Live Forever (2003)
In the mid-1990s, spurred on by both the sudden world-domination of bands such as Oasis and Prime Minister Tony Blair's "Cool Brittania" campaign, British culture experienced a brief and powerful boost that made it appear as if Anglophilia was everywhere--at least if you believed the press. Pop music was the beating heart of this idea, and suddenly, "Britpop" was a movement. Oasis, their would-be rivals Blur, Pulp, The Verve, and many more bands rode this wave to international chart success. But was Britpop a real phenomenon, or just a marketing ploy? This smart and often hilarious documentary probes the question with copious interviews from Noel and Liam Gallagher of Oasis, Pulp's Jarvis Cocker, Damon Albarn of Blur, Sleeper's Louise Wener, and many other artists and critics who suddenly found themselves at the cultural forefront.
Watch Trailer
Cast
Reviews
Best movie of this year hands down!
Redundant and unnecessary.
Nice effects though.
Absolutely the worst movie.
"They've never been on a building site. Not to say that that's, you know; not to say that the dirt under your fingernails is some sort of badge of honor. It's not. It's just a fact, you know. They never had a paper route, you know. I had a milk route and stuff like that. I've working on building sites. That fundamentally makes my soul a lot more purer than theirs." --- Noel Gallagher on the rivalry with Blur. The best part is that he said it with a straight face.
Live Forever takes it's title from a 1990's song from the band Oasis, one of the premier English acts from the period 1991 - 1997, which is roughly the era this film hopes to chronicle. It does a fine job of highlighting the major players of the period, especially the bands Oasis and Blur.The problem here is that sometimes the film feels as though it is only the "Blur and Oasis Show". Other groups of the period, such as Supergrass, Elastica, Pulp, Suede, etc., are mentioned, but one sometimes has the feeling that they are perceived as supporting players to the big story. In addition, if you are not of a political bent, you may find the linking of the movement to future British Prime Minister Tony Blair to be a drag on the film. While it is relevant to what was going on, you may find yourself wishing for a few extra minutes of band footage, or footage of the audience of the times.In addition, you may be put off by the (quasi) American bashing of some of those being interviewed. In England, Britpop was king, but in America it skimmed the surface for the most part, which will make some of the claims of a worldwide phenomenon seem grandiose. Still, as a primer for those interested in discovering something new, this film is a solid place to start.
This insight into britpop is not really as insightful as it fancies itself as being.I'm not saying that this film is without its good points. It explores the politics behind the era (interesting in itself) and to a lesser extent, the youth culture. The main problem I have with this film is I was expecting so much more! It really only explores Oasis, Blur, Pulp, Sleeper and Massive Attack (who is a great artist nonetheless, is not britpop). Where is Kula Shaker, Manic Street Preachers, Gorky's Zygotic Mynci, Catatonia etc. They didn't even explore Placebo, The Verve or even Radiohead.It is not an impossible task. Look at the way Hype! explored Seattle grunge/indie rock. It is pretty much definitive. Live Forever is not.Check out films like Hype!, 24 Hour Party People or The Filth and the Fury for brilliant looks at alternative music. Live Forever just doesn't compare.
Why was this film made? 'Britpop', as a phenomenon (if it was that) finished less then a decade ago. Indeed, it hadn't even started a decade ago according to this film. At least some time should have been given to see how history remembered certain events, rather than embellishing them almost as soon as they've occurred. Why would anyone would want to see or hear the views of 'wonderwall', a shockingly witless oasis tribute band, when the film can afford more insightful perspectives of Jarvis or even Noel? Damon does himself no favours in this documentary. as the frontman of blur, one of the greatest pop bands we've had in the last 20 years, he tries to come across too much as a social commenatator, rather than the purveyor of just simply great pop songs. His refusal to comment on certain events merely riles the viewer, and his self-importance is rightly satirised in the closing sequence as we see him losing himself as he plucks away at a banjo(?). Noel, however, is the main source of interest, and his brother provides the humour and arrogance which made oasis so exciting in the first place. Louise Wener is perhaps the most articulate of the lot, the frontwoman of sleeper-turned-author retains a sense of keeping her feet on the ground.Although some of the music is indeed brilliant and some events were as equally exciting (common people came at a perfect time, and pulp heroically headlined glastonbury at the last minute), the inclusion of massive attack (although my favourite group) just furrowed my brow - why include them and not radiohead, not the spice girls? Radiohead in particular, who have gone on to arguably greater success than oasis. maybe they had a few problems getting interviews with the actually relevant people of the time?There are too few interviewees for this to be a broad essay on the scene in the mid '90's (maybe this is why they had to include Wonderwall?). whereas 24 Hour Party People managed to entertain, excite and sympathise with some of the absurdities and fickleness of the music world, this film fails to be a worthwhile exercise in anything other than over-glorifying a period which has effectively only just ended.Although as i've said, some of the music is great...