This was in the paper this morning. Have you seen it yet NY?

Quote :

Bob Marley was an intriguingly complicated man – although, perhaps, not nearly as complicated as the making of “Marley,” the epic documentary about him.

First, director Martin Scorsese bowed out, unable to fit it into his schedule. Second-choice Jonathan Demme got as far as the editing room before leaving over “creative differences” with the producer.

Finally the project went to Kevin Macdonald, a former documentarian whose most recent films were “The Last King of Scotland,” “State of Play” and the awful “The Eagle.”

It’s unclear why Macdonald was chosen (or how much, if any, of Demme’s work remains in the movie). But the result bears the scars of long delays, endless debates and the indignity of finally being fobbed off on some second runner-up.

That rudeness even seems to extend to the studio’s release date of 4/20 – modern stoners’ beloved, if unofficial, National Marijuana Day, and a numerical shorthand for toking up. It’s a cheap gimmick, unworthy of the man, and the many things he stood for besides, simply, “the herb.”

That’s a shame, because there was a lot to Marley, a poor mixed-race kid raised by a single mother, first in the countryside, then in the worst of Jamaica’s shantytown slums. He experimented with different styles, pushed social justice, and promoted his music – and mystical Rastafarian message – around the globe.

That provides plenty of material, and plenty of issues to explore. Marley’s happy-go-lucky libido – fathering at least 11 children by seven mothers – hardly squared with his conservative insistence on female modesty. He could be a distant father, too, and his political and religious philosophy sometimes seemed lost in a cloud of ganja.

Yet the film doesn’t find a way to make him real.

Instead we just get interview after interview, several of them conflicting, or saying the most outrageous things (according to one, Marley’s fatal cancer was a result of the “whiteness” in him) without Macdonald making any effort to spotlight those contradictions, let alone to get at whatever the truth might be.

Barely present, too, are any archival interviews with Marley himself. There are a few clips, a snatch of an audio tape, but that’s about it. Mostly, his music has to speak for him.

That, of course, is no problem. Laid against a staggering yet insistent beat – like some blissed-out partier who simply will not call it a night – Marley’s songs play on the soundtrack, their lyrics speaking of exile and exodus, justice and forgiveness.

They were words for far beyond Kingston, and in one of the film’s final, strongest sequences, we see them being sung around the world. Too bad there isn’t more footage of the man singing them himself (clips of his early days are singularly rare).

Devoted Marley fans will still find much of interest here, particularly the scratchy home movies. And the anecdotes from old friends are full of insight and humor (to get them over their fears, one manager had Marley and company practice at night, in a cemetery).

But it’s hard to imagine audiences who don’t know much about the man sticking around for more than a few minutes of this. And they’re the ones who need to know about him most of all.

http://www.nj.com/entertainment/movies/index.ssf/2012/04/marley_review_doc_on_reggae_icon_is_all_smoke_no_fire.html

Yeah, I saw the movie on Friday. Basically didn't offer up any information that I didn't already know, but I'm a Marley stan so that's to be expected. I thought it was well put together, especially for people who are just starting to get into reggae and the man himself. It gave you the basics. I noticed a few facts and some other minor things that were off, but it wasn't significant. I disagree with the review. It was a great documentary.

I read a review in a free entertainment publication on Saturday morning in Chicago. One interesting thing they said was the film did not address why Marley's concerts always had mostly whites in attendance.

I was wondering, NYstyle, if that is a common topic in regard to Bob Marley discussions? To me, it seemed like a strange thing for the author of the review to even bring up as being something that should have been included.

Nystyle709 wrote:

I wouldn't say it's a common topic that is harped on, but it is the truth. Bob's music wasn't very popular with black audiences....it didn't get airplay on black radio stations and he wasn't marketed to them. I can see the reason for the author or whoever that was bringing it up because right before he died.....Bob's was starting to "crossover" into Black America. It was prob. the audience that he wanted his music to reach the most. And quite frankly, the reason why Marley appealed to white audiences is because his music was overdubbed. The Wailers was the first group to blend rock and reggae. All of his most popular songs....the version that you have heard is most likely not the original version. Reggae was still fairly new back then and the original versions of the songs are too roots for most people. Still is.

Thank you for the detailed reply, NY. I have Legend. I love that album. Not knowing much Marley history, I assumed that was nothing other than the original version of all the songs. Now I am curious if it is or not.

Now I am hoping to see the documentary. In high school, I was always seeking different sounds and loved listening to him as it was so unique compared to what was force fed to those listening to top 40 stuff. You have to remember I am older than you and we didn't have Internet to introduce us to specific genres. I listened to Marley and liked it and assumed the hits from Legend were stereotypical of the reggae genre. I had some stuff by Burning Spear and had not thought of him in years until I was actually given an assignment to write a small blurb about the released live albums. It was fun to write.

Haven't seen it.