Most reviews of this documentary start off in the same general way, with the reviewer stating that he or she is a big fan of Cohen's work. This makes sense, after all, it would be pretty miserable to sit through ninety minutes of songs and interviews by / about /with someone whose work you despise.
So, let me say now, I am a big fan of Leonard Cohen.
As such, it is natural to regard attempts to pay tribute to an artist's work with some dubiety. There are two forms 'tributes' take, generally - "We're not worthy" grovelling or shameless gold-digging. Often it is hard to tell the separate the two. This documentary has a lot of the former, but this tendency towards veneration is balanced by the fact that many of the renditions of Cohen's songs are really good, if predictable.
The film consists of three strands - footage of performances of a tribute concert staged in Sydney in 2005, discussions of Cohen's work by the performers and Cohen himself talking about his life. By pursuing these different routes, the film makers reach no clear end.
There is SOME concert footage, but not enough. There is SOME discussion of Cohen's work by his admirers, but too much. There is some interesting information about Cohen, from the man himself, but it is too restricted and disjointed. It is frustrating that an interesting observation by Cohen isn't explored further, or that a riveting performance of one of his songs is followed by Bono offering his arid thoughts.
Stand out performances included Martha Wainwright's bleak performance of 'The Traitor,' brother Rufus singing 'Chelsea Hotel,' Anthony's rendition of 'If it be your Will,' and the duet of Julie Christensen and Perla Battala on 'Anthem.' Nick Cave provides a couple of workmanlike performances, though there is a feeling that he should have been able to find something more than he delivers. Jarvis Cocker - perhaps the most interesting inclusion - gives an odd rendition of 'I Can't Forget' - which irritated me at first, but which I've subsequently come to admire.
Which raises a question about the purpose of the concert. As we watch the concert footage, are we seeking a Cohen adulation-fest with his songs rendered straight, or looking for something strange and unusual with them, and encourage us to see the material in new ways? Given the conservative choices of performers, and the tribute concert setting, and the songs selected, it's pretty obvious that the producers had the former in mind as they planned the concert, which is a shame.
There are three types of people in the world - those who are not familiar with Cohen's work, those who know it and want to be reminded about how nice it is, and those who know it and want to be reminded how great it is. The second category will enjoy this unreservedly. They'll hear great songs well presented, but the exercise is suspiciously middle of the road - here is a good song, sung pretty much the way you know it, so everyone can join in with the chorus.
Basically, a lot of the concert seemed to be pandering to people's preconceived idea of what Leonard Cohen's music was. If he was as influential as is claimed, let's hear the reggae and afro-beat versions of his songs, let's hear them translated into Afghan and sung by choirs of amputees (that might be in rather poor taste, but you get the idea). If Cohen's music is as vital as it is meant to be (and I believe it is), it doesn't need to be preserved in aspic. If Leonard Cohen's fans are as discerning as they think they are (I think, unfortunately, they are not) then they would find the experience at least interesting, perhaps exhilarating.
Most likely, of course, a tribute concert along those lines would be a commercial disaster. It would work, perhaps, as a straight album, or performances recorded in a studio setting, rather than in an opera house in front of thousands of fans wanting to hear the songs the way they like them.
As for the Cohen interviews, they are interesting, but presented in a disjointed manner that allows little more than a general picture of the man to emerge. He was from Canada, he went to New York, wrote a dirty song about Janis Joplin, but wasn't as much of a ladies' man as people think and became a Bhuddist monk. There should be more of this, or less.
Then there are the interviews with the performers and various Cohen devotees. These are, pretty much what you would expect. It is, after all, unlikely someone asked to give an opinion for a project like this would be gauche enough to say something bad, and it is even less likely that such a comment would have made it to the final cut. You learn little beyond the fact that those involved really like Leonard Cohen, which is nice, but it is repeated a few times too many. Bono appears, as he seems to do in every thing these days, and provides some unintentional comedy with his praise of the Godlike genius of Cohen. He is given too much screen time and he doesn't have much to say, though the film makers provide some sort of service by capturing him mispronouncing 'chasm.' Hah-ha. Plonker.
It is worth watching, though there are a thousand different versions of the concert and film that Might Have Been, all of them holding out more promise than this one realized.
So, let me say now, I am a big fan of Leonard Cohen.
As such, it is natural to regard attempts to pay tribute to an artist's work with some dubiety. There are two forms 'tributes' take, generally - "We're not worthy" grovelling or shameless gold-digging. Often it is hard to tell the separate the two. This documentary has a lot of the former, but this tendency towards veneration is balanced by the fact that many of the renditions of Cohen's songs are really good, if predictable.
The film consists of three strands - footage of performances of a tribute concert staged in Sydney in 2005, discussions of Cohen's work by the performers and Cohen himself talking about his life. By pursuing these different routes, the film makers reach no clear end.
There is SOME concert footage, but not enough. There is SOME discussion of Cohen's work by his admirers, but too much. There is some interesting information about Cohen, from the man himself, but it is too restricted and disjointed. It is frustrating that an interesting observation by Cohen isn't explored further, or that a riveting performance of one of his songs is followed by Bono offering his arid thoughts.
Stand out performances included Martha Wainwright's bleak performance of 'The Traitor,' brother Rufus singing 'Chelsea Hotel,' Anthony's rendition of 'If it be your Will,' and the duet of Julie Christensen and Perla Battala on 'Anthem.' Nick Cave provides a couple of workmanlike performances, though there is a feeling that he should have been able to find something more than he delivers. Jarvis Cocker - perhaps the most interesting inclusion - gives an odd rendition of 'I Can't Forget' - which irritated me at first, but which I've subsequently come to admire.
Which raises a question about the purpose of the concert. As we watch the concert footage, are we seeking a Cohen adulation-fest with his songs rendered straight, or looking for something strange and unusual with them, and encourage us to see the material in new ways? Given the conservative choices of performers, and the tribute concert setting, and the songs selected, it's pretty obvious that the producers had the former in mind as they planned the concert, which is a shame.
There are three types of people in the world - those who are not familiar with Cohen's work, those who know it and want to be reminded about how nice it is, and those who know it and want to be reminded how great it is. The second category will enjoy this unreservedly. They'll hear great songs well presented, but the exercise is suspiciously middle of the road - here is a good song, sung pretty much the way you know it, so everyone can join in with the chorus.
Basically, a lot of the concert seemed to be pandering to people's preconceived idea of what Leonard Cohen's music was. If he was as influential as is claimed, let's hear the reggae and afro-beat versions of his songs, let's hear them translated into Afghan and sung by choirs of amputees (that might be in rather poor taste, but you get the idea). If Cohen's music is as vital as it is meant to be (and I believe it is), it doesn't need to be preserved in aspic. If Leonard Cohen's fans are as discerning as they think they are (I think, unfortunately, they are not) then they would find the experience at least interesting, perhaps exhilarating.
Most likely, of course, a tribute concert along those lines would be a commercial disaster. It would work, perhaps, as a straight album, or performances recorded in a studio setting, rather than in an opera house in front of thousands of fans wanting to hear the songs the way they like them.
As for the Cohen interviews, they are interesting, but presented in a disjointed manner that allows little more than a general picture of the man to emerge. He was from Canada, he went to New York, wrote a dirty song about Janis Joplin, but wasn't as much of a ladies' man as people think and became a Bhuddist monk. There should be more of this, or less.
Then there are the interviews with the performers and various Cohen devotees. These are, pretty much what you would expect. It is, after all, unlikely someone asked to give an opinion for a project like this would be gauche enough to say something bad, and it is even less likely that such a comment would have made it to the final cut. You learn little beyond the fact that those involved really like Leonard Cohen, which is nice, but it is repeated a few times too many. Bono appears, as he seems to do in every thing these days, and provides some unintentional comedy with his praise of the Godlike genius of Cohen. He is given too much screen time and he doesn't have much to say, though the film makers provide some sort of service by capturing him mispronouncing 'chasm.' Hah-ha. Plonker.
It is worth watching, though there are a thousand different versions of the concert and film that Might Have Been, all of them holding out more promise than this one realized.