first off i did enjoy this film, but what about all the info on how rodriguez was pretty popular in australia in the 70s and played several gigs here in the late 70s and early 80s thus making him not as mysterious as this film would like to point out
shareAgree.
Not only were there large Australian tours in 1979 and 1981 (he came close to Rod Stewarts numbers, and toured with Midnight Oil), but there was also an Australian-only b-sides/demos album released, as well as a live album from the Australian tours called "Rodriguez Alive" in reference to the rumours of his death!
His success in South Africa was known, because it was the catalyst for his Australian success. Copies were imported from there. When he was 1x Platinum in South Africa, he was 5x Platinum in Australia.
Read the 1981 liner notes to his live album and tell me that half the movie isn't totally dishonest.
http://sugarman.org/alive.html#sleeve
I love the movie but this film is a Fictomentary ! New word I coined it.
shareYeah, good expression. Very true, LOVED the film too but it was deliberately misleading for the sake of a well crafted story not letting the facts get in the way. Heck, I knew all the words to his songs too and I'm not that big a fan either. Lol.
It's a lot easier being righteous than right.
Fictomentary...I like your new word. It reminds me of Argo!
shareMerci ! Oh don't get me started on Affleck and his CIA glorification. You see this is what I have warning about the Clintonites in Hollywood are the worst imperialists of them all. Ben Affleck grabbed his Oscar and alluded to the terrible situation in Iran but hey Ben what about the terrible situation inside Bradley Manning's cell ? As for the best documentary that should have gone to the far more essential 5 BROKEN CAMERAS everytime a Palestinian themed movie manages to get nominated it never wins. What if Affleck had a made a drama about the situation inside Apartheid Israel ?...we know how many Oscars he would not have got for that even if on both a factual and dramatic level it had been a far superior quality film than ARGO. In fact 5 BROKEN CAMERAS is a very mild film about Palestine compared to many I have seen on AJE and on-line but Americans need to see it.
share'what about the terrible situation inside Bradley Manning's cell ?'
Very off topic but thank you for your post anyway! :-)
When I heard they 'dramatised' leaving Iran with the freed hostages when in reality they got out easily, I knew Argo wasn't the film for me...
Will check out 5 Broken Cameras.
On topic, okay, omitted facts, but even that was 18 years before they found him, right? Plus they didn't know about it. Plus the movie was about Rodriguez and SA. It's not like they're in front of a judge and were sworn in...;-)
And now somebody tell me please why I cannot get Jim Croce's 'I got a name' out of my head...:-) Both voices are so powerful and haunting...maybe that's why. Loved the film.
[deleted]
Hey ella, I guess the Michael Fassbender stasi filed a complaint, incredible but true, as it was completely unfounded... I don't know for sure, but nothing else happened, as you can see, I am still allowed to post...:-)
share[deleted]
ALL Documentaries are Fictomentaries.
transongeist.com
ALL Documentaries are Fictomentaries.
Documentaries deal with reality.
Arnold Schwarzenegger called Pumping Iron a docudrama in the 25th anniversary edition when he admitted to fabricating a lot of stories to make it more entertaining. I think that's the perfect word for this documentary.
shareThe point here is that the South African investigators were not aware of Rodriguez' record sales in Australia even though the Australians were aware of his record sales in South Africa. Nobody in South Africa knew prior to 1998 that is, that Rodriguez had sold any decent number of records anywhere except in South Africa. The movie does not outright lie, it just focuses on the South African story.
shareYes! Well put.
shareaye ... Rodriguez was a Revolutionary Icon for South Africa .. AUSTRALIA could have made their own documentary ..
shareAll true. However a good portion of the documentary purports to show the man's life story too, and that portion led the viewer to believe he left music behind and was a laborer all his life until the South Africans tracked him down... when in fact he apparently toured Australia in 1979 and 1981... Not saying he should have been made a rich man from that but unless he was a complete idiot he should have made some money from it, which unless he pissed it away on drugs and alcohol should have been enough to get a better house than he was in.
share
a lot of popular music tours lose money or break even when you look at ticket sales vs. expenses. quite often, the profit, if any, comes from t-shirt sales. you'd be surprised at how many flat broke "stars" there are in the music business, often due to terrible contract terms agreed to by wide-eyed 19 year olds who didn't bother hiring lawyers, and were willing to sign anything that meant they had "made it"
the film did note that Rodriguez supposedly gave most of his money to family and friends
some of the best moments we pass in this life are in the dreams of others
One would think that somebody in South Africa would of gotten hold of this record and read liner notes at one point and discovered he was not dead. Being such huge Rodriguez fans they were, this part of the film is unbelievable.
shareYou may want to read up on South Africa in the late 1970s. Globalization is a recent thing.
shareWTF <logs into IMDB and lowers score for Sugar Man immediately>. This film had me all teary eyed at the end and now I am just angry lol. Might explain why he wasn't really that emotional at the end...
shareYes. I agree mention should have been made of Australia and New Zealand. Does not make it less true for South Africans. In South Africa he truly was greater than the Rolling Stones. Rodriquez was part of almost every South African music lover list of favourites. As they say in the movie. He was the soundtrack of my youth. Well so was the song "Down Under" :)
But was he a household name for generations of Australians? (I truly don't know hence the question) If not. I think herein lies the difference.
You are correct, Rodriguez sold well and had successful tours in Australia, but his fame and legacy was/is nowhere near that such as in South Africa.
I don't think many Australians would know who he is.
Yes but he was still a mystery to South Africa, and specifically to the people in this film. That's what this story is about. Australia is irrelevant.
shareYes! That is the key point. The movie wasn't a biopic about Rodriguez, but rather it was a film about the mystery surrounding him in South Africa and the huge fan base that grew from that.
His success in Australia may have been irrelevant to the story of the film, but it adversely affects the credibility of the 'mystery' aspect.
As has been pointed out if Rodriguez was really that popular and influential an artist, and if desire to find out more about him was really that great, surely the first thing one would do is look for any other releases to his name. A readily available record directory would show the existence of his 1981 Australian live album and its 1988 re-issue. If anyone ordered an import of this album they would have been able to read Glen A Bakers' liner notes which among other things address the false rumors of his death and that he still lived in Michigan.
Are we seriously expected to believe that with a figure so renowned in the musical industry in South Africa, no one who worked in that industry or even in a record store was never aware the existence of this record?
Plus if the Australian record company and tour promotrs had been able to track him down then its not really that big of a 'mystery' is it?
We're talking about apartheid era pre Internet South Africa. Things were different. And again, the perspective we're getting is very specifically from these very specific people. It's their story about finding Rodriguez. They are not professional investigators, music industry insiders, or had their lives dedicated to it. It was a hobby.
The movie is just that. A movie. It's a story. Even a documentary. It's a documentary film, not a news broadcast. It provides you with a some truth in an entertaining manner. There is nothing in this film that is not true. Perhaps there are other things that happened in all of these peoples lives, but in what story is there not more? That's not the story.
"His success in Australia may have been irrelevant to the story of the film, but it adversely affects the credibility of the 'mystery' aspect."
No it doesn't. Everyone in South Africa thought he was dead and no idea that he has some success for a period in Australia.
"A readily available record directory would show the existence of his 1981 Australian live album and its 1988 re-issue."
I don't know how readily available something like that would be in a closed nation where media is all government controlled.
"I don't know how readily available something like that would be in a closed nation where media is all government controlled."
so, basically the situation the U.S. is in right now.
you think the "media is all government controlled" in the U.S.? where's your reality-based evidence for that? Besides your ideological opinion?
shareBut there were no mystery and the movie doesn't claim that either apart from in South Africa. He was a well known musician in his neighbourhoods. His record producer was in touch with him since he knew he was alive. He was just a regular musician that didn't get as much recognition as the should have got since some of his songs are just mindblowing.
I don't believe that the directors pretend that he was a mystery. I just think they have discovered his music and wants to tell his story so that more people can enjoy it and probably will start to love his music as they themselves do.
I'm in Australia and do remember his music (I KNEW I'd heard that "Sugar Man" song before!), but as mentioned earlier, he certainly was not a household name down here (not like the band he was on with, Midnight Oil), so I think his success he was negligible compared to South Africa, so this movie, to me, is quite correct.
Besides, why spoil such a great story, an Oscar winner and one day, a revered classic documentary?
I know some people who consider this movie among the greatest they've ever seen - I think of that line from "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" regarding history and legend -- I think it applies to this movie, and considering the life Rodriguez has lived, all success is thoroughly deserved.
I'm in Australia and do remember his music (I KNEW I'd heard that "Sugar Man" song before!), but as mentioned earlier, he certainly was not a household name down here
On Youtube I just saw an interview of Rodriguez by the Hollywood Reporter. The interviewer said he is from South Africa, and his mother wouldn't know Paul McCartney if he bumped into her, but she knows who Rodriguez is. That sounds like household name status.
Thanks for your info that his success in Australia was negligible compared to SA. Maybe that can put the "no mention of Australia" objections to rest.
You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi
a simple thing. docked the movie a point for no mention
8/10
They also didn't mention what Rodriguez ate for breakfast.
share^ Like
shareI'm tired of people saying that the movie is about South Africa - it's not. The only reason the South African aspect is interesting is because Rodriguez was supposed to be some unknown mystery man. When it turns out that he had a decent career elsewhere it lessens the impact of the story.
I also don't believe for a second that Rodriguez was unaware of his popularity in South Africa. Since 1972 it was illegal for him to play there. Funny how not long as apartheid ended he was 'found' and came to SA to perform.
I'm tired of people saying that the movie is about South Africa - it's not.
Rodriguez was supposed to be some unknown mystery man. When it turns out that he had a decent career elsewhere it lessens the impact of the story.
I also don't believe for a second that Rodriguez was unaware of his popularity in South Africa.
Funny how not long as apartheid ended he was 'found' and came to SA to perform
Nobody told them
shareWell if he was big in Oz why did you not go looking for him.
The bottom line was the search for sugarman.
It's not always about you!
"Well if he was big in Oz why did you not go looking for him."
He was found by Australian promoters and toured here in 1979 & 1981. Even if you weren't familiar with the music most Australians who were around in the late 70's would be familiar with him as there were extensive TV ad campaigns for the albums
RIght. He's not a mystery to Australians.
But the movie was about South Africans.
Yes the movie is partly about Rodriguez and partly about some South African fans who went looking for him, that is why it doesn't matter that they didn't talk about his success in Australia (just two albums and a long time ago in a very small music market). The climax of the film is his trip to play to his South African fans. I am Australian myself and I don't know why some people are making such a big deal about the fact he sold a few records in Australia thirty years ago.
shareI saw a Youtube clip of Rodriguez being interviewed at the SXSW (South by Southwest) music festival in Austin. He is asked about Australia, and he said the crowds he played to there were small, nothing like South Africa.
You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi
Two tours, over 15,000 fans per concert in Oz and a live album being released on the strength of it... is nothing to sneeze at. And also explains, rather laughably, why he was not so phased at the concerts in SA, much to the frustration of that critic who didn't get the answers he wanted to the questions he asked.
I dare say that that interview was skewered. It's not the first time I've seen that happen.
It's a lot easier being righteous than right.
over 15,000 fans per concert in Oz
Where do you get that info? I bought both CDs after seeing this film, and the background of the plastic part the Cold Fact CD sits in consists of articles about Rodriguez in Australia, written 10 years after he put out the albums. It says that in Sydney he performed before a TOTAL of 15,000 fans spread out over 6 concerts. There were concerts in several other cities; the largest audience was 3800. "Altogether, more than 30,000 Australians saw the artist perform via 15 concerts." Nothing to sneeze at as you say, but it's a far cry from 15,000 per concert.
You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi
Nah, there's sleight of hand here. It's called being 'economical with the truth' if these past posts are to go by.
First, you think they've only just found him in the story, and he's in his 60s. Show over. It's his first interview since the early 70s, or ever. But what's this? Oh no, he got discovered in 1998! Looking younger and leaner and more rock star. But that's ok, I can go with that.
But it never implies he actually had any kind of music career anywhere else at all. Ever. So that's really a big omission.
I'm not sure I agree. The first part of the story focuses on the mystery, myth, and magic around this guy by people IN SOUTH AFRICA. He changed and became a part of the culture OF OF SOUTH AFRICA. Then, they tell us about how great it was for the people when he performed IN SOUTH AFRICA. Finally, they close with telling us about how it changed the lives of people IN SOUTH AFRICA and how now even people from the States and Germany now have connections / lives IN SOUTH AFRICA.
Sure, they could have told the viewer that he's alive right away - would it have been as interesting then? I agree that they could have mentioned - at the end - that he had also performed in Australia. But a very large part of the movie was about the South African connection.
15,000 per concert or 15,000 over 6 concerts - Yes there is a big difference.
The latter does sound more likely. He was known here but its not like he as big as Sherbert or the Skyhooks (both popular Australian bands in the 70s). He was an artist who had a reasonable following - for two albums.
If you go to Amazon and read the user review for Cold Fact (pre-Movie release) you will see the majority of reviews are from South Africa. There are a few reviews from Aussies, but I think it is clear that he was bigger in South Africa than he was in Australia.
Still I suspect the movie is exaggerating when they say he was bigger than Bob Dylan, Elvis or the Rolling Stones. Those artist all released several albums in the 70s, not just two.
Still I suspect the movie is exaggerating when they say he was bigger than Bob Dylan, Elvis or the Rolling Stones. Those artist all released several albums in the 70s, not just two.
On another thread I have posted a link to Rodriguez and Malik the director when they were on "The Jeff Probst Show." Malik said that when he first heard the story in SA, he didn't believe that Rodriguez was that big, so he randomly showed people on the street the "Cold Fact" album and asked if they knew it. He said he got reactions like, "this record is more famous than Sgt. Pepper! Of course we know this album!"
Jeff also went out into the audience, which had a lot of people from SA, and asked a man who lived in SA during this time, how big was Rodriguez. The man says, he was bigger than Dylan. They looked at Rodriguez as THE folk singer.
Elvis and the Stones were not mentioned explicitly, but I don't see why Rodriguez couldn't have been bigger than they were, even though they put out more records than he did. For some reason he just really caught on in SA.
You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi
To me, the whole film felt bogus right from the beginning - overstating his 'mystery' and his brilliance.
Yep, Sugar Man itself is memorable, nice singing... and Rodrigues himself is utterly charming. But the testimonies of the participants seem contrived, a well-meaning collusion to revive a career of a nice guy who never really made it.
There are loads of artists who strike a chord in a distant country, where nothing is known about them.
There are loads of American artists who can't fill even the smallest hall in their home town, yet are popular enough to tour in other countries.
And there are plenty of artists who were very significant in their time, in other countries. One example is Trout Mask Replica, Captain Beefheart and the Magic Band. Ask people of a certain age and ethnicity in UK, and they will all recognise it. But who actually bought it? Maybe 10 people.
And who knew anything about the Magic Band?
So maybe nobody bought the Rodriguez album, it was just there in the air for a few people.
Rock music loves mythologising and amplifying, and this film seemed an example of that.
actually, they explained it had been completely bootlegged on tape in South Africa
sharehonestly, i'm a bit shocked to discover this.
share I lived in Perth, Western Australia throughout the 1970's and I remember hearing "I Wonder" and "Sugar Man" a few times on the local radio, but frankly, by the 1980's I thought he must have died, too. I bought and cherished his "After The Fact" compilation album after its Australia-only release in 1977, but there was no information on the artist anywhere to be found.
When you encounter that kind of complete absence of any information whatsoever, you naturally begin to suspect that a performer - especially of his incredible calibre - must have died! I had no idea he even toured Australia. Remember this was long before the internet, where you can just look up anything from around the world at any time.
The film accurately portrayed the mystery surrounding this unfairly ignored talent, and it was entirely factual from start to finish. It simply focused on the South African perspective of this man's career. In fact, as Stephen 'Sugar' Segerman alludes to in the film, broadcast television wasn't even introduced in South Africa until 1976!
[deleted]
yep agreed - I remember seeing him in Australia when was about 14 at a festival called Tanelorn, he lasted about 2 songs and collapsed.
share