years in Glastonbury, England. it gives you a first person experience into what it is like to be at this festival, it lets you see all the wild things that can happen at the festival, and even lets the audience hear from people who have gone or are involved in the process of the music festival.
ReplyDelete- mike crocker
This documentary is interesting in that it covers the entire history of the festival. The cuts between the different era's in Glastonbury's history gives the viewers a chance to see how much things have changed and how similar they still are. The interspersed performances give the audience a break from the crowds, and chaos of large scale festivals and a chance to see why these people are all there. Just seeing the extreme variety between the different performers was fascinating. The differences between the acts are exemplified by the people watching them.
ReplyDeleteThis film was highly entertaining. Whether it's somebody who loves music festivals, or just likes the idea of doing drugs with a large group of people, this film is relatable. I think it's good to have insight to different renowned music festivals. I now have one more thing added onto my bucket list.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the form of this documentary goes, I think it gave sufficient historical information about the festival and the site that it's on. I think it created a whole other angle by involving the owner of the land and showing footage of him through out the years. That showed me a great deal of dedication from the film maker to put forth the effort to compose all of this footage. I did have one question though. Who actually made this? I know that Julien Temple's name is on the documentary, but I'm confused on a few issues. In the beginning of the film, it introduces a group of friends. They're getting ready to go to Glastonbury. As the film progresses, we lose sight of them. We get the idea that this music festival is bigger than they are. As an audience member to the film, and the documentary, I felt that it was nearly impossible to keep track of anyone in the crowd, yet we keep on seeing them through out the film. I liked the reincorporation of those characters, but what was the point? why go back to them, when they offer no development to the story of the film? Secondly, as i previously mentioned, the film was clearly composed of footage from over the course of several decades. Did Julien Temple take that footage? Did she have this idea in her mind 20 - 30 years ago? Did she hunt down people through out Europe that she knew had old footage? Did she have a large group of camera men and crew to go around during this festival and take video? Did she talk to those characters that we see in the beginning and through out the film and ask them for the a copy of the footage that they took on their camera? If I don't think about those questions, the film seems magical, and perfect. However, magic isn't real, I'm very curious as to what means she used to make this film.
I think this documentary gave its audience an amazing view of what Glastonbury was and who the people were who attended these festivals. Julien Temple not only portrayed what activities went on at Glastonbury but the film did an amazing job at really letting the viewer get to know who was there and why. The people who came in caravans literally living out of a truck just to be part of the music and the scene. I thought that was incredible. It was interesting how the film cut from different generations at the festival, I think it helped show how big Glastonbury has consistently been over the years and not just one time, like Woodstock. I really enjoyed the film, it was entertaining to watch, relatable, and very informative.
ReplyDeleteGlastonbury was a very entertaining and visually pleasing documentary that set out to inform and excite their audience and succeeded in doing so. They took the simple idea of showing off a music festival and made it into a piece of art. The way they showed off the festival's history with old footage was very interesting and i loved it. The one part of the film that i liked the most is probably the way they showed the highs and the lows of Glastonbury; it doesn't just take one viewpoint and show off the festival in that way. They show how people have rioted and how people are arrested while trying to sneak in along with all the other negatives, but then they show the beauty and culture of the people in the festival as well. I thought this was an overall great film.
ReplyDeleteI thought this documentary was very entertaining. I liked how the director used old and recent footage from the same festival. This way the audience could compare how Glastonbury is now and the way it used to be. Seeing the chaos and the masses of different people was great. Even though there were some crazy characters, everyone was there for the same reason. I feel like this film had some elements of a typical documentary with interviews here and there, but what sets it apart is that it does not focus on just one person or group. It focuses on the people, music, and just the festival as a whole.
ReplyDeleteJulien Temple's documentary "Glastonbury" is an excellent example of a specific style of documentary filmmaking. Mike Crocker pointed out in one of the above comments that a documentary film is supposed to allow the viewer to see into a world they are not typically exposed to. In this case, that world is Glastonbury. A documentary does not necessarily have to be narrated and contain interviews, it simply has to let one see into the said topic.
ReplyDeleteJulien Temple's documentary was done very well because he takes collected footage from the many years Glastonbury has been running and shows the viewer every detail of the music festival; everything including drug usage, security, costumes, concession stands, waste removal, and of course, the music. I found the film to be very entertaining and insightful; one never really thinks about all the different elements that are included when trying to run a music festival, so it was interesting to see how each aspect of the festival plays a part to create something so big and great that everyone enjoys. My only wish is that they spent a little more time explaining the food situations there because from my own personal experiences with music festivals, I know that they are usually picky with who the allow to sell food. In Glastonbury, they are not as strict; they pretty much let anyone sell food, which made me wonder how they regulate that, or if they even try to regulate who sells food, and if so, how well do they regulate it?
Dino Davaros
I thought Julien Temple's Glastonbury was a primary example of what a documentary is. The film gave a clear insight into the festival as well as the history behind it. Temple provided lots of footage of the festival from both the present and the past to show how major of a scene it truly is. My only objection was that parts of the film could have been narrated because there were parts that seemed dry and needed some narrated guidance. On another note, I had never heard of the Glastonbury Festival. Now that I have, I think I might have a reason to go to England much sooner than later.
ReplyDeleteGlastonbury was a fun watch and a well done documentary. I felt like I was a part of the festival, and I loved their uses of music performances as a way to separate each segment. However, the one criticism I find about most music based documentaries is that they tend to become promotional pieces. Glastonbury could have very easily turned into a promotional video to get viewers into visiting the festival itself, but thankfully it did not go in that direction. The focus was more so the attendees there and their experience at the festival.
ReplyDeleteI feel as if this film had many elements of contemporary cinema verite. Some of the stylistic elements we discussed in class could be found in this film such as impromptu performances (not by the artists but by people being filmed at Glastonbury. There were also mixed shots that were blurred grainy images and wandering movements, that are associated with a handheld camera. Although these stylistic elements exist the film also incorporated high definition concert shots. These scenes looked more professionally done and lacked the home-made feel. This film attempts to provide a typical documentary element by giving the viewer background on the creation and evolution of the event and shows both historical and more current footage. The film also takes viewers into different areas and aspects of Glastonbury such as performers, attendees, the founder, and security. This is informing the viewer of what makes up Glastonbury as a whole. With that being said, The filmmaker shows this festival in a positive light and could have chose to leave out aspects such as crime that exists as an aspect of Glastonbury
ReplyDeleteI think that this film did provide the typical documentary experience. Before viewing the documentary I knew absolutely nothing about the annual Galstonbury concert festivals. Now I feel that I have a fairly decent knowledge about the history and meaning behind the festivals. I feel that is the goal of documentaries, allowing viewers to understand something by showing film that represents the history and meaning of that thing. Although I do feel that the film was a typical documentary experience, I do feel that the film was unique in several ways. The way the filmmaker didn't follow a strict timeline was very interesting to me. The filmmaker jumped from decade to decade without losing sight of the ideas and points they were trying to make with the clips. The festival itself is a very unique event so just by making a documentary about it makes the documentary unique.
ReplyDeleteGlastonbury's one of those films that completely relies on editing to create an engaging experience. Not that that's a bad thing, but it was one of the major elements that I noticed. Obviously, the some 40 years worth of footage was obviously not all shot by one team, so it was important for the filmmakers to put all of the pieces that they had in a distinct position. In this case we have a film completely interwoven with footage from four different decade documenting the longest surviving music festival in the world. Also, the atmosphere of music festivals is just like that of this film: all over the place and over your head. But most importantly, the film covers all aspects of the festival, from its conception, through its more vulnerable fazes, and to its modern atmosphere. A very unique and interesting film.
ReplyDeleteI thoroughly enjoyed Glastonbury. I thought it was a really interesting look into the iconic music festival. In my opinion, thus far this has been one of my favorite films because it was the type of documentaries that I enjoy. It took a glance into the Glastonbury music festival, its attendees, its history etc and showed the truth of what it is like at this event. The raw moments where they showed the people at the festival drinking alcohol, doing drugs, being reckless, climbing the wall to get in, those moments are the ones that truly caught my attention as an audience member. When the security teams were patrolling outside the fence of the festival trying to catch the people hopping the fence, I was extremely intrigued because we the audience were now seeing the festival in the eyes of the people who work it. One of the most interesting aspects of the film were the numerous perspectives that we got to see. We got to see the festival through the eyes of the landowner, the attendees, the security guards, the facilities team who clean the Port-o-potties and even the performing artists. Seeing the immense crowd gathered in front of those stages really shocked me and put the immense size of the festival in to perspective. After seeing this documentary, I am definitely more interested in this festival and would even go as far as saying I would attend it.
ReplyDeleteI find it very curious that I've never heard of Glastonbury music festival previous to the documentary viewing. It can be inferred that the infamous local Woodstock instance was inspired by this event, being that Glastonbury happened two years earlier.
ReplyDeleteGlastonbury is different from Woodstock in a couple of ways, however. For one, the performing artists are more commonly British, especially in the initial years of the festival, whereas Woodstock consisted of American musicians. Another difference is that Woodstock did not continue after its launch. Glastonbury, despite many attempts to prevent its repeat, has gone on to be held for over forty years.
The documentary was extremely entertaining and engaging. It effectively captured the essences of the performances, the crowds, the mass, the intoxication, and the what seems to be the general Glastonbury spirit. With multiple performance interludes, there are clips that capture both the negative and positive associations with the festival. The film incorporates the feelings of locals, the perspective of the landowner, and of the festival goers.
What I found the most interesting part of Glastonbury was the back that they used footage from the past and the present to tell the story about what the Glastonbury festival was, what it has become, and what it will be in the future. By doing so, they gave the full story of the festival without having to summarize it for us. The footage spoke for itself.
ReplyDeleteAnother interesting aspect of the film is how the live music from the year this film was documented was used at times as diegetic sound and other times as non-diegetic sound. This engages the audience far more than any soundtrack not from the festival would have. It also gives the audience an idea of what to expect when attending Glastonbury if the opportunity ever arose.
I found this film to be highly entertaining, but maybe that's just because I would love to go to Glastonbury or any other music festival for that matter. There were a few aspects of the documentary that I found to be particularly important. First was the chronology of it. At many points during the film, a clip from the past was shown, and it compared and contrasted itself to the clips from present day. Another aspect I found intriguing was the interviewing of the land owner, then and now. It was interesting to see this man throughout the years and the ups and downs of the festival. I also found the variety of the people that were filmed to be interesting. The film captured all different types of people doing all different types of activities, I liked that it didn't just focus on one sub-culture of the festival.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed this documentary very much. Coming off of the Nazi documentary, tensions were running high. This mellowed the mood down a ton and was a fun mix of pace. There were some bands playing that i really love such as Toots and the Maytals. The feature i loved the most was its realism, we sometimes find these documentary's staged a bit for production value but this piece lagged on that negative detail. The concerts were live and not done specifically for the film, some of the music was entertaining, some too crazy. One of the features that stuck out to me in my mind was that the film took place over a number of years, and each year the festival was unique in its own way. Whether it be that one year the cops raided the show, or one year there was an overflow in the Portipotty's, there was always something unique and different about each show.
ReplyDeleteI thought that this was an interesting documentary that dealt with an intrigueing subject. The way that the festival was shown in this documentary was quite nice, because it gave us a view into the history and back story to this event. I found the people who dressed up as charecters also to be very interesting and a well placed humor moment in the film. Im not sure what other purpose than that they fullfilled but i thought they evoked those who saw them to think and ponder what there intent was. All in all, i thought that this was a well done film that gave the viewer an interesting look into a massive event that has transformed over the course of time.
ReplyDeleteGlastonbury was a very effective music documentary. It took into consideration many fundamental aspects of producing a documentary (archival footage, exposing, etc.) and bam, Glastonbury was created. It was entertaining as well as informative. The documentary easily made me wish that I was alive to attend previous events as well as wanting to go there now. It was informative because it showed a history that was very different than what is celebrated today in terms of lineup and style. It's interesting to see the progression of the history of musical styles through the years and how quickly trends change. The only thing that seems to not have been changed is the rowdiness, drug use and overall somewhat crazy behavior that seems to follow any type of music festival of size. Seeing this festival reminded me of music festivals in the United States like Bonnaroo and Coachella Festival except I don't believe those are on private lands. That's another thing, I found the fact that Glastonbury took place in someone's backyard (literally), was amazing. I think the festival organizer Michael Eavis's choice to host the first Glastonbury event says a lot about the festival itself, very laid-back and easy going- a tradition that continues to today.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed everything about this documentary because I enjoy going to music festivals. This film made me want to go to Glastonbury and experience the festival myself. The style of the documentary was interesting as well because you got to feel as if you were inside the festival yourself. You learned the history of why the festival was created and why it is so important to many people. My favorite part was watching clips of the most recent festivals where performers like The Bravery were on stage. I do enjoy The Bravery and I have seen them in concert, but not in that kind of atmosphere. For me, watching this festival made me think about all the festivals I have gone to and how "mild" they are compared to this one. This film engaged its audiences and made you a part of the film. It was exciting and it kept your attention through out the entirety of the film. Glastonbury did inform its audiences and gave you the experience of being at the festival without leaving your seat. In my opinion it was one of the better concert documentaries that I have seen.
ReplyDelete