Good subject, bad documentarians? - Searching for Sugar Man (2012) Discussion

[–] gorguruga 12 years ago

Well I hadn't even consciously heard of Rodriguez before I came across the movie, although I had previously (and unknowingly) heard him on the Nas track "You're Da Man" which samples him. I think the documentary did it's job of exposing his music and story to a wider audience. As far as the royalties issue, I think it's probable that they didn't want to get into any legal issues or lawsuits by making conclusions about what happened to the money.

It just opens up a can of legal worms that they can't really risk get involved with - if they'd put that in the documentary they would have risked a lawsuit and the documentary being pulled from the shelves by legal force. It's better that the story is out there, even if it isn't complete or conclusive.

reply

[–] tpupkin 12 years ago

Oh, sure. "Don't investigate anything difficult" is a great credo to carry into documentary filmmaking.

reply

[–] docudrama67 12 years ago

I was just informed that this whole doc is phony and it didn't take long to show that much of it is BS. You've already pointed out one glaring omission. But what about this one. On Sixto's OWN web-site it says he found out about having fans in South Africa when his daughter discovered a South African fan site on-line in the 90's. Who's telling the truth here. And if the daughter found the fan site herself what is the movie really about? Then there are the various music fans in Detroit who said he's been playing Detroit clubs for years. And the doc filmmaker who says he heard about the story when he was traveling in Africa, even though he worked for a Swedish arts and culture TV news magazine where Rodriguez toured on the 2000's. Then there is his appearance at San Francisco's Amoeba records that you can find on-line from 2008, his appearances in Seattle in the 2000's and his 2009 appearance on KEXP radio which happens to be the most listened to on-line radio station in the world, the Naz sampling, the Irish DJ that covered his song in 2000, the appearance of another song in a Hollywood film -

The dude is just like many obscure musicians who didn't make it yet gained a cult following in odd places around the world. Unfortunately that wouldn't get you the top award at Sundance. So the filmmakers made up a fictional story and now they're gonna even get an Oscar. Such crap.

It's not the coffee. It's the bunk.

reply

[–] docudrama67 12 years ago

I was just informed that this whole doc is phony and it didn't take long to show that much of it is BS. You've already pointed out one glaring omission. But what about this one. On Sixto's OWN web-site it says he found out about having fans in South Africa when his daughter discovered a South African fan site on-line in the 90's. Who's telling the truth here. And if the daughter found the fan site herself what is the movie really about? Then there are the various music fans in Detroit who said he's been playing Detroit clubs for years. And the doc filmmaker who says he heard about the story when he was traveling in Africa, even though he worked for a Swedish arts and culture TV news magazine where Rodriguez toured in 2000. Then there is Rodriguez's appearance at San Francisco's Amoeba records that you can find on-line from 2008, his various appearances in Seattle in the 2000's including his 2009 appearance on KEXP radio which is on-line and also happens to be the most listened to on-line radio station in the world, the Naz sampling, the Irish DJ that covered his song in 2000, the appearance of another song in a Hollywood film. If this guy is poor it is because he's a bad or negligent businessman.

Basically the dude is just like many obscure musicians who didn't make it yet gained a cult following in odd places around the world. Unfortunately that wouldn't get you the top award at Sundance. So the filmmakers made up a fictional story and now they're gonna even get an Oscar. Such crap. But what can you do. Americans love to be conned.

It's not the coffee. It's the bunk.

reply

[–] tpupkin 12 years ago

That's pretty much how it's portrayed in the movie, isn't it? The daughter sees the fan web site in the 90s, contacts the fans, tells them Sixto is alive and he come to South Africa for a concert in 1998.

The movie feeds the confusion by obscuring the dates of the interviews and not revealing until late that all of this happened 14 or more years ago, but it doesn't contradict the movie.

reply

[–] krisweddin 12 years ago

Yes, that's exactly what happened.

Somehow the poster above you doesn't understand the timeline of the events.

reply

[–] Soodinum 12 years ago

"On Sixto's OWN web-site it says he found out about having fans in South Africa when his daughter discovered a South African fan site on-line in the 90's.Who's telling the truth here. And if the daughter found the fan site herself what is the movie really about?"

Er ... isn't that what happens in the film? Then SHE makes initial contact and they get back to her via the number she gave them? One this one point, what he said and the film says seems consistent.

IMDb: The Reason There Can Never Be Peace In The Middle East.

reply

[–] MuchToBeGratefulFor 12 years ago

Yes, there is no inconsistency. Craig, after finding out Rodgriguez was alive, wrote an article which was published in SA and Rodriguez received it. His daughter Eva went online to learn more, found the "Great Rodriguez Hunt" website that Stephen "Sugar" put up, and she made contact.

On another thread, someone has posted links to that website with Eva's post:

Eva Alice Rodriguez Koller ()
Rodriguez is my father! I'm serious. He recently received an article from a journalist there who told him of the following. I went on line to try to find out more info and was shocked to see he has his own site. Truly amazing. Do you really what to know about my father? Sometimes the fantasy is better left alive. It is as unbelievable to me as it is to you.

You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi

reply

[–] RoundTheTwist 8 years ago

I think the Australia thing should have been mentioned. A simple "he was known in Australia which simply heightens how ridiculous it was that those in SA knew so little" would have done it. It would have allowed those who can't get passed it to go and find out about it.

I wonder wether his more known status meant that Eva was more likely to go and "Google" her Dad to find out some info.

I think it has to also remembered that pre Internet and even in its early stages, no one was sat with a device in their hands that contains access to literally every thing man has ever known.

It's too easy to have your thoughts of the situation based on today's life when the record store owner and journalist were living through the situation in the 90s.

reply

[–] cisned 12 years ago

I think most of you missed what happened in the documentary probably because the documentarians did a bad job at explaining.

The investigation happened in the late 90's, the main doc's were trying to find out about sugar man but couldn't do so because the money trail led to closed doors ( prob b/c he got screwed over a lot of money and still is) and they couldn't find anybody that knew him in person. Until the guy found a lyric that said "sugar man" met someone in a suburb in Detroit.

He looked at Detroit and found one of the writers that knew him personally and told him he was alive. Once he found out he was alive, he stopped with the story and published an article, afterwards he returned to his normal life, until Rodriguez's daughter finds the article. She contacts them and tells them that the writer can talk to her and her dad if they wished to. He does so, and convinces Rodrigues to come to South Africa where he does all those tours.

10 years later they decided to make a documentary about this amazing story and added modern interviews explaining what happened, how they found "sugar man" and how he played in S.A. So the documentary doesn't tell a single lie, they just mix modern interviews into something that happened 10 years ago, confusing people that this story just happened. The interview with the documentary crew made it look like they just found him, and that he is just finding out that he is a superstar, when in reality he knew for 10 years and had since played 30 concerts in S.A.

reply

[–] viewer-1230 10 years ago

Actually just saw this film on DVD and the money subject is brought up by the director a few times in some making of and extras to the film and it really does bug him and a few others. In fact it is pointed out that the soundtrack sales from the film would go to the singer. I also think legal stuff would of prevented them from really following that angle in the film, but it was on their minds.

reply

[–] MrPunish 12 years ago

The money angle is a legal can of worms the film-makers wisely avoided - regardless Clarence Avant does not come out of this well.

If you were making the film would you spend possibly years in a legal minefield, probably to no avail, or get the film out there? It's a film about Rodriguez after all. I would however like to see Avant questioned further all the same.

As for bad documentarians what do you make of "Catfish" - possibly the worst doc ever made imo.

WE NEED MORE GUNS TO STOP ALL THE NEEDLESS SHOOTING!!! GO USA GO!!!
WE NEED MORE BURGERS TO STOP THE OBESITY PROBLEM !!! GO USA GO !!!

reply

[–] tpupkin 12 years ago

Catfish was still interesting because the fakery was part of the story.

This doc, however, raised a complex tangled issue and dropped it. I guess we want different things from our documentaries. I don't want them to run away from hard questions, especially if they are the most interesting facet of the story.

You hit on another issue that bugged me a bit: they had ample time to investigate those money issues because this movie was made 14 years after he was "discovered" to be alive.

Why did it take 14 years after 1998? What makes this story relevant now? My hunch is this doc is a rather cynical -- and successful -- ploy to sell records, which is probably why it didn't scrutinize record companies very closely.

reply

[–] MrPunish 12 years ago

Normally i would share your cynicism. However i think the fact that this doc will help to sell his records is a mere by-product of the film bringing Rodriguez to a wider audience.

I'd be interested in what you think of this: Is it cynical for the film-makers to suck viewers in at the beginning of the film with tales of Rodriguez's gruesome suicide? Which by the time of filming they obviously knew to be untrue.

Personally I think not as they were presenting their understanding of the story as it was at that time. Unlike Catfish (I prefer to call it Dogsiht) which the film-makers knew to be complete bull from the start and they then set everything up to fit their own story - not a documentary at all, just a self-indulgent charade.

WE NEED MORE GUNS TO STOP ALL THE NEEDLESS SHOOTING!GO USA! MORE BURGERS TO STOP OBESITY !

reply

[–] tpupkin 12 years ago

There are two parts to the cynicism in Search for Sugarman.

The biggest -- and one which I didn't know about until after watching, because it is not addressed in the film -- is that the movie omits any mention that he was comparably popular in Australia and had a successful tour of that country in the late 1970s, and returned there again in the 1980s with the popular Aussie band Midnight Oil.

The movie, however, pretends that after the dismal release of his second album, Rodriguez completely disappeared from music as a total unknown until these intrepid fans from South Africa uncovered his whereabouts in 1998. This is simply a sensationalized lie.

Now if the primary subject of the movie had been how isolated South Africans were from the rest of the world during apartheid, the fact of his Australian tour would have enhanced the narrative. Instead the filmmakers had to hide a considerable part of the man's life, because it contradicted the myth they were creating.

The other major act of cycnicism was the pretense the movie creates by presenting new interview footage as if it's contemporary with of the narrative, which it isn't.

While a lot of documentaries will use new interviews recollecting events and frame the clips so as not to reveal the mystery, I've never seen one try to fudge the actual context of these types of interviews. But these filmmakers do it consistently throughout: Record execs, Rodriguez' daughters, the fans searching for him, and Rodriguez himself are all in on the scam: rather than recollecting they are recreating their reactions, which is dubious.

The movies presents its first emotional interview with Rodriguez as if he has just been rediscovered and is just learning about his notoriety -- whereas it's really 14 years after his tour of South Africa and all of this is old news to him. Why is he acting like he's uncomfortable with the attention and questions about money, when the people interviewing him are by now old friends and the money issue is something he's been well aware of for over a decade? Unlike Catfish, it's never revealed to us that we've been duped unless we put the pieces together ourselves and realize the phoniness of what we've just watched.

Why do it like this? Because the documentary isn't primarily interested in telling the story of Rodriquez, but rather in creating a myth. It's a bit ironic that the movie purports to be about fans learning the truth about a musician who was clouded in mystery, and yet all the movie does is create more artifice.

reply

[–] MrPunish 12 years ago

excellent reasoning and analysis. Agreed the Aussie tour omission does seem glaringly convenient if not downright deceitful.

Regarding the recreation of reactions rather than straightforwardly recollecting this is very hard to call for me. I think you are right to flag it up though and applaud you for it.

Doc-wise I'm looking forward to seeing "The Central Park Five" and "Room 237". Have you seen either? What's your take? What's on your "to watch" list.

'Tis a pleasure to come across such insight on IMDB rather than the usual moronic name-calling.

WE NEED MORE GUNS TO STOP ALL THE NEEDLESS SHOOTING!GO USA! MORE BURGERS TO STOP OBESITY !

reply

[–] tpupkin 12 years ago

I'm really looking forward to Room 237. I've heard quite a bit about it. I haven't heard of the other but I assume it's about the kids accused of gang rape in Central Park several years ago?

I did recently enjoy the doc "Queen of Versailles," but as with most docs there are issues with omissions. One of my all time favorite docs, "DiG!" is notorious for enraging viewers over manipulation. If you like music industry docs, it's a must-see -- and afterward so are the message boards for the bands concerned.

reply

[–] MrPunish 12 years ago

Cheers for the tips.

If you haven't seen it may I recommend "American Movie" - prob my fav doc of all time - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181288/

MORE GUNS LESS CRIME!
MORE BURGERS LESS OBESITY !
GO USA !

reply

[–] tpupkin 12 years ago

I need to watch American Movie again. I last saw it in the theater about 15 years ago.

Hoop Dreams is probably my favorite of all time. In no particular order, here are the docs I've rated at IMDb at 8/10 or higher.

Dig! (2004)
The Devil and Daniel Johnston (2005)
Hoop Dreams (1994)
Capturing the Friedmans (2003)
Quince Tree of the Sun (1992)
Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills (1996)
Undergångens arkitektur (1989)
Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr. (1999)
The Times of Harvey Milk (1984)
Aileen: Life and Death of a Serial Killer (2003)
Harlan County U.S.A. (1976)
One Day in September (1999)
Brother's Keeper (1992)
Woodstock (1970)
The Thin Blue Line (1988)
American Movie (1999)
Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse (1991)
Crumb (1994)
Once in a Lifetime: The Extraordinary Story of the New York Cosmos (2006)
Vernon, Florida (1981)
The Game of Their Lives (2002)
The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters (2007)
Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life (1997)
Company: Original Cast Album (1970)

Probably this list should also include Shoah, Sorrow and the Pity, and Butcher of Lyon, but I saw them too long ago and they may be too wrenching for me to sit through again.

reply

[–] MrPunish 12 years ago

Many thanks for the list - some great docs there - a few I haven't seen, a couple I'd never heard of. I'll try to check them out.

Here's my list, not all necessarily 8 outta 10 or above, but all very watchable imo.

Countdown to Zero (2010 Documentary)
Stop Making Sense (1984 Documentary)
Bobby Fischer Against the World (2011 Documentary)
Tyson (2008 Documentary)
Hands on a Hard Body: The Documentary (1997 Documentary)
Dogtown and Z-Boys (2001 Documentary)
Dancing Outlaw (1991 Documentary)
Anvil: The Story of Anvil (2008 Documentary)
Exit Through the Gift Shop (2010 Documentary)
Deep Water (2006 Documentary)
The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear (2004 Mini-Series)
Dark Days (2000 Documentary)
Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse (1991 Documentary)
Bus 174 (2002 Documentary)
The Last Waltz (1978 Documentary)

MORE GUNS LESS CRIME!
MORE BURGERS LESS OBESITY !
GO USA !

reply

[–] Evil_and_Divine 12 years ago

"If Wikipedia has more info on the money trail than the filmmakers could muster (involvement of Aussie labels in the SA market), that's pretty embarrassing. Instead the filmmakers pad their movie with filler, devoting 5 minutes to a man demonstrating to us in fascinating detail how he used his Atlas to locate Dearborn, MI."

I hope you relize that the time they tried to locate Rodriguez was in 1997. Long before wikipedia. Ofc your gonna be able to find info about it today 15 years after.
It was all about how they first tried to locate Rodriguez.

People can always criticise things here and there. But shooting a documentary is something that is alot harder to control then making a movie with a script and storyboards.
So what if the documentary was made after he made his return, its still better then not making it at all.

I had no issue with the Pacing and how things was set up. I really had no clue half way in that Rodriguez actually was alive. Thought it was brilliant.
Also the documentary had many beautiful shots.

Thought it was a really amazing documentary on a truly great musican. First time in years i have felt that i wanted to buy a record.

reply

[–] canadamelody 12 years ago

as I say elsewhere it is beautiful work of cinema...a FICTOMENTARY !

reply

[–] dreadwook 12 years ago

The biggest -- and one which I didn't know about until after watching, because it is not addressed in the film -- is that the movie omits any mention that he was comparably popular in Australia and had a successful tour of that country in the late 1970s, and returned there again in the 1980s with the popular Aussie band Midnight Oil.

While he was known in Australia, I'd say "comparably popular" would be an overstatement. It was similar to South Africa, in that the myth surrounding him in Australia was much the same (rumors of suicide, etc.), but I highly doubt Australians would declare him more popular than the Rolling Stones.

Also, Midnight Oil hadn't really had their breakthrough at the time of that 1981 tour. They had a following, yes, but no mainstream hits. This was Midnight Oil before they had became a household name in Australia.

The movie, however, pretends that after the dismal release of his second album, Rodriguez completely disappeared from music as a total unknown until these intrepid fans from South Africa uncovered his whereabouts in 1998. This is simply a sensationalized lie.

Well, the movie did feature music from his "unfinished third album", so he obviously didn't disappear from music completely.
And while it was 7 years between the release of his second album and his first tour of Australia, it took him 17 years to come to South Africa after his last gig in Oz.
He basically was "a total unknown" during that time.
For 17 years, he was working manual labor, running for office or whatever. But he certainly wasn't going on any tours, practically no one in the US had ever heard of him, and he still had no idea about his fanbase in South Africa.

And South Africa is a big part of this movie.
At its core, it's a re-telling of the South African detectives' story about their "search for Sugar Man".
That's the story that got the director interested in the first place.

So while I agree that the tours of Australia probably should have been mentioned, I can see why they were left out.
The search for Rodriguez led the detectives to London and Amsterdam and Detroit, but not to Oz.

particular chemical
which can be bohemians-Semitic
- jwj, ircpeot (thru Google)

reply

[–] PseudoFilmCritic 12 years ago

I agree with you 100 percent. Since this is told from the point of a South African, he may not have known about Rodriguez's success in Australia, and certainly nobody in America had any idea about him either. I thought this was a fantastic documentary with music that is as good as anything by the Rolling Stones.

Films are not reality. Reality is not film. Film is only an approximation of reality.

reply

[–] filmflamfilm 12 years ago

I wonder if you would be kind enough to list some other documentaries you find as "bad" as Searching for Sugar Man? You've obviously got terrible taste in documentaries and that's why I'd love to see your "rejects." Thanks.

reply

[–] tpupkin 12 years ago

If you "read" my post "again," you'll see that I "like" the subject of the "movie," I just thought "the" way it was made was suspect.

As others have said, both the cinematography and the music in the movie are terrific, and it is an engaging experience to watch "Searching for Sugarman." My issues were with the story the movie told and the way it told the story.

My least favorite documentaries are ones that are either boring or substantially dishonest. I wouldn't count this movie in that group, but I did find it problematic.

reply

[–] filmflamfilm 12 years ago

You called them "bad documentarians", didn't you? You didn't say "suspect," you said "bad". Do "bad documentarians" make good documentaries? I don't think so.

So, let's get back to my question: you said this was a bad documentary (indirectly), so I'm asking if you'd be kind enough to recommend a few more "bad" documentaries in your view so that I can enjoy them? Thanks.

reply

[–] tpupkin 12 years ago

Believe it or not, a movie is made of many parts. Some of them can fail while others succeed.

Despite my complaints, I found this movie engaging and well-shot, I just didn't like the way they told the story of an interesting subject. I would say the end product is rather mediocre, and not primarily because of the credibility issues I've raised.

Early on while watching, I felt the movie was padded with too many overlong mood sequences that did not advance the narrative. And I mentioned that awful segment in which one of the fans excitedly explains how he used an atlas to locate Dearborn, MI. What brilliant investigative journalism.

However, I like the music, and parts of the story were interesting even when I felt they should've gone deeper, so I gave it a 5 out of 10. Mediocre. In the hands of real investigators, who knows?

I really enjoy the style of a filmmaker like Nick Broomfield, whose movies aren't always neat packages like Search for Sugarman, but you really feel like he's probing his subjects with great interest. This was fairly fluffy stuff, in comparison.

To answer your insincere question, there was a Che Guevara documentary I saw in the 1990s that bored me to death, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109740/combined. Have fun with that, smart ass.

reply

[–] filmflamfilm 12 years ago

I've deliberately avoided calling you an idiot, but now that you've turned it personal, I'll stop avoiding: you are an idiot.

Why? Well, did you fail to notice the title of this documentary? Is this the "Life and Times of Jesus Rodriguez"? Is this "Everything You've Wanted to Know about Jesus Rodriguez"?

Your criticisms are ridiculous. This was a very well-made documentary about one specific element of his life. That it didn't include information about his wife or his Australian tour really has nothing at all to do with the subject of the documentary. That you thought it boring that the journalist showed how he looked up an American city, maybe you thought it was boring because you are American? As a non-American myself, I actually found that bit rather interesting.

And finally, you will note that your opinion of this documentary is in the vast minority. Most of the users of this site ranked this film far higher than you. I guess they bothered to read the title.

reply

[–] terrykeelan-581-945643 12 years ago

I don't think omitting the Australina "come back" in the late '70s diminishes the narrative at all. In fact, it's really irrelevant since the so-called 'come back' occurred in the same decade as the records were produced. Calling it a 'come back' is a stretch in itself. Moreover, it's consistent with the mythology that Rodriques continued to perform after the records were released and killed himself sometime afterwards. An 8-9 year gap is not unreasonable. Finally, the so-called 'come-back' still occurred some 20 years before the concerts in South Africa and before the South African search began. Whether it was part of their researh or not is irrelevant as it would seem to have led to another dead end.

As for the money, the title of the movie is "Searching for Sugar Man" not "Searching for Sugar Man's Money." It wasn't the point or the purpose of hte movie to explore dirty dealings in the record industry. Someone else can make that documentary. It was a bit of a side trip, I concede, but it did illustrate the size of the opposition the searchers were facing in following that trail. In addition the documentary was made contemporarily with the search, as has been pointed out, so the movie was simply documenting the facts of the search. Having that footage of the Sussex producer, it was probably hard to keep it out. But again, it did serve to illustrate the magnitude of the resistance had they continued on that trail.

I was not in the least confused and did not feel tricked by the melding of contemporary footage with older footage of the S.A. concerts. I suppose it could have been made clear at the outset that these events occurred 13 or 14 years ago, but I see the necessity of creating a seamless narrative. I don't think anyone was fooled.

reply

[–] tpupkin 12 years ago

You wrote:

"In addition the documentary was made contemporarily with the search, as has been pointed out, so the movie was simply documenting the facts of the search."

But it wasn't. That's the impression the movie creates until you apply scrutiny to it. According to the press kit (http://press.sundance.org/38362?format=pdf) the filmmakers learned about Rodriguez from Segerman in 2006, 8 years after Rodriguez' return to South Africa.

All of the interviews are supposedly done within the context of "whereabouts unknown" but that was not really the case.

For me the movie hits on several really interesting nuggets:

1. How closed off South Africa was from the rest of the world
2. The romance underlying the mythology of musicianship
3. Record companies being dodgy theives
4. An artist toiling for decades in poverty while being completely unaware of his success on the other side of the planet

The doc does a great job at #1 -- it would have been even better if you consider that this guy was touring Australia while presumed dead in South Africa.

Also, you get a good sense of #2 -- how important this music was to an isolated people. (Interesting, though, that we never get a sense if he was important to the actually oppressed people of South Africa -- here we have a movie partially about the oppression of South Africa, but only as seen through the eyes of privleged white S. Africans)

#3 is flirted with and then dropped, but is really the nut of the whole movie, IMO. You have, on one side of the mystery, passionate fans who buy records while thinking their favorite artist is dead, and on the other side a "failed" artist working construction with no idea of his status in South Africa. The piece that ties them together is the record companies. What I want to know is, not only where did the money go, but were the record companies complicit in creating this divide between the two sides? Was it in their interest to perpetuate this myth? Now that we know (not from the film, however) that Australian record labels were distributing Rodriguez' music to South Africa during the 70s and 80s, and presumably making a lot of money from it -- while he was also touring their country -- how did he remain unaware of his success? Rather than an accident of fate, was he kept in dark on purpose?

#4 is a compelling story, but I have issues with how they told it. The movie depicts his music career as functionally ending in 1971, after the release of his 2nd album, with his 3rd album abandoned in mid-production. It then suggests that he worked as a construction worker for 25 years with occasional dabbles in politics. We now know that just a few years later he began touring Australia. I've read conflicting reports of his popularity in Australia, with some sources claiming that he had top 10 hits and platinum albums in that country. Did he receive money from these record sales and tours? What happened after 1981 to send him back into obscurity? In what ways was Rodriguez himself culpable for his failure to stay in the music business?

It seems to me that because the initial fans from South Africa -- who were essentially kept ignorant by forces outside their control -- considered Rodriguez a mystery, this movie is intent on perpetuating the mystery rather than bringing light to it. This is in the interest of the filmmakers -- better buzz -- and the musician -- better mythology. It's also in the interest of record companies -- better sales. But I don't think it's in the interest of the viewer, who comes away from this movie not really knowing much about the real life of the artist or the real story of his career, but rather is delivered a very skillfully constructed image of him that seems designed to make money more than anything else.

At least he gets to be in on the joke this time around. Although we'll see if he ends up suing the filmmakers in 5 years for failure to pay royalties or something like that.

reply

[–] tpupkin 12 years ago

Regarding Australia, Here are some excerpts from the liner notes of the 1981 live album "Alive!" (From the official web site http://sugarman.org/alive.html):

In March, 1979, Sixto Rodriguez played before almost 15,000 enraptured devotees in the city of Sydney. In the same month, Rod Stewart drew barely 18,000 in the same city. Stewart strutted his stuff amid a sea of film clips, hit singles and press revelations of his love life. Rodriguez, on the other hand, slid into the country with just his guitar, a file of songs mostly ten years old and a fierce cult following which both delighted and frightened him. There was not even a recent photograph of the man available to publicise his arrival.

The strange and mesmerising held which this shy Mexican-American exerted over some 40,000 Australians, is a phenomenon quite without precedent. It began at the close of the sixties with an album on the small independent American label, Sussex Records.

----

In 1978, Blue Goose Music after a considerable search, tracked down the owner of Sussex and secured licence rights for a "Best Of" album. With no commercial airplay whatsoever and certainly no hit singles, the LP shot to platinum status. This feat was echoed by "Cold Fact", and in 1979 "Coming From Reality" helped to move Rodriguez past the collective double platinum mark, a seemingly impossible achievement for a non-chart entity.

----

In all, Rodriguez played to sixteen sold-out concert halls in Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, Brisbane, Adelaide, Newcastle and Canberra. In the Queensland capital he filled the cavernous Festival Hall, a feat beyond many high profile rock acts. Having heard of the huge popularity of his music on the inmates' radio station, he asked to perform at Melbourne's Pentridge Prison, an event which had a profound effect upon him. By the end of the tour the man brimmed so full of confidence and excitement that he pleaded to be able to make record store autograph appearances. He left Australia, buoyed by the love and devotion of a following that neither his dreams or aspirations had prepared him for, pledging to return.

reply

[–] terrykeelan-581-945643 12 years ago

"You wrote:

In addition the documentary was made contemporarily with the search, as has been pointed out, so the movie was simply documenting the facts of the search."

That was a typo. I'll proof more carefully. it should have read:

"In addition the documentary was NOT made contemporarily with the search, as has been pointed out, so the movie was simply documenting the facts of the search." (emphasis added.)

The order of presentation of the interviews was contrived, but there's a point of view that has to be preserved. None of the interviewees said they didn't know where he was. The question was never asked on screen. It was a careful omission but editorially valid, I think.

#3 - not the nut of the movie IMO, but certainly a compelling question and one everyone was asking when they left the theatre. The filmmakers tried to dispel that question a little by noting at the end of the movie that Rodriguez gave away the money from the S.A. appearances to family and friends. If that's the case, why would he be pursuing the money.

(The other question that viewers were asking after the movie was "What happened to the mother?" - Is the the girl from Dearborn?)

#4 - The movie is not the story of Rodriguez. It's the story of the fan's search for Rodriguez and their perception of Rodriguez and his career. "Touring Australia" is a vague term which doesn't necessarily mean he's playing auditoriums or concert halls. He could just as well have been playing dance halls and sleazy bars. Without knowing more it's a judgment call about whether he had fallen into obscurity or not. what's most interesting to me is that it didn't seem to matter a hell of a lot to him and that he seemed to move pretty easily between his world as an obscure construction worker in Detroit and a beloved musical icon in Johannesburg.

Nonetheless, your point about mythologizing Rodriguez is well-taken. It didn't offend me.

reply

[–] blupblup 12 years ago

I have to say that I absolutely loved this documentary and having watched The Imposter the night before (if you haven't seen it it is AMAZING, watch it), this was definitely a little lighter but still as engaging.

I am, however, disappointed in learning that Rodriguez was aware, to some degree, of his fame, yet the film makers didn't let us know of any of this.
It is dishonest and actually fundamentally changes the documentary/story as it's presented to us in the film.

He wasn't just living for all those years, from 1973 until 1998 completely unaware of having success and thinking that his music flopped.
He played huge, sold out gigs in Australia and drew massive crowds and must have been aware that he was held in high regard.

The way it's presented in the film is that he went from absolute obscurity thinking essentially nobody knew of his music at all until these South African fellows called out of the blue one day, which is blatantly not true.

I still really enjoyed the film and it was definitely a great story and it turned me onto new music, which is always nice. (sadly maybe that was ultimately all a was, an advert for some music)

Walter Sobchak: Am I wrong?
The Dude: You're not wrong Walter. You're just an a**hole.

reply

[–] silverbullets 12 years ago

Great points. I think those responding emotionally just really liked the film and feel you're being needlessly critical and kind of crushing that after-film happy feeling. But I think your criticisms are important, because the issue you raise isn't about Rodriguez or his story so much as about this: how we tell stories, and if integrity in storytelling still matters. The fact that this is an Oscar contender (hello, Catfish was not) makes this all the more relevant a discussion, because we have to wonder if the film is being rewarded for the great story behind it or for excellence in filmmaking.

I *enjoyed* the documentary and loved the basic story it presented--I hadn't heard of it until the film came out last year--however, even from the [weird, drawn-out, model-of-Detroit isn't this cool?] opening credits, I admit I found myself having to push back this thought: "this is an Oscar doc contender?" There were already some clumsy/seemingly manipulative things I was seeing that I found myself questioning...why they were choosing to tell the story like this? Doesn't the opening sequence set up the actual framework--that it's about South Africa in the 70s and the power of music? And then depart to this whole mysterious myth that apparently people still don't know about that the filmmakers are acting like they're going to uncover...but actually aren't? Anyway, I did push those thoughts to the background (even when it became clear that the earlier interviews' contexts were totally different than initially presented) and like I said, I enjoyed the story. But all I could think when it was over was all the questions that were fine left open-ended...only *if* the story they told us was actually as simple as they presented it. It seemed like it couldn't be, though.

Sure, it would've been awesome if the real story was simply how they tried to present it--some Buena Vista Social Club film based on following a mystery and then a discovery that would actually galvanize public interest to the point of even further developing the story...(btw, another one that comes to mind that was done with integrity [although it didn't get much attention] is Sierra Leone's Refugee All Stars). But that's not what it is, and because of that, I'm sad to discover that they chose to make this film they way they did. As you said, the story had plenty of unique potential. But I feel the filmmakers chose the cheaper route, rather the more problematic, difficult path of trying to find a way to tell the story in a fresh, compelling way within the context of the whole story at present.

reply

[–] mroooooo 12 years ago

#3 I also felt that they could have done more with the money angle when i watched the movie but now when i think about it the interview with Clarence Avant makes things pretty clear. He obviously gets really defensive when asked about it and sure they could have tried to track the money but does it really matter? Sixto didn't get the money. Sixto doesn't care about the money so maybe they choose not to give it much thought or maybe they tried and couldn't find anything so they let it end with interview.

#4 This is true, they should have mentioned it. It's wierd because i don't think the image of him would change if they did. They probably tried to get his career going with the tour and failed.

He is an amazing man and it's an amazing story for the South African people.

reply

[–] Felix-La-PuBelle 12 years ago

It seems they SHOULD have mentioned it just to keep people from getting all hung up about it.

But it really isn't part of the story. It's not relative from the South African point of view, and it doesn't even seem all that relative to Rodriguez himself.

He seems very happy to perform, but it also doesn't seem like a particular ambition. He just seems to be a content guy doing whatever an in many ways, I find that the most interesting aspect of him.

I do think that critiquing a documentary on factoids that weren't mentioned is valid, but I just don't see this one swaying the story one way or the other.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cstu11 12 years ago

To sit there and claim "Australia wasn't part of the story" is like saying "Rocky working out at the gym isn't part of the story of him fighting Apollo."

It would be like finding out after the movie that Rocky had actually won a couple of belts in Europe prior to the Apollo fight.

reply

[–] krisweddin 12 years ago

Only if you have no ability for rational thought.

The movie's from a South African perspective.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] squire124 12 years ago

The South African angle only applies to the first half of the film. When I realised he was actually alive, I had a real taste of the euphoria that some people must have felt in rediscovering their hero so I think the film is a success in that regard, partly because I shared their ignorance on the real story.

But the second half of the film is more focused on uncovering the real story, and so IMO should have not omitted such key information. It's hard to believe that family members did not know about his overseas reputation. At they very least, if he played to 15000 people in Australia, the South Africa shows had some precedent, which raises the possibility that Rodriguez, the director and his family are all guilty of massaging the myth.

The film suggests that Rodriguez did not chase fame and preferred the simple life. I'm not sure the reality matches up to this .

reply

[–] flopw 12 years ago

"As we are following the investigators' path to finding Rodriguez, we get their recollections as well as interviews with record producers, capped off by an interview with Rodriguez that we're made to believe occurred narratively shortly after he was located by the SA investigators. This original footage was presumably filmed recently. The look of the film and locations and people is contemporary.

However, we then find out that his comeback really happened 14 years ago and was largely captured at the time by poorer quality video cameras. So what was up with the new interviews posing as part of the unfolding story? It was a weird manipulation that casts the whole project in a poor light."

What? In no way the makers of this film tried to make that footage look like he was just rediscovered. It's obvious to the viewer these interviews were taken long after the rediscovery of Rodriguez. The interviews do unfold the story bit by bit (which is what good documentaries do), but you must be stupid to think these interviews were taken on the original timeline and accuse the filmmakers of trying to fool the audience.

reply

[–] JediRob 12 years ago

The criticisms being lodged here are missing the point of the film. The film is called "Searching For Sugar Man." Not the "Life History of Rodriguez." The film is taken as a story from a very specific perspective. The search for information about Rodriguez by specific people. The man nicknamed "Sugar" who we see in the very first scene in the film and who closes out the film talking about how much this journey changed his life. This is his story as much as Rodriguez's, if not more.

The filmmakers are not "searching" for Rodriguez. They are telling the story about how these people searched for him. Australia, the money not paid, or playing other gigs is irrelevant. That's not the story.

People forget that documentary films are still very much films. They have a narrative and are for entertainment purposes. Just because they are more based on reality than other films doesn't mean they are 100% of all the facts. Nor should they be. If you want total unbiased, all encompassing, history and fact there are other ways to get those things. A 2 hour film is not the right place.

reply

[–] DjMethod 12 years ago

So what if he had a similar experience in Australia? The film documented his experience in discovering his fanbase in South Africa. It is still a new discovery and he still chose his simple life over stardom. And it's impressive that he played that kind of tour almost 20 years after Australia.

reply

[–] Felix-La-PuBelle 12 years ago

It's not a film about Rodriguez.

It's a film about South Africa's appreciation/fandom of Rodriguez.

reply

[–] oscarunger 12 years ago

the omission of the whole australian tour (he played before 15,000 there in 1979), is a pretty big thing to leave out, i know they wanted the big reveal for the first south african concert but we wouldve appeciated knowing the whole story. they couldve been more honest with us

reply

[–] DjMethod 12 years ago

@acrossst-2: I agree with everything you said but including it would have taken away way too much from the film's emotional impact and complicated the simplicity of the narrative.

Perhaps a note at the end of the film could have worked that didn't disrupt the flow of the film or spoil the ending. Otherwise, including the Australian tour would have broken the bridge between his "posthumous" magic in Africa and his return. One of the movie's biggest strengths is its smooth transition between his mystical death/legend to his South African rediscovery to his comeback performance. Australia doesn't fit anywhere in there, so perhaps they should have slapped it on the end. :/

My Top 250 Films: http://www.imdb.com/list/AlZrHbQge2s/

reply

[–] Felix-La-PuBelle 12 years ago

"the omission of the whole australian tour (he played before 15,000 there in 1979), is a pretty big thing to leave out,"

No, it's not a big omission. The movie WASN'T ABOUT Australia. It was about SOUTH AFRICA.

"i know they wanted the big reveal for the first south african concert but we wouldve appeciated knowing the whole story."

Again, this was not a Rodriguez biopic. This was a movie about people in South Africa on a quest.

reply

[–] oscarunger 12 years ago

We get it. But you cant deny part of the story is Rodriguez himself and they potray him to have completely dissapeared after his second album when that is untrue. Dont get me wrong i like the movie for what it is and if it did nothing more than expose his music to people who never heard it than it did a great job. They left out chunks of history for dramatic purposes and thats fine.

reply

[–] Felix-La-PuBelle 12 years ago

"But you cant deny part of the story is Rodriguez himself"

Sure, that's *part* of the story.

"and they potray him to have completely dissapeared after his second album when that is untrue"

In the *context* of Apartheid South Africa, it is true. Context is important here.

"They left out chunks of history for dramatic purposes and thats fine."

That's one way to say it, I suppose. But that's true of *any* documentary aside from perhaps the exhaustive Ken-Burns type miniseries that are designed to be all-encompassing.

If one goes into the film thinking it was a biography of Rodriguez, then yea, they're going to be disappointed because it's not. But I don't think the directors/writers attempted to frame it in that way. They appear (at least to me) to make it very clear that this is a story about fans of an artist in South Africa, and their quest to find him. It's told more from their POV than it is from Rodriguez's, IMHO.

reply

[–] JediRob 12 years ago

Exactly. Same points I was making. Context is very important, as well as the expectations you have for a film. Film is not reality. Film is not truth. Are there aspects of those? Yes. But it is just film. It is art. And is in turn very subjective.

The title is NOT "Searching For Rodriguez." It's "Searching for Sugar Man." That title has many implications and is very telling. Rodriguez' name is not 'Sugar Man.'

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] JediRob 12 years ago

Are you watched this movie? Did you read any of the other comments posted in this thread?

hardly an example of great investigative journalism.

Who ever said any one was doing investigative journalism?

All the director had to do was track down the producers listed on the back of the album

Why would the Director of this film track down people?

Pardon me, but Rodriguez, by comparison, from the point of view of the history of music, is nothing.

While I won't debate you on the validity of this personal statement, that has nothing to do with the entertainment value of a movie.

reply

[–] Felix-La-PuBelle 12 years ago

"hardly an example of great investigative journalism"

This movie is also hardly an example of great marine biology.

But that's OK. Because it was neither an investigative journalism piece, nor was it a Jacques Cousteau flick.

It was, instead, a narrative story about a specific group of people in a specific country during a specific time period who were fans of a particular musician.

reply