thos173 Don't expect this film to reveal its charms on first viewing. It is akin to a difficult piece of classical music. The first view is strictly baffling. The juxtaposition of elements is absurd, the characterisations fantastical. It marches on. You don't know where it is going. To Godard's chagrin no doubt, he creates beautiful scenes, amongst them Anne Wiazemsky's disappearance into the green wood. He provides an uninterrupted view. Historically fascinating - London with its rough edges. And the Stones at work and play with Nicky Hopkins pulling it together on the keyboards. A must see for Stonesologists and rock specialists. Political fire in the belly. Not time wasted. A sharpening experience.

rooprect To save you time, I'll make some broad generalizations up front. Further down I'll get more into the guts of this film, but if you're just trying to decide if this movie is worth 2hrs of your life, here's what you need to know:If you're a hardcore Stones fan, then this film will possibly irritate you, maybe even to the point of rioting as Stones fans reportedly did at the premiere of this film in '68. This is not a documentary about the Stones nor is it a documentary at all. It's a film that Godard had been intending to make about counter-culture revolution, and it just happened to coincide with Godard filming the Stones recording "Sympathy for the Devil", so he mashed them together and this is the result.If you're a Godard fan, you might appreciate what he tried to accomplish here, but all the same, I've never met a Godard fan who considers this among his better efforts.With a visionary filmmaker like Godard and a very poetic & provocative song like "Sympathy for the Devil", you'd think the marriage of the two would spawn a work of art the likes of which hadn't been seen since Pink Floyd's "The Wall". (Yeah I know The Wall came out in 1982 but bear with me, I'm onna roll).Instead I feel like the two themes didn't exactly gel. Godard took a markedly different approach which, on its own, could have been a worthy film. Rather than follow the Stones' lead with an intriguing historical narrative that leads us from Biblical times to the assassination of JFK, Godard just throws a bunch of unrelated vignettes full of superfluous political blather (intended to be tiresome) interspersed with Stones recording the song, and we are to accept that they are somehow related?While both the song & the film make heavy use of irony & sarcasm, and while both the song & the film are about the decline of human society due to human nature ("the devil"), the Stones & Godard are on different ends of the spectrum. What makes the Stones song so memorable is its suave, seductive flair told in 1st person narrative. In the very first line, Mick introduces the devil (the speaker) as "a man of wealth and taste". Essentially, this presents a very revolutionary concept of the devil: not an, ugly, smelly, cartoonish creature with a pitchfork but a charming, hypnotizing, classy character.It would have been great if the film had followed along this absolutely central theme, but instead it took a very base, unattractive approach that was not enticing at all. There are no classy gents playing the devil here, instead we get the Black Panthers in a squalid junkyard spouting NOT hypnotic words but pulpy rhetoric which we immediately dismiss as pointless ravings as they casually commit base murder before our eyes.In another example, Godard sets up a comical slapstick scene in a comic book store that also sells porn & Nazi propaganda, where the customers are allowed to take what they want in exchange for a "heil Hitler" and a slap across the face of two kidnapped hippies. I thought that was a hilarious scene, but really it was jarringly incongruous with the Stones song.Between the half dozen vignettes like the Black Panther scene & the comic book scene & scenes of someone spray painting graffiti slogans across London, we get abruptly shifted back to the studio sessions where the Stones are working out the details of their song. In contrast with the vignettes, the studio scenes are very somber, very respectful and very endearing to watch. I found myself wishing that someone actually *would* make a documentary about the "Sympathy" sessions because so much could have been expounded on. We see the slow evolution of the initial song (a gospel type ballad) to what it ultimately became, an ironically uptempo samba that draws its power from a seductive Afro-Brazilian candomblé beat. Again I'm harping on the seductiveness of the song, both lyrically and instrumentally, because it's a real shame that Godard either didn't pick up on that, or chose to go in the opposite direction with a (deliberately) unappealing visual show.Like I said, Godard's film would have been worthy on its own. The Stones song is, of course, a great piece of literature in its own right. But sticking them both together like this just didn't stick. I'm glad I saw this film, and I'll probably watch it again. But I wouldn't recommend it to anyone unless they're ready for a very strange and jarring experience.For a great marriage of movie & music, I would recommend the aforementioned "Pink Floyd The Wall" as well as "Tommy", a sarcastic, carnival-esque satire much like Godard's approach here but with the perfect music in the same vein, and maybe the Monkees movie "Head" which is a nearly-incomprehensible acid trip but with similarly nearly-incomprehensible lyrics that gel perfectly.

Michael_Elliott Sympathy for the Devil (1968) BOMB (out of 4) Jean-Luc Godard's "documentary" shows The Rolling Stones recording the title track while mixing in footage of the Black Panthers preaching hatred. This is without question one of the worst documentaries I've ever seen and it's the worth Godard film I've seen to date but it's rather amazing how incredibly stupid this legendary director can be at times. The title is going to attract mainly fans of The Rolling Stones but their footage isn't here for fans and I'm still trying to think of why Godard put the footage here. Apparently he's director's cut run eleven minutes longer and features more of the Black Panthers and it's clear that he wanted the spotlight on hate instead of the band so why include the band at all? There's one scene where a couple Black Panthers tell a story of how they want to kill white women and Godard follows this up with a short film of black men gunning down white women. There's non-stop hatred talk coming from this group so I'm really shocked there's not more controversy surrounding this film. There are various short films throughout the movie and there's all sorts of stuff acted out, which makes no sense when put together and you also get constant scenes of men spray painting cars. The Stones footage shows them recording the classic song from the early stages to its complete version but with all the other crap in this film I can't even recommend this to fans of the group.

andrabem "Sympathy for the Devil" is an excellent time capsule of the late 60s, and it's also a little cinematic gem. It's still actual today and the questions it poses were still not answered.The Stones are filmed rehearsing "Sympathy for the Devil" - the song is shown evolving from the raw draft to the accomplished end. Godard manages to show the Stones and their crew very much at ease. It's fascinating! Mick Jagger can be said to be the master of ceremonies that leads the show. Even for those that don't like the Rolling Stones it is very interesting to see how, slowly, the song becomes richer in sounds and nuances, till the band have managed to achieve what they wanted - the Stones are very satisfied and they groove."Sympathy for the Devil" is a song suited for what Godard wants to say - it tells the story of a gentleman (let me introduce myself. Im a man of wealth and taste). He has seen it all (I was around when Jesus Christ had his moment of doubt and pain), lived it all, understood it all. Crucifixion, revolution, war, prison etc.. Now he's singing this song to say something to the world. Maybe the Devil is God in exile (or the other way round).Godard mixes the Stones rehearsing "Sympathy for the Devil" with other episodes.1) A black revolutionary group in a car cemetery planning the revolution, checking their guns. Three white women wearing white dresses are led in at gunpoint (vestal virgins?) to be sacrificed for the revolution. Philosophy, revolutionary goals, anger, desires and hope. This is one of the episodes. One of the many faces of revolution.2) Anne Wiazemsky, wearing a light yellow dress, is interviewed in a kind of forest park. All she answers is Yes or No (the interviewer himself answers all the questions he asks). Through one of her answers we learn that her Name is Eve. All About Eve - another symbol.3) A magazine stand that sells magazines and pocket-books with lurid covers, where the owner delivers a very weird fascist speech. All the customers that buy something have still the right to slap two hippies that shout progressive slogans. The customers before leaving the store give the fascist salute.Sometimes there's also a voice in off making the silliest comments about world political leaders, describing their sexual romps etc..Take the Stones rehearsing again and again "Sympathy for the Devil" (the song's words serving as a commentary on the other episodes, and the other way round); mix it all together and you'll get an interesting portrait of the spirit of 68 . The times were changing fast, the hopes were high, and fear was present too. You can't take Godard completely seriously (he likes to make fun of everything, even the things he believes in), but he shows himself in "Sympathy for the Devil" as a sensitive and open-minded intellectual, conscious of his own limitations but in harmony with the times. He saw what was happening around him and wanted to take part in it. How? Simple! The only way he knew. To make a film. Sympathy for the Devil.The end of the film is an allegory. Revolution on the beach, shots, blood, his film crew.... A red and a black flag - both waving in the wind. Where is the yellow submarine?