MovieChat Forums > Taking Woodstock (2009) Discussion > ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ACCURATE ABOUT THIS F...

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ACCURATE ABOUT THIS FILM


Elliott Teichberg obviously has similar memories of Woodstock as many other "locals" at the time. EVERYONE in the Catskills thought they were "important" to Woodstock. He had absolutely nothing to do with securing the farm. His family's motel was not used as the basis for Woodstock operations. None of the promoters even remember his involvement. People say "if you remember woodstock, then you weren't there". This is proof that Elliott has no memory of Woodstock and therefore had to make up his own adventure where he is actually important. I actually grew up in White Lake. I knew Max. I knew Elliott. And as nice a guy as Elliott could be, this story is absolute nonsense. It's an enjoyable fictional account of Woodstock, but that's all it is. It's one person's fond memory of a monumental event that nobody remembers. Enjoy it for that. It's a nice story.

reply

Lang and Roberts have little to no recollection of Teichberg yet he was the town "liason"??? He also claims to be the President of the Chamber of Commerce for Bethel. The President lost his job due to allowing Woodstock to happen and it wasn't Teichberg. That is the most blatant exaggeration in the film. From Wikipedia:

Factual accuracy

Lang has disputed Tiber's account of the initial meeting with Max Yasgur, and said that he was introduced to Yasgur by a real estate salesman. Lang says that the salesman drove Lang, without Tiber, to Yasgur's farm. Sam Yasgur, son of Max Yasgur, agrees with Lang's version, and says that his mother, who is still alive, says Max did not know Tiber. Artie Kornfeld, a Woodstock organizer, has said he found out about Yasgur’s farm from his own sources.[13] [14]
[edit] Critical reaction

Publishers Weekly called the book an "occasionally improbable yet thoroughly entertaining tale."[15]

reply

Thanks for sharing your views, Teddy. I am curious to know your first-hand experiences of Woodstock, if you lived in Bethel at the time. Did you attend the concert?

If I sound a bit sentmental, it's because I have 2 relatives who got engaged at the festival. It's part of our family lore.

reply

You said that none of the promoters even remember his involvement. The following is a quote from Michael Lang's autobiography "THE ROAD TO WOODSTOCK" pages 115-116. Ticia Bernuth Argri(Lang's assistant):"While Michael was gone, this guy called and said, my name is Elliot Tiber and I've got land, and we want you in White Lake". I immediately called Michael, and in a few minutes he picked me up to head upstate" Michael Lang:"Following Elliot's directions, we pulled up to one of the sorriest looking motels I've ever seen. The Sagging sign said El Monaco Motel, so knew we were in the right place. A chubby guy in his early thirties bounded out to greet us, introducing himself as Elliot Tiber, I discovered later that his real name is actually Eliyahu Teichberg and he grew up in Bensonhurst, right around the corner from me," And then the book (pages-117-118) goes on to describe how Elliot took them down to the sight that he wanted to show them and it turned out to be all swampy and Mel Lawrence blew a gasket when he saw it. So Elliot gave them a name of a local real estate guy who was driving them around when Lang spotted Yasgur's land and what became the concert site. Granted I'm sure not everything in this film is factual and that somethings didn't happen exactly how they're depicted here. You can't exact all the blame on Tiber for that, Hollywood likes to change things around supposedly to "tighten" up the story... Anyway, I'd have to say the basic framework of this movie is honest... Look into for yourself. Check out Lang's autobiography "THE ROAD TO WOODSTOCK".

reply

I'm not sure how this contradicts what I stated earlier. I said they had "little to no recollection". I also stated that the Woodstock location was found by a local real estate agent and that Max Yasgur did not know Tiber. Lang confirms this. I also stated that he was not the President of the Chamber of Commerce and did not secure the land. He was not and did not. So the only thing that turned out to be contradictory was that they stayed at his family's motel. I'm sure a lot of people stayed there over the years. It's a Motel. Maybe they did use for offices. I might have been wrong on that account. I wasn't at the Motel.

But...
1. Tiber didn't know Yasgur (I know this first hand)
2. Tiber didn't find the site
3. Tiber was not the President of the Chamber of Commerce.
4. Tiber didn't secure the site.

Apparently he made one phone call and Lang stayed at his family's motel. If that's worth a movie, so be it.

Again:

Lang has disputed Tiber's account of the initial meeting with Max Yasgur, and said that he was introduced to Yasgur by a real estate salesman. Lang says that the salesman drove Lang, without Tiber, to Yasgur's farm. Sam Yasgur, son of Max Yasgur, agrees with Lang's version, and says that his mother, who is still alive, says Max did not know Tiber. Artie Kornfeld, a Woodstock organizer, has said he found out about Yasgur’s farm from his own sources.

reply

You quote from Wikipedia, but where does that info come from? From Lang's autobio? From what interview?



"I don't discriminate between entertainment
and arthouse. A film is a goddam film."

reply

Lang rented the motel from Elliot's family but he did not find or secure the location through Elliot. I know that as fact.

reply

From THE ROAD TO WOODSTOCK by Michael Lang:(page 122) "I made a deal with Elliot to rent his entire motel through the festival and into September, in the process pulling the El Monaco out of foreclosure. The motel also became a ticket outlet. We set up some offices in three shabby rooms, and moved ourselves and some of the staff and crew into the rest."

reply

Very interesting, thanks for sharing that. I would tend to believe Lang's first-hand account of things.

reply

repost: "I agree with you here. That's all I was saying. It's a nice story. It's his recollection, and it's been embellished. I don't think I even insinuated otherwise. Do you really want to hear my story are you being patronizing? I am born and raised in the catskills and come from a long line of catskill residents. It's a very very small town and everyone up there knows everyone. It's not out of the blue. There are plenty of people from that area that would agree with my take. For example, Dirty Dancing certainly isn't an accurate account of the catskills but it is definitely a nostalgic take of the Catskills. Hollywood romanticizes everything and sensationalizes everything. We didn't realize we were living through history at the time and even working at woodstock, as a part time job, doesn't qualify me for celebrity status. As I've stated numerous times, Elliot put together a very caring and interesting take of Woodstock and the surrounding events. I enjoyed it. However, to take credit for finding the location, or even lobbying the town to allow Woodstock is just blatant lies. There are a lot of people who deserve credit for everything Elliott claims. His family owned a well known motel that definitely served as some sort of base for Woodstock. However, Max Yasgur and his family were friends. The real estate agents were friends. They were also friends of Elliotts family. We all knew each other. All I'm saying is for him to take credit for what he takes credit for is just plain wrong. He's a nice guy, but he was wrong to try and make himself the hero. Period."

reply

What's your problem, man? It looks like you're the one being patronizing, a bit too forceful. I find that strange.

Patmason just quotes from Michael Lang's autobio which tells that Michael Lang did business with Elliot T. So 'little to no recollection' isn't true.



"I don't discriminate between entertainment
and arthouse. A film is a goddam film."

reply

The issue is that I wasn't expecting so many aggressive personal attacks simply because i disagree with his version.

reply

Wow, the OP obviously didn't read Mike Lang's book, The Road to Woodstock. Lang's description of events is very similar to Elliott's. Lang says that Elliott brought them out to White Lake where they saw a nasty, rundown motel that Elliott's family owned. Elliott's mother came running out screaming at Elliott. Elliott showed Lang an unusable swamp for the concert. When Lang didn't like the swamp Elliott introduced Lang to a realtor who then drove Lang around the area(this is about the only major difference from the film). When Lang discovered Yasgur's farm he then rented out Elliott's entire motel for the next couple of months, which saved the motel from foreclosure. And Elliott did own a permit allowing the concert to take place.

reply

See my response.

reply

Repost 3 I agree with you here. That's all I was saying. It's a nice story. It's his recollection, and it's been embellished. I don't think I even insinuated otherwise. Do you really want to hear my story are you being patronizing? I am born and raised in the catskills and come from a long line of catskill residents. It's a very very small town and everyone up there knows everyone. It's not out of the blue. There are plenty of people from that area that would agree with my take. For example, Dirty Dancing certainly isn't an accurate account of the catskills but it is definitely a nostalgic take of the Catskills. Hollywood romanticizes everything and sensationalizes everything. We didn't realize we were living through history at the time and even working at woodstock, as a part time job, doesn't qualify me for celebrity status. As I've stated numerous times, Elliot put together a very caring and interesting take of Woodstock and the surrounding events. I enjoyed it. However, to take credit for finding the location, or even lobbying the town to allow Woodstock is just blatant lies. There are a lot of people who deserve credit for everything Elliott claims. His family owned a well known motel that definitely served as some sort of base for Woodstock. However, Max Yasgur and his family were friends. The real estate agents were friends. They were also friends of Elliotts family. We all knew each other. All I'm saying is for him to take credit for what he takes credit for is just plain wrong. He's a nice guy, but he was wrong to try and make himself the hero. Period.

reply

I agree with you here. That's all I was saying. It's a nice story. It's his recollection, and it's been embellished. I don't think I even insinuated otherwise. Do you really want to hear my story are you being patronizing? I am born and raised in the catskills and come from a long line of catskill residents. It's a very very small town and everyone up there knows everyone. It's not out of the blue. There are plenty of people from that area that would agree with my take. For example, Dirty Dancing certainly isn't an accurate account of the catskills but it is definitely a nostalgic take of the Catskills. Hollywood romanticizes everything and sensationalizes everything. We didn't realize we were living through history at the time and even working at woodstock, as a part time job, doesn't qualify me for celebrity status. As I've stated numerous times, Elliot put together a very caring and interesting take of Woodstock and the surrounding events. I enjoyed it. However, to take credit for finding the location, or even lobbying the town to allow Woodstock is just blatant lies. There are a lot of people who deserve credit for everything Elliott claims. His family owned a well known motel that definitely served as some sort of base for Woodstock. However, Max Yasgur and his family were friends. The real estate agents were friends. They were also friends of Elliotts family. We all knew each other. All I'm saying is for him to take credit for what he takes credit for is just plain wrong. He's a nice guy, but he was wrong to try and make himself the hero. Period.

reply

OH, TU, we get it - Elliott was adding to the story. But someone asked you about your personal recollections. THAT is what we'd like to hear.
Besides, And Lee's movie was about everything but the concert. If facts were changed, I'm fine with that - it's a movie, not a documentary. Being an outsider, I'm not that concerned about the details, tho it's nice to know the 'real story'.
I went to Woodstock. It was awesome. The movie brought back many memories, and I wish I had appreciated it more at the time. This movie gave me more of an insider's feel.
As a bonus, that powder blue 1960 Falcon was my mother's first car. I learned to drive in it (along with my own TR-3, which I got at 15).
So, we've heard from Elliott, Michael, and Ang. What's your story???

reply

I agree with you here. That's all I was saying. It's a nice story. It's his recollection, and it's been embellished. I don't think I even insinuated otherwise. Do you really want to hear my story are you being patronizing? I am born and raised in the catskills and come from a long line of catskill residents. It's a very very small town and everyone up there knows everyone. It's not out of the blue. There are plenty of people from that area that would agree with my take. For example, Dirty Dancing certainly isn't an accurate account of the catskills but it is definitely a nostalgic take of the Catskills. Hollywood romanticizes everything and sensationalizes everything. We didn't realize we were living through history at the time and even working at woodstock, as a part time job, doesn't qualify me for celebrity status. As I've stated numerous times, Elliot put together a very caring and interesting take of Woodstock and the surrounding events. I enjoyed it. However, to take credit for finding the location, or even lobbying the town to allow Woodstock is just blatant lies. There are a lot of people who deserve credit for everything Elliott claims. His family owned a well known motel that definitely served as some sort of base for Woodstock. However, Max Yasgur and his family were friends. The real estate agents were friends. They were also friends of Elliotts family. We all knew each other. All I'm saying is for him to take credit for what he takes credit for is just plain wrong. He's a nice guy, but he was wrong to try and make himself the hero. Period.

reply

Next you'll be saying that Jimi Hendrix didn't actually play his guitar at Woodstock, but it was you backstage playing so it looked like Jimi was playing.

Then you will repost your ENTIRE post again... sigh, before finally then posting again saying no I recall Jimi wasn't even there, it was all ME ME ME!!!

reply

I comprehend neither your motivation nor your affection for "Caps Lock".

reply

Because it's insulting to those of us who actually lived through it and chose not to paint ourselves into the story. I know the people who were instrumental in the woodstock festival and I won't stand for someone taking credit for something that another accomplished. t hank you for your insightful comment though.

reply

It seems Lang's recollections are more accurate than your own, but I understand. Jealousy infects us all...the only question is one of degree. The degree to which you are infected by it is quite obvious. Too bad you weren't more important to the Woodstock event, at least to the degree Elliot was by Lang's own writings, then maybe Lee would have felt compelled to use your recollections as well. Maybe next time.

reply

chose not to paint ourselves into the story



Translation : Had nothing to do with the Woodstock festival at all.


Alllllrighteeeethen.

reply

It's not a documentary - it's just a movie. And it was fun.

reply

Well...the first-time acid trip was pretty damn accurate.

So there's that.

reply

You know what is 100% inaccurate? The title of this thread. To say *ABSOLUTELY* NOTHING ACCURATE ABOUT THIS FILM is 100% wrong. And if you want to be taken seriously, avoid overly emotive hyperbolic statements emblazoned in uppercase lettering.







'Then' and 'than' are different words - stop confusing them.

reply