Both the strengths and the flaws of PRIVILEGE are easily spotted within the first five minutes of its running time . A voice over announces it's Britain in the near future and Stephen Shorter messianic rock god is thrown over a barrier , dragged into a cage and harassed by sadistic warders much to the disgust of his captivated female audience of all ages . The background music of discordant guitar feedback changes to one of a synth with a guitar rift and Stephen bursts into a song that will have you playing air guitar and tapping your toes . In short the music is by far the best thing about the movie
So what's wrong with the rest of the miss en scene ? Peter Watkins insists on directing in the Italian Neo-realist style which while very popular amongst European film makers in the late 1940s and early 1950s - And not to mention amongst European film critics in the 1960s - is a style of film making that didn't catch on in mainstream cinema . It worked fine in Watkin's previous work like CULLODEN and THE WAR GAME but these were precursors to what we now call " docudramas " , the only time we see a natural home for the Italian neo-realist style . It should also be mentioned that the shots of weeping teenage girls gnashing their teeth and running their hands through their hair could only have come from the 1960s and isn't there something laughably ridiculous having women in their late middle age drooling over a music god ? Do the words " Monty " and " Python " and " Sketch " spring to mind ?
As the story continues there's something of a lack of internal continuity to this scene . You see both the state and the church want to use the popularity and charisma of Shorter to control the population for their own end , in short to make popular music in general and Stephen Shorter in particular the new opiate of the masses . If that's the case then why have Shorter portray himself as the angry young man and rebel in the start of the film ? Wouldn't that give rebellious youth a few ideas that the state would prefer them not to have in the first place ? There are a few more ridiculous scenes in the movie with pride of place going to the monks recording Onward Christian Soldiers . You can't help thinking this movie influenced Palin , Cleese , Chapman and co to start up a comedy troupe
These criticisms are noticeable but shouldn't be used as a weapon to attack the film as being a schlock movie or meaningless . Let's not forget if Bush and Blair want to be seen doing good in the world then all they have to do is call a press conference and have Bob Geldof and Bono talk about AIDS , starving babies and third world debt and the link between Nuremberg rallies and present day rock concerts is presented very well , it's just that you're never entirely convinced an Illuminati would never need to pull strings in order to bring about fascist regimes or fundamentalist theocracies because these type of societies come about via more obvious methods
PRIVILEGE was a film that was supposed to make a star out of Paul Jones and put Watkins on the map as Britain's most important film director . Unfortunately due to the rather heavy handed story which suits the director's style it caused a lot of distributors in both Britain and the United States to either refuse to show it or confine it to very limited release which meant very few people saw it . It's also a film that very rarely crops up on network television either , to my knowledge Channel 4 last showed it 20 years ago which is a great pity because this deserves to be at least a cult classic whatever its flaws and for music fans who have bought Patti Smith's Easter album just wait till you hear Jones perform the original Set Me Free
So what's wrong with the rest of the miss en scene ? Peter Watkins insists on directing in the Italian Neo-realist style which while very popular amongst European film makers in the late 1940s and early 1950s - And not to mention amongst European film critics in the 1960s - is a style of film making that didn't catch on in mainstream cinema . It worked fine in Watkin's previous work like CULLODEN and THE WAR GAME but these were precursors to what we now call " docudramas " , the only time we see a natural home for the Italian neo-realist style . It should also be mentioned that the shots of weeping teenage girls gnashing their teeth and running their hands through their hair could only have come from the 1960s and isn't there something laughably ridiculous having women in their late middle age drooling over a music god ? Do the words " Monty " and " Python " and " Sketch " spring to mind ?
As the story continues there's something of a lack of internal continuity to this scene . You see both the state and the church want to use the popularity and charisma of Shorter to control the population for their own end , in short to make popular music in general and Stephen Shorter in particular the new opiate of the masses . If that's the case then why have Shorter portray himself as the angry young man and rebel in the start of the film ? Wouldn't that give rebellious youth a few ideas that the state would prefer them not to have in the first place ? There are a few more ridiculous scenes in the movie with pride of place going to the monks recording Onward Christian Soldiers . You can't help thinking this movie influenced Palin , Cleese , Chapman and co to start up a comedy troupe
These criticisms are noticeable but shouldn't be used as a weapon to attack the film as being a schlock movie or meaningless . Let's not forget if Bush and Blair want to be seen doing good in the world then all they have to do is call a press conference and have Bob Geldof and Bono talk about AIDS , starving babies and third world debt and the link between Nuremberg rallies and present day rock concerts is presented very well , it's just that you're never entirely convinced an Illuminati would never need to pull strings in order to bring about fascist regimes or fundamentalist theocracies because these type of societies come about via more obvious methods
PRIVILEGE was a film that was supposed to make a star out of Paul Jones and put Watkins on the map as Britain's most important film director . Unfortunately due to the rather heavy handed story which suits the director's style it caused a lot of distributors in both Britain and the United States to either refuse to show it or confine it to very limited release which meant very few people saw it . It's also a film that very rarely crops up on network television either , to my knowledge Channel 4 last showed it 20 years ago which is a great pity because this deserves to be at least a cult classic whatever its flaws and for music fans who have bought Patti Smith's Easter album just wait till you hear Jones perform the original Set Me Free