This is topic Any info about Rolling Stones' COCKSUCKER BLUES? in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=005971
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-21-2009, 10:57 AM:
 
Anyone know the back story about this title? I am playing it tomorrow but the only print they have is 16mm. Supposedly whatever other prints exist are in the hands of collectors and guarded like gold.

Has it every had a theatrical 35mm run? I can't image that anything that the Rolling Stones was involved with wouldn't have been been marketed to the hilt.

Curious minds want to know.
 
Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 11-21-2009, 02:19 PM:
 
My understanding is the film is only allowed to be showed twice a year and only with the filmmaker in attendance (that's the legend anyway). It was shot 16mm, I don't think there was ever a 35mm print as their was no commercial release. The Stones gave the filmmaker complete access and the lived to regret it.

As far as little seen films go, it IS gold. A double feature with The Karen Carpenter Story would be heaven;>
 
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-22-2009, 01:53 AM:
 
We'll see if he shows up.
 
Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 11-23-2009, 12:22 AM:
 
Would love to see that title on some marquee in some zealot town. [Smile]
 
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-23-2009, 11:08 AM:
 
Tony, they usually just call it CB BLUES. Chicken shits.

16mm Eastman 25B gave up the ghost 20min before the show yesterday. I ran tests on Saturday night, did a prescreening run of the entire film without incident. When I came in on Sunday morning I cleaned the lens and so needed to run a test to make sure the focus was on the money.

The test film began to tear on startup. The intermittent was not turning properly. I knew exactly what that was because it had happend once before to this machine about ten years ago. A rubber isolation coupling between the intermittent and the motor falls apart as the rubber ages. We had to fabricate a new piece of rubber to replace it. Eastman no longer makes any parts.

I knew immediately that this was the problem and it wasn't anything that was going to be fixable on the spot. After trying to see if it would somehow catch but to no avail, I called it. Told them they needed to tell the audience and the two Q&A people that we couldn't show the film. No COCKSUCKER BLUES today.

Lucily this didn't happen somewhere during the show as that would have been a worse disaster -- it would have ripped this so-called archive print badly. What happens is the intermittent stops turning and the rest of the mechanism doesn't, ripping sprocket holes and tearing the film. Needless to day, it was an embarrassment to the Museum and to me; I don't do well when these things happen -- I get dejected big time. After all, I had prepped this projector and film for hours on Saturday.

What is ashame is that now I think the programmers and higher-ups are going to not want to run 16mm any more as they think the 25B is an unreliable projector (over-reaction is typical of non-technical types). Funny, when their cars conk out on them, they don't stop using cars, they get it fixed and start driving again.

I heard one of them say we they should only run DVD because they are more reliable. Yah, "reliably" showing low rez on a 30ft screen; wait until that DVD freezes in the middle of the show or their Eiki "Theatre Projector" refuses to find the input signal 10 minutes before the end of the movie (already has happened).

It was a bad, bad day all around. I came home and just went to bed to sleep it off.

BTW, no Rolling Stone showed up. That was just a rumor. They hate this film.
 
Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 11-23-2009, 11:26 AM:
 
Frank: sucks about the showing.

Yes, the Rolling Stones hate it, that's why it can only be shown a couple of times a year, with the filmmaker Robert Frank (not the Stones).

Here's the Wiki entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocksucker_Blues
quote:

The film itself is under a court order which forbids it from being shown unless the director is physically present. This ruling stems from the conflict that arose when the band, who had commissioned the film, decided that its content was inappropriate and didn't want it shown. The director felt otherwise and thus the ruling. However, bootleg copies of the film are available. It has somewhat of a popular aura surrounding it around fellow rockers, such as Marilyn Manson, who mentioned viewing it and seeing his living room in it (parts of it were filmed at the Mary Astor House, on Appian Way in Laurel Canyon where Manson has resided since late 1997).

 
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-23-2009, 12:23 PM:
 
Well Robert Frank didn't show up. Evidently he is in poor health and perhaps they have a waiver because of it. There was a filmmaker there for the Q&A. He actually has the negative and sound elements, so perhaps he can represent him. I asked if it was ever blownup to 35mm and he said not to his knowledge, although imdb says there was a 35mm print (but they are notoriously wrong on a lot of that stuff). I trust the guy holding the original negatives to know what was done with them. Some of this he said was shot on 8mm. And yes, some shots were pretty soft. I wince to think what that would look like blown up yet again to 35.
 
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 11-24-2009, 04:27 PM:
 
I wonder if it was named this before or after The Rolling Stones decided they didn't want it?
 
Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 11-24-2009, 05:15 PM:
 
Properly done, a 35mm blowup print of a smaller gauge original will always look better than a projected print of that same smaller gauge.

For one thing, the generational loss on a copy from an 8mm negative to a 35mm print is less bad, because the grain of the 35mm print is much less of a factor. Additionally, the larger gauge film will exhibit dramatically better steadiness during projection, which is a much more abusive process than printing.

I suppose some might argue that wet-gate contact printing gives a better quality transfer than a blowup optical print, but I understand that difference to be well in the noise compared to the other sources of noise in 8mm (or 16mm) projection.

Also, if there is any appreciable volume, and thus the use of interpositives, a 35mm interneg produced from a 35mm interpositive produced from an 8mm original will look a lot better than a corresponding 8mm interneg produced from an 8mm interpositive produced from the OCN.

--jhawk
 
Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 11-24-2009, 08:19 PM:
 
quote: John Wilson
I wonder if it was named this before or after The Rolling Stones decided they didn't want it?
Most likely before. The Stones recorded a song by the same title, and from what I am told, there is a scene in the movie of a groupie, umm, shall we say, demonstrating the title on Keith.
 
Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 11-24-2009, 09:19 PM:
 
So, the groupie was feeling down?
 
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 11-24-2009, 09:57 PM:
 
Things looked up eventually...wait, no. I forgot we were talking about Keith.
 
Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 11-25-2009, 08:38 AM:
 
I do believe there is also a scene of him shooting up [evil]
 
Posted by Ray Faultless (Member # 903) on 11-25-2009, 05:35 PM:
 
Lots of clips of this film on You Tube.
 
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 11-25-2009, 07:02 PM:
 
Apparently, it was released on DVD at one time or another.
You can find torrents of of it on PB but there are no seeders.

You can find lo-rez copy of it on RapidShare:

uggc://encvqfuner.pbz/svyrf/135844830/gefpo.cneg1.ene
uggc://encvqfuner.pbz/svyrf/135851917/gefpo.cneg2.ene
uggc://encvqfuner.pbz/svyrf/135859251/gefpo.cneg3.ene
uggc://encvqfuner.pbz/svyrf/135866152/gefpo.cneg4.ene
uggc://encvqfuner.pbz/svyrf/135873306/gefpo.cneg5.ene
uggc://encvqfuner.pbz/svyrf/135892970/gefpo.cneg6.ene
uggc://encvqfuner.pbz/svyrf/135900084/gefpo.cneg7.ene
uggc://encvqfuner.pbz/svyrf/135901849/gefpo.cneg8.ene

CJ = "wnttre"

It's decidely low quality. The screen size is only 300 px wide. The compression is bad and it is contained in 8 95 MB files, the last of which you have to be a member of RapidShare to download. However, if you are resourceful, you can watch 7/8 of the movie.

I watched about 5 min of it and quit.
The photography isn't very good. The compression doesn't make it any better. It got tiring very quickly.'

UPDATE: Wouldn't you know it... Suddenly 12 seeders appeared out of nowhere! [Shrug]
 




Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2