'Woodstock 99: Peace, Love and Rage' - Film Review (HBO)
Monday, June 5, 2023 at 11:32AM A few weeks ago, I reviewed the Netflix three-part documentary Trainwreck: Woodstock ‘99. Since I just got MAX (HBO) to watch the final season of Barry, I went ahead and watched the HBO documentary on the music festival as well.
Woodstock 99: Peace, Love and Rage debuted in 2021. Unlike the Netflix documentary, the HBO version is a standalone movie. It is about two hours long.
My first impression is that the Netflix documentary is better. I will say that the Peace, Love and Rage delves more into the “why” of the festival going off the rails. The Netflix version looks more into the actual destruction and human interactions. The HBO version talks more about the cultural mindset of the 90s, especially among early 20s white males. This, coupled with the choice of bands and location and time of year of Woodstock 99 all equaled a giant mess.
How is it possible that promoter John Scher comes off even worse in Peace, Love and Rage than he does in the Netflix doc? Dude literally brushes off the sexual assault claims, says women should not have been topless and squares the blame on Fred Durst for being “a moron.” Ok, but to blame the entire Woodstock 99 catastrophe on Durst is inane. The riots and fires did not start until Sunday night and Durst and the rest of Limp Bizkit performed Saturday.
This documentary features interviews with different musicians, including Moby. His commentary is pretty insightful, especially when he discusses “venue mood,” – a skill he honed over decades as a performer. Moby says that pulling into the venue he knew the vibe was off. Other artists made similar comments, saying things like “That was weird” or “Get me out of here” after their performances.
Original Woodstock visionary Michael Lang again produced the ill-fated 99 event. He also made some clueless and flippant remarks in the HBO documentary. Just not quite as insane as Scher. That’s not saying much.
A place where the HBO documentary trumps the Netflix version is with the following of one group of friends who just happen to be the party that included David DeRosia, the man who died of hypothermia and heat stroke during Metallica’s set. DeRosia’s entire goal of the fest was to be in the pit for Metallica. He got there, but the intense heat, crush of bodies and lack of water eventually killed him. After being treated by medics on scene and transported to a local hospital, DeRosia died a few days later.
In addition to his friend’s recollections of the festival, the documentary also features passages from the journal DeRosia kept of the event.
The Woodstock 99 debacle has always fascinated me on different levels, including as a music fan and explorer of the human condition. I’m a writer and I like to stand back and observe folks. These documentaries have been eye-opening for me. A good way to use a couple of hours inside the A/C if you are hiding out from the heat this summer.
WWoodstock 99
Reader Comments (6)
If I'm ever left alone in supervision with David E Lehr. Pull me out immediately!
Now his ordained chosen ones are the ones ruling.
And, if you can now never mention Scher's name again, I am cool with that. Lang too, as both docs exposed a side of him that I think a lot of people didn't want to really know about. . .. even if I have a sneaking suspicion that a lot of people knew he was all about making money after not making it for so long. He may now rest. In peace? Not sure I care one way or another, esp. when you factor in the death of DeRosia.
It is interesting to view this duet of docs as against the two that were produced about the Frye Festival. Different times. Different audience (targets). Similar and not so similar results. But the comparison does to a lot to suggest that the human drive to have fun is set hard against the twin goals of making a lot of cash and being in the right place at the right time.
FOMO is not a new idea. Nor is the idea that FOMO makes some people a lot of money and leave some people poor, depressed/traumatized, or even dead.
Music. To paraphrase philosopher H. Simpson, it is the cause of and answer to all of our problems.
As I see it, the biggest problem with '99 is that the businesspeople in charge didn't pivot and show some reasonable judgment as things escalated. Going back to 1969, when people were getting hurt trying to climb over the fences to get in, it was decided to take the fences down entirely, and not worry about collecting money for tickets, or checking the people who were already inside for tickets.
In 99, when it was glaringly obvious that people were waiting in insanely long lines just to buy a $4 bottle of water, (A price-gouge if I ever heard one), they should have pivoted and made the water free. they then should have rounded up the 3,000 or so "Security" people to go through the line and distribute the now-free water. Not only would that move have prevented many of the medical issues that came up, but it also may have cooled the mounting anger that people were feeling toward the greed they saw on display all around them.
It's really easy to pile on Michael Lang in retrospect, but I see him as more clueless than necessarily evil. Remember, a 1969 lineup that ranged from Jone Baez to Jimi Hendrix to Ravi Shankar to Sha Na Na worked just fine. Sadly, by 99, people were microfocused on the one kind of music that they liked, so the musical diversity that worked in 69 worked against them in 99. That was definitely a miscalculation on the planners' parts.
It's hard to stick up for John Scher so I won't. He's probably right that the majority of people who went to Woodstock 99 did have a great time, but at what cost? One thing I will say, and I say this all the time, each person sees themself as the hero of their own story. Most people will deflect blame before they will ever look inward and have the maturity to take responsibility for their own shortcomings. That doesn't excuse Scher's take on the whole thing, but it does explain it, for better or worse.
Finally, the other thing I always say is that we as humans love to think we are so evolved and advanced, but at our core, we are still animals with animal instincts. When you get 500,000 of us in one place for any length of time, and especially under adverse conditions, some of us will revert to our base instincts, and that always ends badly, especially when the mob mentality kicks in.
One last thought, as a comment on the documentary itself, I could have done without some of the interviewees inserting their own political agendas into their historical evaluation of the festival. One gentleman in particular commented on how the police came in and politely escorted the rioters off the property. He is most likely correct that if the rioters had been black, they would have been treated much more violently, but is he saying that he wanted the police to come in and beat the hell out of everybody, which would have only made the situation worse? This kind of rhetoric is one of the causes for the massive division between Americans in 2023. I could have also done without these same interviewees evaluating the behavior of people at a 1999 festival by 2021 standards. It's this type of misguided thought that fuels the fire of so much of the Cancelling that we see today. A society can't erase its past no matter how much it wants to.
I was already in my 30s when Woodstock 99 happened, so I just glossed it over at the time. This documentary was the first time that I even learned about everything that happened. by the end of it, I felt really sad for so many reasons. I literally started crying when I heard the personal account of David DeRosia's death.
Three things you wrote struck me.
First, when you commented: "Not only would that move have prevented many of the medical issues that came up, but it also may have cooled the mounting anger that people were feeling toward the greed they saw on display all around them." Well, yes and no. The festival was designed to largely play into the bro culture of the times. I am not so sure that free water would have prevented what happened on a black-top expanse of a decommissioned military base. Cheaper food? Maybe. More interest in hiring actual security? Again, yes and no (as you pointed out). Better and more medical services staff? Again, maybe. There are so, so many logistical stupidities about this festival that the mind boggles. And, when you watch both docs, you start to get the sense that it was about cutting corners and making money . . . for both the promoters and the wide-eyed local leaders who saw this as a nice bump to their local economy.
Second, your take on the doc itself. Like you, I get a bit peeved with people who like to engage what I call the Whig/Pathetic Fallacy (and have mentioned it on here previously). Most times, I see it as a rather lame attempt to generate some additional insight that ends up being all about the person whose pie-hole is open. They end up making me cringe. Moreover, they misunderstand how history works, no less how assessing history should work. Oftentimes, there is enough stuff _then_ that you can assess _now_,. So making _now_ the criteria for evaluating _then_ is often actually rather lazy. And, before anyone gets out a torch, I also full well understand that we can. in many cases, evaluate lapses that happened in the past with an eye towards where we are now. But that is an entirely different matter. And it requires nuance. Not that we have that in good supply these days. Why? See above.
Thing is, three, that same fallacy can also work in a sort of reverse fashion. I am glad you don't defend Scher (his comments about attendees and victims of assault are odious). But I also think it is wrong to give Lang a pass on this festival . . . because he ran a better one in the 60s (and I grant your point about how business factored into the differences as well). I just think Lang struck gold once and rode on that for a long, long time. Granted, he launched a label, helped manage some major and minor artists, and also oversaw MLO But would any of that happened if not for the original festival and the mystique that it carried (and still carries)? Was he clueless? Well, perhaps. But I don't see that as an excuse when you stand side by side with Scher and smile as you know--I mean, you know--that the event is starting to split apart at the seams. Nor do I think his waxing nostalgic/life is groovy shtick is anything but a trained persona, one he used to sell himself and his product and this festival. That they couldn't sell another one--and, yes, he was a hired hand for Woodstock 50--after this suggests something.
More generally, I agree with you that we humans are, in spite of our better blessing, still animals. I also agree that rhetoric can do as much to divide as it can to bring people together. And, like you, I shed a tear or two watching those events unfold (even as I, as I mentioned, had a friend who went, got out of there safe and sound, and said he had a great time).
As always, appreciate your insights.
I fuckin' hate that.
I was going to annoy you and explain (in a line by line spreadsheet) how I never made a dime providing foster care...and lost so much in the process. A nugget that mb disputes and her lead guitarist explained to me, ad nauseam.
But that doesn't compare to the free wisdom that some on here spew.
I mean, "I get this information, just because
Metalboy! is a dude. Has he had a guitarist? No idea. But he is a dude, a fact to which I and the dear proprietor of this fine site can attest.
A smaller point is that it sucks the oxygen from whatever else it is you are talking about. And, given that you do have stories to tell, wouldn't you like those stories--even if they are shot out of a random canon in the direction of who-knows-what--to stand on their own?
Wishing (that) you (are) well, Fletch. Truly.