And why oh why is Jay Bennett treated like a dog worthy of nothing but kicking? What did this guy do that was so bad? The movie doesn't tell us. In one early scene, he and Tweedy have a misinformed argument about the soundboard, and it's funny because neither man has a clue what he's talking about. They sound like Heckyl and Jeckyl. Then when Jay is expelled from the band, we're supposed to look back on that scene as the reason — there's certainly no other plain reason, aside from the lingering tension found in most collaborative rock bands. Jones is so single-minded in his veneration of Tweedy, he doesn't even feel the need to explain why Tweedy is right and Jay Bennett is wrong. And then, in the movie's most disgusting scene, he interviews Bennett and gleefully lets him make a jumbled, self-contradicting fool of himself. Well, shit. The guy just got kicked out of the band, and he is still angry and hurt. What did you expect? Poetry? The scene got a cruel laugh from the audience I saw it with, which would be ok, but they didn't laugh when Tweedy talked straight-faced about having his soul ripped out by Reprise, which is arguably a more embarrassing moment. There's more to this Tweedy-Bennett story. My uncharitable guess is that telling it might have made Tweedy look like an asshole, which would be anathema to the point of this movie.
This all raises the question: who, exactly, would be bothered if we knew Jeff Tweedy was an asshole? I mean, rock stars are assholes sometimes. It's not a mystery. Power struggles happen, and egos are bruised, and feelings are hurt, and none of this will exactly shock anyone in the audience of this movie. Or will it? Do Wilco fans really see Jeff Tweedy as some kind of kinder, gentler rock star, some sensitive, sulking pretty boy who can't fend for himself? Because Jones certainly does. That's insulting to Tweedy and to the audience, and it makes for a movie so one-dimensional, it's almost unwatchable.
Even the main conflict of the movie - band vs. label - is sorely mishandled. We're told that Reprise wanted to make changes to the album. What changes? The band isn't interested to know that, so neither is the movie. I, for one, am. Maybe they wanted to take out some of the more self-indulgent moments of "experimental" noise. Maybe they wanted more of Tweedy's delicate brilliance and less by-rote rocking. Maybe they wanted to make the album better. I doubt it, but we'll never know. And since the movie doesn't tell us what the label wanted to change, it has little right to then assert that the label doesn't know what it's talking about. The working assumption that bands have the right to do whatever they want to do, whenever, and for any amount, is deeply flawed. Say I work for your magazine. Do you not get to edit me, because I am an artist and you have no right to censor art? I can see the bands side in this, I really can, but no strong case is made for their side in the film. Everything is assumed, and nothing is discussed. After seeing this arrogant movie, I was almost willing to side with the label, simply because there's no apparent and logical reason not to.
Article comments
1 - Stefan Clark
The author of this artical is a moron. He obviously isn't a musician or a music lover, and he is a POOR movie critic. He seems to be arguing just for sake of arguing, and at the end, he puts a tiny little paragraph about how brilliant Jeff Tweedy is, just to reaffirm that he is a Wilco fan. This is a great film about a FANTASTIC band. And to say that A.M. was a poor album is just stupid.
-Stefan