Taking Woodstock

For the holidays, I am buying a calendar for every studio and marketing exec in Hollywood. They put out Halloween movies in August. Christmas movies come out at Halloween. I suspect we'll get a Thanksgiving movie on the Fourth of July one of these days. Now, Focus Features is giving us Taking Woodstock about three weeks after anyone cares about the 40th anniversary of Woodstock.

Set in 1969, Demetri Martin stars as Elliott - a young man with big ambitions who helps his family run their dowdy motel in the Catskill Mountains. While most of his life is in New York, and he feels somewhat chained to the family's faltering business, he makes the most of it by serving as the Chamber of Commerce president and starting a small music and arts festival to bring some culture and business to the failing motel.

Elliott has been following news of the troubled production of a massive rock concert that was supposed to take place in nearby Ulster County, then got kicked out of Wallkill when the town officials started to fear the amount of people it would attract (and they might not have been happy about all of those hippies showing up either). Sensing a massive opportunity, and holding a permit for a summer music and arts festival, Elliott contacts his buddy Michael Lang (Jonathan Groff), who is part of the team producing what will become known as Woodstock.

Can they pull it off?

Will this save Elliott’s family business?

Will he be able to move on and embrace the life he wants to lead?

Director Ang Lee and writer James Schamus (based on the book by Elliott Tibur) seem to be torn in two directions when making Taking Woodstock. On the one hand, they want to give us the flavor and history of that wild weekend 40 years ago, but, on the other hand, they are trying to make a coming of age movie where Elliott reaches some big conclusions during one magical summer. Unfortunately, neither story is all that amazing, but neither one is all that horrifying either.

While this is Elliott's story, and you could probably call it, "What Elliott Saw at the Revolution," it feels like Lee and Schamus never give enough time to the personal nor the public story. The audience gets a sense of what happened, the troubles the producers faced when putting together the festival, and the issues the area faced as thousands upon thousands descended on the small, rural county, which was more 1950's than 1960's, but we never get heavy details or shocking revelations. Is it because we are all too familiar with the real story after weeks of documentaries, news stories and nostalgia?

Instead of getting a fresh perspective, the audience sees the stereotypical 1960's experiences including the sexual awakening, the first hit of LSD and all of those squares who don't understand the message of hope and love. We even get the Vietnam vet who is back in town. Been there. Done that.

Then, Lee and Schamus attempt to show us Elliott's personal life, but this also feels stereotypical. The audience sees the strife between all of the family members, his mother's (Imelda Staunton) meanness and pettiness, the father's (Henry Goodman) blasé attitude, and more. Again, this is like a paint-by-numbers storyline we have seen time and time again.

Worst of all, Taking Woodstock never feels real. Lee never sets a tone that makes us take any of it seriously, even though he wants us to get serious from time to time. Lee allows the superficial to drown out the depth and the silliness feels out of place, especially as Taking Woodstock moves towards its conclusion.

Taking Woodstock is rated R for graphic nudity, some sexual content, drug use and language.