comment #1

Stephe96 says ...

Obama supporters should try to turn the Stones into Hillary's very own Reverend Wright. "Let's see, they're known drug users who sing about sex and the Devil. And Hillary's been a fan of theirs for HOW long?!?! Why the hell didn't she disassociate herself from their music the minute she heard Sympathy for the Devil? Or does she actually endorse Satan-worship? Hmmm..."

comment #2

Wrecktum says ...

"She's also told reporters she's a big Stones fan, and admires Jagger's 'incredible presence...he's very disciplined, he works out, and he's incredibly devoted to what he does.'"

Said like a devoted fan! Most Stones fans, when discussing their love of Mick, talk about his discipline and dedicated work-out routine. I mean, to hell with his singing or showmanship. It's all about the process, not the craft.

comment #3

mtgilchrist says ...

This is one of the dumbest posts you've ever put up, Jeff. The fact that the concert was a benefit that Bill Clinton was helping promote has nothing to do with anything in terms of our current political climate, Hillary or anything else. I mean, really? Seeing Hillary Clinton shake hands with the Rolling Stones for 15 seconds seriously affects your feelings about the MOVIE in any way? Just because this is your blog and you are responsible for providing content for the site doesn't preclude your responsibility to differentiate between those little brain farts of yours and insights of actual significance. Posting stuff like this is damaging because it promotes politically-irrelevant moments like these and polarizes people who otherwise would go see the movie because you're suggesting it's about something other than Scorsese indulging his cinematographic impulses in order to capture a Stones concert. In other words, not only was this thought stupid, but irreponsible.

comment #4

corey3rd says ...

What about the scene where Hillary pushes Ahmet Ertegun to get to Mick?

comment #5

T. Holly says ...

Dude, if you had read the interviews which I hat- tipped MCN to after they ran the LATimes non-interview, i.e. the 3 real interview which I found because I'm a really good, efficient searcher, but which I'd gladly pay for a service that allowed me to do it for myself in a less time consuming manner, and which would bring news and blogs into the same fold without eliminating each other's format, stature or base, but that created a clearinghouse which stopped the stealing (via free links) and increased everybody's revenue and saved writing from becoming "a devotion rather than a job," which I explained in the "What it Takes" post, you'd know that, "It turned out to be quite a big night when the Rolling Stones played New York's Beacon Theater in October 2006. There was a birthday party for Bill Clinton, who had turned 60 in August." And that the "invitees and insiders" who attended "in support of the Clinton Foundation (Bill Clinton does the onstage introductions) - is an enthusiastic lot, if a bit homogeneous."

comment #6

gruver1 says ...

Wells to mtgilcrhist: If you're not willing to vent the occasional brain fart, even if it reveals an aspect if your nature that isn't entirely flattering, you're not really a writer -- you're a publicist, a politician, a strategic posturer. The fact is that (a) Hillary Clinton is, here and now, by any fair reckoning by current political criteria, a kind of demonic figure -- a kind of political sociopath who can't see beyond her own hunger and ego, and (b) she's in the movie. You can harumph and scold and equivocate all you want. The fact is that when she comes on-screen, the vibe of the film darkens. It really does. A little bit of an ick thing kicks in. Hillary is a person with dirty baggage, and the aura of Martin Scorsese and the Rolling Stones seems, out of the blue, to be a slightly less special thing when she appears. It doesn't last, she goes away, the movie rolls on. I said in the post that there's nothing wrong about her being a fan and that it's nothing to really fret about. But to wave this away and say it's nothing at all is just denial, plain and simple. It's not a virus and not in the least bit an atmospheric "problem," but it is a little pimple on the cheek of the movie.

comment #7

dangovich says ...

Hillary also confided to reporters that she had been stabbed by a Hells Angel at Altamont in '69.

comment #8

Mr. Muckle says ...

I don't know how anyone can be a Stones fan at this late date. They're 30 years past their prime, and it went downhill quick back then. People on this blog who complain mightily if, say, Will Ferrell plays the same character for 3 or 4 movies in a row, don't seem to mind when the Stones play the same characters for decades. God, it's boring. Are they anything more than showbiz shtick? Al Jolson.

comment #9

Rich S. says ...

Well, I for one am not taking any changes. I've shredded all my Stones CDs and tapes, put them in a bag with dog crap, set it on fire and put it out front of the local Clinton campaign office. That should keep my HE membership card in good standing until November.

comment #10

mtgilchrist says ...

I do this professionally as well, and am perfectly aware of the value of a personal observation or insight. But to equate a reaction based on personal prejudice/ feeling with some sense of intent - meaning the film aspires to support Hillary and the Clintons because they take advantage of a photo-op in order to meet the Stones - is irresponsible, manipulative and opinion-mongering. I have seen the film and the "sequence" where they meet lasts all of two minutes, involves some hand-shaking and focuses 90% of its attention on Bill; the point, if there was one, is to show that even dignitaries and political figures get starstruck, and (evidenced by your post) would require some pointed and specific opinions in order to equate any of that with some kind of tonal shift or reflection of anyone's personality except that of the Stones and Scorsese. The problem, Jeff, isn't that you offered an observation about Hillary's presence in the movie, but that you equated your reaction with an objective assessment of how it functions within the movie, and worse yet, how audiences will themselves absolutely react. That I never felt or considered this when watching the film is testament enough to the fact not everyone will feel this way, and whether or not you're an esteemed pundit or critic of film and the industry (which you are) you have to be aware that your opinion is (1) solely yours, and (2) not a fact, which is the way you presented this "news."

comment #11

lazespud says ...

I personally could care less that she's in the movie, but this quote:

She's also told reporters she's a big Stones fan, and admires Jagger's "incredible presence...he's very disciplined, he works out, and he's incredibly devoted to what he does."

My god, how pedestrian and safe. No one describes a rock star that way. It's pretty clear that Both Obama and Clinton take a lot of time to consider their words, but what comes out of Obama's mouth is typically eloquent or moving and what comes out of Clinton's mouth is often calculatingly safe, like she's consider all of the angles and how her words might be used against her...

comment #12

gruver1 says ...

Wells to mtgilchrist: "News"? That's ridiculous. I didn't present anything in the above posting as "news." You're just wanking now. You're obviously aware of the definition of the words "seems" and "almost," so what is declarative or definitive about writing that Hillary's walk-on "makes it seem, almost, as if Scorsese, Mick and/or Keith are Hillary backers on some level. Which may not be the case at all. They may not give a damn one way or the other." Almost! Seems! I wiggled and qualified all over the place with those three lines. You're wasting my time and the eye-concentration energy of thousands right now. This is over now. Thanks for urinating. You're fascinating.

comment #13

dangovich says ...

Hillary also likes Mick because at the massive Live Aid concerts in 1985, he chose to toss aside party loyalty (in the form of his bandmates the Stones) for a spotlight-hogging, ego gratifying duet with Tina Turner.

comment #14

christian says ...

Clinton also won the California primary, so I'm sprinkling salt all over the state before the purifying bonfire. Otherwise her hooven prints will scar Los Angeles forever. And who voted for her? I'll have to exorcise and burn them too. Oh well. At least I have my print of WOODSTOCK, a stack of lite jazz records and my eternal chess game. Damn them!

comment #15

Stacy Atlas says ...

Hillary bashing has become a lamentable sport that is not helping the Democratic party. Both Hillary and Barack have stated on numerous occasions that there is little difference between them. Everyone's energy would be better spent if it were focused on bashing "Bomb Bomb" McCain; that is, if they sincerely want a Democrat in the White House.

comment #16

Ronald McFirbank says ...

"except that it sours my feelings about the film"

If I let the hippy-dippy politics of the people who star in movies spoil movies for me, I'd never watch anything. Except maybe John Malkovich movies.

comment #17

Arizona Joe says ...

I saw Bill Clinton at the Stones concert for global warming at the Staples Center in 2003. I think he truly digs their music.

Hillary, I doubt it. But if she made a cameo for political reasons, it's not that big of a deal. And most of these concert films show celebs in the crowd just to punch it up a little bit. I mean, wasn't Cary Grant in the audience at one of those filmed Elvis gigs in Las Vegas?

I really doubt Mick and Keith are Hillary backers. They are going to go with the black guy. In addition, those cats like to burnish their image with celebrities like anyone else.

Even Keith is convivial these days. A few years back he chatted up Lauren Bacall at some event. She said to Keith, "You remind me of Bogie."

comment #18

Jay T. says ...

"I really doubt Mick and Keith are Hillary backers. They are going to go with the black guy."

http://mjracist.ytmnd.com/ ;-)

comment #19

BurmaShave says ...

Wasn't this Stones show for Bill Clinton's birthday party? Also, the British in general seem to like Hillary a lot, or so I've read.

comment #20

T. Holly says ...

I said that somewhere in my barely readable comment. This post is not news, it's somewhere between tasty internet froth and smelly brain fart.

comment #21

corey3rd says ...

let me get this right - Bill Clinton had a birthday party in October - months after his real birthday? What a bogus event.

comment #22

Alas says ...

Thank you for your post. Nice Information.
cheap cigarettes