Skip to main content

A Post-mortem Tapestry on the Life and Art of David Bowie in his Own Words


“All people no matter who they are, they all wish they’d appreciated life more. It’s what you do in life that’s important not how much time you have and what you wish you’d done.”
-David Bowie

Moonage Daydream is the unusual music documentary in that it’s not terribly interested in the biography or timeline of its’ subject. Director Brett Morgen doesn’t want to tell the story, beginning to end, of the great David Bowie in a conventional manner that would reveal little more than reading a wikipedia bio. No, what he’s interested in is who David Bowie was in his own words. And so his movie dispenses with any formal documentary structure: no framing device, no interviews with those who knew him, no disingenuous narrative arc imposed. Instead he presents an intoxicating kaleidoscopic journey through Bowie’s career utilizing only archive footage, interview clips, and other like primary sources -some never before seen- interspersed with a cacophony of reference points to his varied inspirations or trains of thought and imagery of cosmic beauty which had always been a vital element of his otherworldly aesthetic. Blended together, it is an evocative piece of art, revealing and enigmatic in its’ approach to Bowie and his unique place in history.
This film is notable in being the first movie produced with permission of the Bowie estate –which means that unlike that awful biopic Starman, it can actually use full versions of his songs. And it does so, Bowie’s music of course providing the soundtrack for the entire picture, starting with a live and energized performance of “All the Young Dudes” in the 1970s and ending on “Starman” sometime in the 2000s. The songs colour the movies’ atmosphere in a way that might be Morgen making an auteur claim to Bowie’s body of work. For as strange and diverse as it was, it all can be imbued with a transcendent dreamlike quality that accentuates Bowie’s own thoughts on life and the universe. Of course the premise of the movie itself is operating under a certain degree of authorship applied to Bowie, as it follows him into other artistic pursuits that compelled and challenged him. But while the music is there, it is not in much of a sense a focus. Nowhere does the movie delve into Bowie’s creative process behind his songs or follow his hits in much more than a loosely chronological way. The music behind his fame and identity is treated as a given. And because of this films’ unique structure, based entirely around Bowie’s own accounts and comments, its’ fascinating that little is gleaned of him directly talking about his songs.
Rather it is notions around image and transformation that seem to dominate the interviews and artistic, existential ideas that come from his own musings. If there is a three-act structure to the movie it seems to be divided between his early glam rock superstar days -the Ziggy Stardust phenomenon, his Berlin period and exploration of other arts, and his return to the mainstream in the 80s as a more refined artist. But these periods intersect with one another, always a part of him and his personal drive. His awe of paintings began in childhood, likewise his love of literature and movies and the expressive possibilities of all mediums. His efforts to experience them thus come with no sense of indulgence but as a genuine pursuit of self-discovery. To some level he seems as compelled with his own enigma as we are. The clips we see of him in these endeavours or travelling in solitude, stripped of any persona and often to meditative quotes on his experiences, open up new facets of the man. One moment I found particularly interesting was how one of his paintings that seemed to depict a boy at a country house bore an astonishing resemblance to a scene out of Merry Christmas, Mr. Lawrence, which he would film a few years later. In general, the doc doesn’t much touch on his film career, which is a disappointment, although moments from his filmography do get incorporated into the greater miasma of cultural hallmarks displayed.
Bowie’s voice weaves in and out of the movie with that calming, thoughtful air so indicative of his character, and the character the movie attributes to him. But it’s clear from his early days to his final years, the big questions were on his mind, and Morgen takes them seriously –opening with a quote from 2002 in which Bowie mused on the famous Nietzschean proverb of “God is dead and men have killed him” by turning it inward. The matter of what could take the place of God within us is something he speculated on, and one can only assume concluded that art is the answer. But even with all of his artistic success, he still sought to question, discover, experiment. He identified as bisexual in an interview with Michael Parkinson in the early 1970s –and while his sexuality has ultimately been debatable, his open curiosity was something wonderfully audacious. In this interview he is glammed up perfectly as well, in gaudy spotted coat and trousers, bright long orange hair, notably yellow teeth and fancy earrings. The presentation is part of the act but with the documentary’s eye it is also this clear mode of expression –Bowie experimenting with who he is, what he is capable of. He seems to have been as driven by this compulsion as by his greater curiosities in art and life.
It is only fitting that the documentary is just as thrilled by experimentation of form as Bowie was, immersive and edited with exceptional potency by Morgen himself. He crafts the movie as a beautiful collage of not only Bowie’s life, but those things that informed it and were likewise reflected by his art. The presentation of footage of concerts in radiant hues without the Peter Jackson effort to revitalize their quality, and in careful juxtaposition has a deep effect. There’s a certain soulful ambience to it of a kind I’ve never seen in a documentary before –genuinely conveying the feeling a lot of the time that you are in Bowie’s head-space. One part of the movie, consciously or not an aspect of this perspective and that is almost a bookend, is comprised of new film footage: a woman on some barren moon discovering the body of an astronaut –an allusion to Major Tom most likely. It is both haunting and oddly comforting, as though one of Bowie’s alter egos is being found and whisked away.
Even six years later, his death hangs over the movie and is sombrely felt. But there is a sense of serenity with how it is treated. The last moments of the film don’t stick in a performance or single moment –rather montages are followed up by cosmic imagery. He is a part of the cosmos now if not in a spiritual sense than in that of his legacy. But he would leave encouraging us to discover ourselves in our art and our world, so to better live our lives fully. It’s what he did.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...