Skip to main content

A Derivative Act: Song Sung Blue

Tribute acts are a strange little corner of the music world. Out in the barrens (such as where I live) where major musical artists rarely travel, they are indeed a suitable and cheap alternative to experiencing the real thing. And especially for older folks, fans of artists either very aged or deceased, there’s a nostalgic pleasure to seeing people dressing up in 60s or 70s clothes and singing the songs of their youth. But this is not a steady or particularly lucrative demographic, and there is something unavoidably cheesy about tribute acts, especially of the boomer music variety. They tend to embody the has-been nature of the subjects incredibly starkly. And they’re typically not really thought of as musical artists in their own right, relying on songs by other people (that are often easy enough for a competent musician to learn) rather than taking a risk on anything new or personal. A movie at the scale and style of Craig Brewer’s Song Sung Blue would be more likely to feature a tribute act as the lowly start or tragic end of a musician’s career, not the career itself.
This film however focuses on a particularly successful tribute act to Neil Diamond, called Lightning & Thunder, that got as far as opening for Pearl Jam in 1995 and were the subjects of a 2008 documentary also called Song Sung Blue. And the most interesting aspect of this movie (of which there are relatively few) is perhaps how effectively it reflects, even in its construction and casting, the ethos of music tribute acts.
Based on aesthetics alone, which had some convinced this film was a straight biopic, you might not know when exactly it is set but it begins in the late 1980s in Wisconsin, where recovering alcoholic and music enthusiast Mike Sardina (Hugh Jackman) makes ends meet doing gig work primarily as a Don Ho impersonator. He meets Claire (Kate Hudson), a Patsy Cline singer who suggests he reinvents as a Neil Diamond act instead. Already a fan of Diamond, Mike does so and with Claire accompanying him they become a professional partnership called Lightning & Thunder -as well as a romantic partnership. Gradually their reputation grows beyond the small clubs and events they freelance to becoming local celebrities, though with admittedly a very severe casualty along the way.
Jackman and Hudson are very well-matched for these characters. Both are roughly two decades older than their real analogues when they started, but it makes them more convincing in the parts, and Brewer leans into their age in an appropriately effective way that similarly-themed moves might not. These aren't glamourous would-be stars, they look weary and amateur -whether intentionally or not. In their forties and fifties, it is easier to buy them each as single parents of teenagers. And let's face it, the market they are in has never been known for its youthful energy. Thankfully, this movie doesn't pretend otherwise.
However, being a reasonably accurate depiction of the world of the tribute music gig economy, doesn't make the movie itself necessarily more interesting or less formulaic. Brewer follows the conventional structure of the music biopic to a tee and doesn’t much flavour the aesthetics of the movie, which looks and plays very dryly. There’s a very typical contrast in Mike and Claire’s approach to what they do -Mike is more concerned with a notion of some artistic integrity, with a preference for more obscure Diamond songs and a general dislike of having to perform “Sweet Caroline” again and again (in fairness, a pretty vapid song I would agree). While Claire is more about having a good time, up until the point her narrative is thrust into a dramatic new direction (and in probably Brewer’s only real use of genuinely engaging filmmaking).
The depression that Claire is left with in the aftermath of this incident is the dramatic meat of the character, which Hudson takes to decently enough. The Mid-West mom with a passion for singing and a bit of a dippy though thoroughly optimistic personality works well for Hudson -and in fact it's a role that could easily have been played by her mother Goldie Hawn. But the more dramatic storyline for her character in the second act is a little outside of Hudson's usual wheelhouse. Jackman is also a decent fit for Mike, if his arc isn't quite so eventful and his relationship with his alcoholism and heart issues isn't explored as much as it could be. Though Jackman the grandiloquent showman feels a touch out of place in the humble venues, he organically conveys the character's washed-up demeanour. Both performances are solid though not necessarily exceptional. Jim Belushi's loud-mouthed manager and Michael Imperioli's Buddy Holly impersonator turned band guitarist are just as interesting figures with far less to do.
Brewer doesn't look for unique ways to showcase either the progress of Lightning & Thunder's career or the drama of their personal life. Each play out with a rather mundane air and little visual imagination. Some curious corners of their life, such as their mixed family, the unstable nature of their finances (gig work doesn't pay) and a period of time in which Claire has left the home are underdeveloped and not particularly convincing where they are addressed. Much as the movie does try in aspects of its tone, production, and script, there is a disconnect between these actors and their humble working-class characters.
One might expect a lot of this to be offset by the musical performances of the film, but they also are pretty underwhelming in structure and staging. The music doesn't inform at all the rhythm of the scenes leaving only the songs themselves to carry the momentum. Both Jackman and Hudson are good singers more than capable of performing the songs well, but no performance is quite complete and they are often lacking an energy. Plus, while Mike insists that Neil Diamond is more than a surface-level artist, neither he nor the film do enough to relate that depth to the audience, making the passion difficult to engage with if you're not already a Neil Diamond fan. I don't care what Eddie Vedder says.
The subjects of Song Sung Blue -both the characters and the tribute music circuit itself- are fairly interesting on simply their own terms, but Brewer's movie doesn't really do justice by either of them. The effort is made, especially in some of those honest depictions of this world, the kind of people who move in it, and connecting that if accidentally to aspects of the film's very production and actors. But for the most part it doesn't deliver in a way that sets itself apart in a manner its material would demand. At most it is like Lightning & Thunder, a novelty -and with a hell of a lot less staying power than they had.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

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...
Post a Comment
Read more

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....
1 comment
Read more

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...
Post a Comment
Read more