MovieChat Forums > Searching for Sugar Man (2012) Discussion > Please, what WAS the point of this movie...

Please, what WAS the point of this movie?

posted 12 years ago by frodo_unplugged
27 replies | jump to latest

some people on here keep responding to any form of criticism by saying "that was never the point of the movie!". well, what IS the point of the movie then? please enlighten us! I really wanna know.

I'm sorry but after thinking about it for some time (and I don't mean the kind of thinking where you go "gee, that movie really made me think", I'm rather talking about the kind where you feel something's wrong, something's been covered up or packaged too nicely and you start picking all it's elements apart, in other words thinking which is hard work and not a cathartic experience) I just can't see any merrits at all. and if it possesses none of the qualities that make a good documentary great then maybe it should have been told as a fictionalized drama based on a true story?

seriously, it doesn't bring anything new to the table, it merely capitalizes on a fifteen year old story, makes it more popluar and probably helps Rodriguez sell a couple more cds (it's really not all that far away from a clever marketing scheme). also, it leaves out crucial facts if they don't fit the whole underdog suddenly becomes superstar narrative (Australian tour), it is intentionally ambiguous about the dates when some of the footage was shot or is supposed to have been shot (Rodriguez "first" interview after he was "found", some contemporary looking shots of Cape Town when there's nothing contemporary about the story), it doesn't follow up it's own leads (the money trail), and it doesn't reveal a whole lot about its protagonist either (his co-worker had more interesting things to say than Rodriguez himself for Chrissakes!), and pardon me but the South African Rodriguez fans simply don't make for very interesting protagonists either ("all our lives have been changed by this search", yeah, guy moved from Johannesburg to Cape Town, and some girl got married, and South Africa de facto still upholds a socialeconomic separation between blacks and whites, big change then!). I mean they are a couple of music nerds who hardly can figure out how to use a geography book. so, what else is there? the historical angle? well, it doesn't cover that too well either, just enough facts to suport its from zero to hero story (and cinematographically speaking a very poor job of creating convincing historical footage).

there you are, in the end it's not even a half way interesting detective story (seriously, those guys would first look in London or Paris instead of checking out a blatantly obvious geographical reference in the lyrics?!?). all that's left is this underdog or fairy tale narrative that suggests to the casual viewer that he or she too could be incredibly famous somewhere in the world, there's a place where you are TRULY recognized for the good person and unique individual that you are! oh my, that sort of fantasy bull is alright for a motivational video or a self help book, but once again, it's not good enough for a documentary. well well, if that's how you win an Oscar today, then movies are in a truly abysmal state.

It's disappointing how the standards of documentary filmmaking have become so lax nowadays. audiences used to be much more critical twenty or thirty years ago. and don't get me wrong, I don't wanna rob nobody of that warm and cozy place this movie creates for your soul to sit in and hatch a few dream eggs. I like that feeling too, it's just that here it comes with the terrible cost of sacrificing everything that used to be important when setting out to shoot a documentary.

[–] Felix-La-PuBelle 12 years ago

For starters, read this:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2125608/board/inline/203383017?d=211157763&p=1#211157763

As for your comments:

it merely capitalizes on a fifteen year old story

I'm not sure how that is a critique. All movies are based on stories. Some are new stories. Some are old stories.

it leaves out crucial facts if they don't fit the whole underdog suddenly becomes superstar narrative (Australian tour)

You're hung up on this Australian thing. If the above link doesn't help you understand how it's not all that relevant to the story being told, then nothing will help you understand that, I guess.

in the end it's not even a half way interesting detective story

I don't think it was written as a detective story.

all that's left is this underdog or fairy tale narrative that suggests to the casual viewer that he or she too could be incredibly famous somewhere in the world

I think it suggests the exact opposite. The movie is about this bizarre rare set of conditions that made this happen. I'd say it suggests that the odds of this happening to anyone is extremely rare.

In the end, if you don't like it, you don't like it. It's OK that you may not understand why other people like it. It's OK that you don't like it. It's OK that other people do.

[–] CTReviews 12 years ago

Say what you will about what they left out about Australia, New Zealand, etc. It's a legitimate criticism. I saw the movie when it was in theaters, and this immediately raised a red flag when I left the movie and did some research on my Iphone on the ride home. But fact remained that he was unheard of in America (I haven't heard any Americans come forth and dispute this) while having a fairly mainstream overseas following. And the fact that he's a Mexican who caught on with white fans half way around the world made it more interesting to me.

I can listen to music for no other reason than that I like it to listen to it. I've been playing the soundtrack for months. If it bored me, no feel good documentary, David Letterman appearance or Academy Award would make it tolerable. After I got hooked on the soundtrack, it made the story 10 times as enigmatic and I rented the DVD to have a second look.

[–] Felix-La-PuBelle 12 years ago

This film wasn't out to prove a thesis of any sort, and then omitted facts to do that. Rather, it simply told a story. A story from a particular point of view of a group of people. In that context, Australia has nothing to do with the story.

I don't agree that it's a legitimate criticism of the movie that was made. One could argue that feel an entirely different story about Rodgriguez should have been told. I'd understand that. But in terms of the story that was being told, the Australia information truly isn't a part of the story.

[–] frodo_unplugged 12 years ago

look at it from this side. if this was only a documentary about a couple of South African music lovers searching for some obscure cult musician (as you constantly try to tell us), it wouldn't even have one tenth of the emotional impact it has now. and that's because the emotional centre of this movie is Rodriguez' unexpected and hitherto undiscovered "greatness" as a star musician in a foreign country. this was NOT about the South Africans, they were merely the hook used to pull the big fish in, creating a false epiphany so to speak. again, the emotional core and the reason why people enjoy this as such a great feel good story is because Rodriguez is built up as this near mystical hero that goes from seemingly utter anonymity to superstardom by way of a couple of dorky music freaks. you may twist the facts however you like, but the Australian tour IS important, it clearly would have interferred with the emotional payoff the director was going for. the main event here is quite apparently Rodriguez' "combeback" concert in Cape Town. it's all one big build-up until the moment when this bum suddenly faces 5000 enthusiastic people cheering for him and celebrating him like a superstar. to make this as effective as possible, to achieve the ultimate cathartic effect, two facts need have been established at this point. First, Rodriguez music is indeed genius, up there with the best of the best. And second, he's been unjustly cast into total, abysmal anonymity and has led a life of hardship in the U.S. while he could have enjoyed the fruits of his talent elsewhere. this is basic drama school stuff, and it's perfectly okay if you work in fiction. But if you work as a documentary filmmaker and start "tweaking" the facts even the least bit towards some dramatic effect, then you are a cheat and your work loses all credibility. good for him that most viewers nowadays can't distinguish between facts and fiction anyhow. and I'm not dissing his film, really I'm not, in the end this is merely an analysis of how easily most of us forgo the quest for truthfulness in favour of some cheap, emotional thrills. it's the old demagogue's trick, and the more frustrated people are the eassier it will work on the masses.

[–] lubin-freddy 12 years ago

... to tell a story?

People hungry for the voice of god
Hear lunatics and liars

[–] frodo_unplugged 12 years ago

that's fine with me, but don't call it a documentary then!

[–] lubin-freddy 12 years ago

All movies, whether they're based on fictional characters or not, tell a story. Can you tell me one that doesn't?

People hungry for the voice of god
Hear lunatics and liars

[–] frodo_unplugged 12 years ago

what about the first film ever to be called a documentary "Nanook of the North"? No story, no drama, just following and documenting the life of some Eskimos.

[–] lubin-freddy 12 years ago

Nanook of the North was mostly directed from a tight script, as the character, Nanook followed Flaherty's instructions, most famously in the igloo building scene. Flaherty is considered an important director because of this, as he introduced feature-film narrative style into his documentaries.

As a film teacher I have problems using the word "documentary", as the only difference between that and non-documentary film (fiction and non-fiction are better terms) is in how the shots are collected. In both cases the shots are edited into scenes, and the scenes into a film narrative that tells a story, on some level or another.

The only true "documentary" film is CCTV cameras, which "document" whoever goes into the bank, or, in the case of London, who goes anywhere.

People hungry for the voice of god
Hear lunatics and liars

[–] frodo_unplugged 12 years ago

so, what you are saying is that the Eskimo would never have built that igloo, would in fact never have built an igloo in all his life if Flaherty hadn't told him to do so? and by the way, he didn't introduce feature-film narrative style into documentaries, what he did was he elevated the art of documentary filmmaking to the same level of distribution and presentation that until then was reserved for feature films only.

well, someone chooses where to point those CCTV cameras, don't they? even google street view registers nothing but carefully selected layers of visual information in time and space. only God sees everything...and maybe some Iranian satellite who produces a real time 3D scan of Washington DC 25 times per second.

just because there's a lot of planning and preparation involved in documentary filmmaking, even staging certain actions or repeating certain shots - especially when shooting in such a harsh environment as Flaherty chose to work in - that doesn't mean it has to follow the Greek variety of drama, you know, the one where man finds out - usually the hard way - how much suffering and misery fate has in store for him. we are not talking about the scientists dilemma here either, where an observer always necessarily changes the object of his or her observations. we are talking about film as an art form, which of course is always already subjective. but the way in which you go about depicting your subjective point of view is radically different in documentary vis-à-vis narrative filmmaking.

[–] lubin-freddy 12 years ago

He would not have built it at that moment and space of time, and in that way. Flahety was not only in distribution and presentation, but in creating a feature film narrative with a "real" subject. All I'm saying is that a fictional film narrative and a non-fictional film narrative are not all that different, and haven't been, since Flaherty.

So, in response to your OP, I don't think that ANY film, fiction or non-fiction, needs to have a "point", other than tell a story. Anything beyond that is another matter.

People hungry for the voice of god
Hear lunatics and liars

[–] clivey6 12 years ago

Yeah, but if it's not a truthful story, what gives?

This has been the year for this kind of thing, in Argo, Dark Zero Thirty and even Silver Linings uses sleight of hand with facts, the latter suggesting bipolar can be cured thru the love of a good woman.

I agree with the OP. The intent of this film is to tap into that feeling failed musos have that they may have made it but never did, and his SA comeback concert is meant to be some imagined moment of glory coming true, an ephiphany, a dream made reality. The fact he had success in Australia would detract from all that, so it gets omitted.

I'm uneasy about it. The film has a lefty, liberal slant, and I'm okay with that, but not when it casts the kind of omissions, in effect lies, that we'd be hopping mad over if the right tried the same.

The film Skyfall has all that stuff too - it's fiction, but mention the plotholes and illogical stuff and people just react saying, it's only a movie, or use your imagination to explain it away... Some stuff just gets a free pass.

[–] krisweddin 12 years ago

Wow that's a lot of crazy for one post.

The story was told from South Africa's POV. Australia was irrelevant to the story.

[–] frodo_unplugged 12 years ago

the story was "framed" using South Africa's POV, big difference, this was merely a clever framing device to set up Rodriguez as this nearly mythical figure (nobody know's anything about the guy, he's vanished, he committed suicide on stage etc.). the subject of this documentary, like it or not, IS Rodriguez. no Rodriguez, no film. and the filmmaker very cleverly uses those South Africans as a framing device, that way he can pretend - at least from a subjective pov - that the myth is real. when in reality the story itself dates back to 1998 and Rodriguez' career was nothing special but wasn't a none event either which the documentary wants us to believe. sorry but to chose a subjective pov as the main perspective for telling your story, to make it your modus operandi so to speak, simply has no place in documentary filmmaking. it intentionally dramatizes and obscures the facts in order to create a cathartic effect. that's NOT what you do when you wanna show the whole picture, and documentary filmmaking is about the big picture (don't you guys watch enough CNN? just kidding...).
no wonder this won an Oscar, Americans love their underdogs, their forgotten heroes, if in the process you suggest that its cultural heritage (what little there is) helped getting rid of Apartheid then it's even better. it's just not a very honest approach, this one definitely opted for the easy way out.

[–] MuchToBeGratefulFor 12 years ago

no wonder this won an Oscar, Americans love their underdogs

That's pretty simplistic, given that this film has won a ton of awards internationally as well.

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

[–] nando1301-1 12 years ago

Frodo, your gripe seems to be that a documentary has to tell "the whole truth and nothing but the truth" like some sort of court testimony...

Well, that is not the real world... Wake up!

I suggest you watch "F for Fake", a documentary by Orson Welles. It's fun and addresses the issues of "documentary" film-making.

Whether Sugar Man was totally truthful or not, is not that important. It's a cool story. As for Rodriguez, I think the real underlying issue is racism in America... In the 70's the music industry was prejudiced against a "Mexican Bob Dylan", so he never got promoted the way he deserved. Only half a dozen people believed in him as an artist and supported him, but the distributors, the DJs, the people who make or bust musical careers, they did not like him. And he didn't have a Brian Epstein fighting for him like the Beatles did. Who knows? If Epstein wasn't there, maybe nobody would ever hear of the Beatles outside of Liverpool...

Now it's different. Thanks to the film, Rodriguez is getting some recognition. It continues to be a cool story, that's all.

[–] lubin-freddy 12 years ago

It continues to be a cool story, that's all.

My point exactly.

People hungry for the voice of god
Hear lunatics and liars

[–] sjr1991 12 years ago

I don't think the Australia tours really change much in the story. Rodriguez released two albums in the U.S. in the early '70s, which never got much airplay and didn't sell in the U.S. 6-8 years later he has some tours in Australia, but he still doesn't get any recognition back in the U.S., where he lives. He continues to live an ordinary life, working at blue-collar jobs; his friends don't even know anything about his musical career, which career appears to exist only in fits and starts, in other countries. And even when he's found by the South Africans, it takes a few years after that before any U.S. companies reissue his albums.

What's amazing to me is Rodriguez's attitude toward his own life, so grounded in his own sense of himself that doesn't require celebrity. He doesn't spiral down into tragedy because his records don't make it, he isn't angry that the Australian tours didn't make him famous back home. (I would like to know what happened to the mother of his children and I wonder why he is so private to the point of silence about that. Maybe that's the missing information.)

[–] ThatsWayHarsh-Tai 11 years ago

I'm pretty sure ALL art has a "lefty, liberal slant"

[–] dslacker 12 years ago

Well, To The Wonder may have tried to tell a story.....

[–] daturatech 12 years ago

Quit boring yourself. And your wife if you are that evil. It's a great documented film. Means a lot to us in SA. Deal with it. If you know more, do more

[–] GuyWhoSezThatsNotGood 12 years ago

It's a rich, inspiring, amazing story. That's "point" enough for me.

[–] jnatch 12 years ago

"capitalizes on a 15 year old story"? Son, millions of people are interested in this now because of the film, who had no conception this sotry existed. I have seen hundreds of documentary films and have rarely been this moved and interested. I don't think you see things for what they really are.

[–] garnet-8 12 years ago

The point of the movie (any movie) is to deliver an emotionally moving story. This story delivers that in so many ways. I didn't watch any trailers before so I had no idea whether this musician was dead or alive.

I found the setup of some mysterious unknown musicians music being a catalyst to the anti apartheid movement was excellent. What some people throw away is another mans treasure.

How sad that this homeless musicians songs would be such a powerful influence in another place and him die not even knowing it.

Then to discover the guy is alive was so exciting to watch both his reaction and the reaction of the South Africans of having their Elvis back from the dead....

Seeing the concert, and the reaction of both the fans and Rodriguez's daughters?

Your average person is going to find a story like this emotionally entertaining. Maybe your standards are much higher... your going to have to look a little harder to find movies that entertain you. Suck it up.

[–] metalspirit88 12 years ago

To tell a really great story about an talented and modest man that not many people knew about, perhaps?

:-)