I am not a terribly critical cinema-goer. I am, however, quite possessive of my free time and TELSTAR has robbed me of 2 precious hours.
My interest in Joe Meek began last autumn when I was taken to a documentary on the same character at the Raindance Film Festival. I believe it was called A LIFE IN THE DEATH OF JOE MEEK (an intriguing title). At the time, I had no previous knowledge of or even interest in Joe Meek or his music. In fact, I was actually dreading going! This was compounded by an interminable delay once we arrived on the queue. We waited nearly an hour for the film to begin! I mention this only as background, adding that once it was over, I regretted that I couldn't see it immediately again. It was informative (especially to someone relatively ignorant about the people, era and milieu under examination), hilarious, cogent, briskly paced, deeply emotional, inspirational and utterly engrossing. All this from what was introduced by the two young American filmmakers as a work in progress. I reiterate: a film that was complete, though not finished to their satisfaction as of the date of the screening. I am not one with a natural interest in documentaries in general (this was my first such experience in a theatre), but the filmmakers grasp of their cast and subject and sheer storytelling skill made me forget my conscious surroundings for the afternoon; and, as I mentioned, we had been standing on line for an hour previous. I was more than impressed, I had been CONVERTED. I now have an active interest in Joe Meek and his work and was eagerly awaiting the narrative telling of his story, which is the film in direct question: Nick Moran's TELSTAR.
Let me begin: Telstar is apparently based on a West End produced play from a few years ago by Mr. Moran, an actor by trade (I knew him from the enjoyable LOCK,STOCK AND TWO SMOKING BARRELS from a decade back). I can't speak for the quality of writing, directing or acting in that production. I didn't know about it when it ran. The film version, however, I did see. And words cannot express the disappointment and disgust that I felt all throughout the viewing. The first few minutes were promising as the style tried to emulate mod films of the sixties like TO SIR WITH LOVE or UP THE JUNCTION. However, I couldn't help noticing a strong (coincidental? perhaps not...) stylistic similarity with the documentary (similar title lettering and inter-titles), but perhaps the immediately abrasive and alienating performance of Con O'Neil as Joe and the dramatically revisionist or outright inaccurate recreation of historic events and characters had me pining for the doc again. To worsen the effect even further was the mean spirited depiction of Joe by Moran. It often seemed that Joe's career was considered a joke or his superior recording ability (he was, after all, the most in demand and influential studio engineer in the 1950's here in the UK, a time littered with many formidable talents in the field) was noting but a haphazard fluke (illustrated with too many moments of Joe idiotically twisting knobs in the control booth, hoping for some of his "magic" to appear). This is insultingly condescending, again, especially in comparison to the vast testimony on display in the documentary, even from those who apparently were not that fond of the man on a personal level. My head was shaking "no" so frequently during the viewing, I could have well been mistaken for having a neuromuscular disorder! Another crucial flaw in the presentation was the supporting cast. Rather than cast boys between the ages of 15 and 17 (which was the correct age of most of the young musicians recording for Joe during his time as an independent record producer), everyone seems to be pushing 30! Imagine what Moran would do to OLIVER! Would he cast John Statham as the Artful Dodger? David Beckham as Oliver? Such toying with the ages of these lads dramatically shifts the audiences perception of WHY his musicians looked at him with such ridicule. But, according to much testimony in the documentary (it rears it's pretty head again and again), many of these young men actually seemed to like working with him due to the creative opportunities he gave them not available at more rigid studios. It was also frequently stated that Joe was not that abrasive (as depicted in TELSTAR) but that he had short, motivated period of hysterics and outburst. Another rather bizarre depiction is that he only had one band recording for him, here shown as the house band The Tornadoes. In actuality, he had many bands with many dramatically different sounds and styles; some that he created and some that recorded for him after the auditioning process. My question will always be: How did 2 young American filmmakers achieve so much accuracy, humanity and inspiration in 2 hours and Moran, a British native fail so grandly on all accounts in the exact same amount of time? In all, I found TELSTAR (the title is NOT intriguing, despite its, here, underdeveloped significance) to be a depressing, mean spirited, disrespectful, near-condemnation of someone who should rightfully be held up as one of England's few true human national treasures, despite his all too human flaws.
Badly paced. Poorly written. Incoherently structured. Frustratingly inaccurate. Depressingly judgemental.
If you are looking for a completely dispiriting evening at the cinema you've come to the right place.
My interest in Joe Meek began last autumn when I was taken to a documentary on the same character at the Raindance Film Festival. I believe it was called A LIFE IN THE DEATH OF JOE MEEK (an intriguing title). At the time, I had no previous knowledge of or even interest in Joe Meek or his music. In fact, I was actually dreading going! This was compounded by an interminable delay once we arrived on the queue. We waited nearly an hour for the film to begin! I mention this only as background, adding that once it was over, I regretted that I couldn't see it immediately again. It was informative (especially to someone relatively ignorant about the people, era and milieu under examination), hilarious, cogent, briskly paced, deeply emotional, inspirational and utterly engrossing. All this from what was introduced by the two young American filmmakers as a work in progress. I reiterate: a film that was complete, though not finished to their satisfaction as of the date of the screening. I am not one with a natural interest in documentaries in general (this was my first such experience in a theatre), but the filmmakers grasp of their cast and subject and sheer storytelling skill made me forget my conscious surroundings for the afternoon; and, as I mentioned, we had been standing on line for an hour previous. I was more than impressed, I had been CONVERTED. I now have an active interest in Joe Meek and his work and was eagerly awaiting the narrative telling of his story, which is the film in direct question: Nick Moran's TELSTAR.
Let me begin: Telstar is apparently based on a West End produced play from a few years ago by Mr. Moran, an actor by trade (I knew him from the enjoyable LOCK,STOCK AND TWO SMOKING BARRELS from a decade back). I can't speak for the quality of writing, directing or acting in that production. I didn't know about it when it ran. The film version, however, I did see. And words cannot express the disappointment and disgust that I felt all throughout the viewing. The first few minutes were promising as the style tried to emulate mod films of the sixties like TO SIR WITH LOVE or UP THE JUNCTION. However, I couldn't help noticing a strong (coincidental? perhaps not...) stylistic similarity with the documentary (similar title lettering and inter-titles), but perhaps the immediately abrasive and alienating performance of Con O'Neil as Joe and the dramatically revisionist or outright inaccurate recreation of historic events and characters had me pining for the doc again. To worsen the effect even further was the mean spirited depiction of Joe by Moran. It often seemed that Joe's career was considered a joke or his superior recording ability (he was, after all, the most in demand and influential studio engineer in the 1950's here in the UK, a time littered with many formidable talents in the field) was noting but a haphazard fluke (illustrated with too many moments of Joe idiotically twisting knobs in the control booth, hoping for some of his "magic" to appear). This is insultingly condescending, again, especially in comparison to the vast testimony on display in the documentary, even from those who apparently were not that fond of the man on a personal level. My head was shaking "no" so frequently during the viewing, I could have well been mistaken for having a neuromuscular disorder! Another crucial flaw in the presentation was the supporting cast. Rather than cast boys between the ages of 15 and 17 (which was the correct age of most of the young musicians recording for Joe during his time as an independent record producer), everyone seems to be pushing 30! Imagine what Moran would do to OLIVER! Would he cast John Statham as the Artful Dodger? David Beckham as Oliver? Such toying with the ages of these lads dramatically shifts the audiences perception of WHY his musicians looked at him with such ridicule. But, according to much testimony in the documentary (it rears it's pretty head again and again), many of these young men actually seemed to like working with him due to the creative opportunities he gave them not available at more rigid studios. It was also frequently stated that Joe was not that abrasive (as depicted in TELSTAR) but that he had short, motivated period of hysterics and outburst. Another rather bizarre depiction is that he only had one band recording for him, here shown as the house band The Tornadoes. In actuality, he had many bands with many dramatically different sounds and styles; some that he created and some that recorded for him after the auditioning process. My question will always be: How did 2 young American filmmakers achieve so much accuracy, humanity and inspiration in 2 hours and Moran, a British native fail so grandly on all accounts in the exact same amount of time? In all, I found TELSTAR (the title is NOT intriguing, despite its, here, underdeveloped significance) to be a depressing, mean spirited, disrespectful, near-condemnation of someone who should rightfully be held up as one of England's few true human national treasures, despite his all too human flaws.
Badly paced. Poorly written. Incoherently structured. Frustratingly inaccurate. Depressingly judgemental.
If you are looking for a completely dispiriting evening at the cinema you've come to the right place.