<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: That Infamous Unreleased Rolling Stones Movie</title>
	<atom:link href="http://moviemorlocks.com/2009/01/31/that-infamous-unreleased-rolling-stones-movie/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://moviemorlocks.com/2009/01/31/that-infamous-unreleased-rolling-stones-movie/</link>
	<description>MovieMorlocks.com is the official blog for Turner Classic Movies (TCM). No topic is too obscure or niche to be excluded from our film discussions. And we welcome your comments on our blogs and bloggers.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 17:28:25 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim M.</title>
		<link>http://moviemorlocks.com/2009/01/31/that-infamous-unreleased-rolling-stones-movie/#comment-20567</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jim M.]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Sep 2011 10:58:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://moviemorlocks.com/?p=6951#comment-20567</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I agree with others here the shock value of &quot;Cocksucker Blues&quot; has long since expired (partly a result of time marching on), as have any legal statutes of limitations concerning the illicit drug use in the film by Keith Richards, who has since been tried, convicted, and performed his &quot;community service&quot; (stemming from a Canadian drug trafficking charge), in the form of a benefit concert for the blind by the Stones&#039; sideshow entity, The New Barbarians.

Actually, a far more consequential work of the same title is the song &quot;Cocksucker Blues,&quot; a number featuring only Mick Jagger&#039;s vocals and Richards on acoustic guitar, which served the desired effect of fulfilling the band&#039;s remaining contractual obligations to their first record label, Decca Records, simultaneously pissing off Decca chairman, Sir Edward Lewis.

I also agree with others here the documentaries &quot;Gimme Shelter&quot; and &quot;Ladies &amp; Gentlmen: The Rolling Stones&quot; are far better concert films. But for a devout Stones fan and voyeur, one may not beat this Robert Frankumentary! This is as close as most fans of the band, as well the casual observer, will get to being that proverbial &quot;fly on the wall,&quot; albeit a wall that is now showing more than a few cracks.

For the record, &quot;Ladies &amp; Gents&quot; HAS now been released on home video. So it&#039;s probably time The Glimmer Twins at least not object to director Frank&#039;s pursuing official release of &quot;CS Blues,&quot; allowing his just financial compensation from such as well.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with others here the shock value of &#8220;Cocksucker Blues&#8221; has long since expired (partly a result of time marching on), as have any legal statutes of limitations concerning the illicit drug use in the film by Keith Richards, who has since been tried, convicted, and performed his &#8220;community service&#8221; (stemming from a Canadian drug trafficking charge), in the form of a benefit concert for the blind by the Stones&#8217; sideshow entity, The New Barbarians.</p>
<p>Actually, a far more consequential work of the same title is the song &#8220;Cocksucker Blues,&#8221; a number featuring only Mick Jagger&#8217;s vocals and Richards on acoustic guitar, which served the desired effect of fulfilling the band&#8217;s remaining contractual obligations to their first record label, Decca Records, simultaneously pissing off Decca chairman, Sir Edward Lewis.</p>
<p>I also agree with others here the documentaries &#8220;Gimme Shelter&#8221; and &#8220;Ladies &amp; Gentlmen: The Rolling Stones&#8221; are far better concert films. But for a devout Stones fan and voyeur, one may not beat this Robert Frankumentary! This is as close as most fans of the band, as well the casual observer, will get to being that proverbial &#8220;fly on the wall,&#8221; albeit a wall that is now showing more than a few cracks.</p>
<p>For the record, &#8220;Ladies &amp; Gents&#8221; HAS now been released on home video. So it&#8217;s probably time The Glimmer Twins at least not object to director Frank&#8217;s pursuing official release of &#8220;CS Blues,&#8221; allowing his just financial compensation from such as well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pete</title>
		<link>http://moviemorlocks.com/2009/01/31/that-infamous-unreleased-rolling-stones-movie/#comment-14172</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Pete]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Sep 2010 07:28:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://moviemorlocks.com/?p=6951#comment-14172</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Rolling Stones have been protective of their brand.  They suppressed Rock&#039;n&#039;Roll Circus for years because they were shown up by The Who.  It eventually came out and I think this will, too.  What does it matter now?  Who is Mick trying to protect?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Rolling Stones have been protective of their brand.  They suppressed Rock&#8217;n'Roll Circus for years because they were shown up by The Who.  It eventually came out and I think this will, too.  What does it matter now?  Who is Mick trying to protect?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Niall</title>
		<link>http://moviemorlocks.com/2009/01/31/that-infamous-unreleased-rolling-stones-movie/#comment-9514</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Niall]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Aug 2009 15:28:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://moviemorlocks.com/?p=6951#comment-9514</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yes, I think this film should be shown, especially now that the Stones are such boring old codgers (not their music I should add)...Keith Richards even turned up as a pirate in Pirates Of The Caribbean-At Worlds End...for pete&#039;s sake!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, I think this film should be shown, especially now that the Stones are such boring old codgers (not their music I should add)&#8230;Keith Richards even turned up as a pirate in Pirates Of The Caribbean-At Worlds End&#8230;for pete&#8217;s sake!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stephen</title>
		<link>http://moviemorlocks.com/2009/01/31/that-infamous-unreleased-rolling-stones-movie/#comment-7207</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Stephen]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Feb 2009 20:12:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://moviemorlocks.com/?p=6951#comment-7207</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It is hard to believe, I remember being sceptical for years about stories that he actually came here, but I guess in the &#039;70s he was much more hands-on about the band&#039;s business, following the Allan Klein period. One story I heard is that he actually got a court order to seize Frank&#039;s personal print of the film, so the whole thing was more involved than simply showing up to make a statement in a Halifax court.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is hard to believe, I remember being sceptical for years about stories that he actually came here, but I guess in the &#8217;70s he was much more hands-on about the band&#8217;s business, following the Allan Klein period. One story I heard is that he actually got a court order to seize Frank&#8217;s personal print of the film, so the whole thing was more involved than simply showing up to make a statement in a Halifax court.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jeff</title>
		<link>http://moviemorlocks.com/2009/01/31/that-infamous-unreleased-rolling-stones-movie/#comment-7206</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[jeff]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Feb 2009 19:34:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://moviemorlocks.com/?p=6951#comment-7206</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Stephen,

Thanks for the additional information on this. It&#039;s hard to believe Jagger would actually fly to Halifax to slap an injunction on Frank but I guess it was still a hot button issue in 1977.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Stephen,</p>
<p>Thanks for the additional information on this. It&#8217;s hard to believe Jagger would actually fly to Halifax to slap an injunction on Frank but I guess it was still a hot button issue in 1977.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stephen</title>
		<link>http://moviemorlocks.com/2009/01/31/that-infamous-unreleased-rolling-stones-movie/#comment-7203</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Stephen]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Feb 2009 17:47:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://moviemorlocks.com/?p=6951#comment-7203</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Funny, our local filmmakers&#039; co-op now owns that camera with the leaky magazine, it was a gift from Robert Frank (who has kept a home in my province for a couple of decades now). And it was in turn used for a documentary about Robert Frank, titled After Frank (in which the artist is as unwilling to be photographed as many of his C@#$sucker Blues subjects).

In fact, Frank once got in trouble for screening his film at the local art college without obtaining the proper advance authorization from the Stones, and Jagger himself flew to Halifax in 1977 to slap an injunction on Frank.

Here&#039;s a bit from a local news article:

To quote from court records as reported in The Chronicle Herald, Mick Jagger’s affidavit filed in Halifax stated that: ””Frank . . . has distorted events through selective editing . . . and has included in the film footage events which are private to the individual members of the Rolling Stones which should never be exhibited without our consent.””

The material in the film was described by Jagger as ””lurid”” and had subjected the group to ””scorn and ridicule.””

Jagger’s statement went on to say, ””I am terribly concerned that the portrayal of the tour as exhibited by Frank will have a negative effect upon audiences and reviewers with the unfortunate side effect of irreparably damaging the Rolling Stones’ careers.””]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Funny, our local filmmakers&#8217; co-op now owns that camera with the leaky magazine, it was a gift from Robert Frank (who has kept a home in my province for a couple of decades now). And it was in turn used for a documentary about Robert Frank, titled After Frank (in which the artist is as unwilling to be photographed as many of his C@#$sucker Blues subjects).</p>
<p>In fact, Frank once got in trouble for screening his film at the local art college without obtaining the proper advance authorization from the Stones, and Jagger himself flew to Halifax in 1977 to slap an injunction on Frank.</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s a bit from a local news article:</p>
<p>To quote from court records as reported in The Chronicle Herald, Mick Jagger’s affidavit filed in Halifax stated that: ””Frank . . . has distorted events through selective editing . . . and has included in the film footage events which are private to the individual members of the Rolling Stones which should never be exhibited without our consent.””</p>
<p>The material in the film was described by Jagger as ””lurid”” and had subjected the group to ””scorn and ridicule.””</p>
<p>Jagger’s statement went on to say, ””I am terribly concerned that the portrayal of the tour as exhibited by Frank will have a negative effect upon audiences and reviewers with the unfortunate side effect of irreparably damaging the Rolling Stones’ careers.””</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Franko</title>
		<link>http://moviemorlocks.com/2009/01/31/that-infamous-unreleased-rolling-stones-movie/#comment-7138</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Franko]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2009 18:33:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://moviemorlocks.com/?p=6951#comment-7138</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The most over-rated band in history once again proving that drugs will make you stupid faster than anything known to mankind.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The most over-rated band in history once again proving that drugs will make you stupid faster than anything known to mankind.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jebster</title>
		<link>http://moviemorlocks.com/2009/01/31/that-infamous-unreleased-rolling-stones-movie/#comment-7136</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jebster]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2009 16:27:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://moviemorlocks.com/?p=6951#comment-7136</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A better look at that tour is Ladies and Gentlemen The Rolling Stones, since it is a film document of an actual concert on the 72 tour.

Like Cocksucker Blues, L&amp;GTRS is out of print, not available in stores, but bootlegs and youtube clips are abundant and available. Apparently, any footage of the Stones with Mick Taylor is semi-embargoed since Ronnie Wood joined the band. Pity that.

Cocksucker Blues is worth seeing, but not as a definitive stones document. Much better to read the book STP:On the road with the Rolling Stones.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A better look at that tour is Ladies and Gentlemen The Rolling Stones, since it is a film document of an actual concert on the 72 tour.</p>
<p>Like Cocksucker Blues, L&amp;GTRS is out of print, not available in stores, but bootlegs and youtube clips are abundant and available. Apparently, any footage of the Stones with Mick Taylor is semi-embargoed since Ronnie Wood joined the band. Pity that.</p>
<p>Cocksucker Blues is worth seeing, but not as a definitive stones document. Much better to read the book STP:On the road with the Rolling Stones.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Suzi Doll</title>
		<link>http://moviemorlocks.com/2009/01/31/that-infamous-unreleased-rolling-stones-movie/#comment-7103</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Suzi Doll]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Jan 2009 22:39:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://moviemorlocks.com/?p=6951#comment-7103</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I love the Rolling Stones, and I particularly love all movies about the Rolling Stones. I would love to see this one. Thanks for calling my attention to it.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I love the Rolling Stones, and I particularly love all movies about the Rolling Stones. I would love to see this one. Thanks for calling my attention to it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: keelsetter</title>
		<link>http://moviemorlocks.com/2009/01/31/that-infamous-unreleased-rolling-stones-movie/#comment-7100</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[keelsetter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Jan 2009 19:57:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://moviemorlocks.com/?p=6951#comment-7100</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Glad you finally got around to that dvd I sent ya! ;-)

This was a great write-up and it answered many questions I&#039;d had about the film. One rumor I seem to recall is that the reason Mick didn&#039;t want to release the film is NOT because of a concern that the bad behavior would make it hard for them to play in the U.S., but because the film revealed how utterly monotonous and unglamorous life on tour was really like - and Mick was worried that if people saw how boring life was for them on the road that it would diminish their rock-star mystique.

As to behavior that truly keeps you from playing in other countries, I think Keith Richard&#039;s tax evasions had more impact on this than his drug habits. To quote Richards: &quot;I never had a problem with drugs, only with cops.&quot;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Glad you finally got around to that dvd I sent ya! ;-)</p>
<p>This was a great write-up and it answered many questions I&#8217;d had about the film. One rumor I seem to recall is that the reason Mick didn&#8217;t want to release the film is NOT because of a concern that the bad behavior would make it hard for them to play in the U.S., but because the film revealed how utterly monotonous and unglamorous life on tour was really like &#8211; and Mick was worried that if people saw how boring life was for them on the road that it would diminish their rock-star mystique.</p>
<p>As to behavior that truly keeps you from playing in other countries, I think Keith Richard&#8217;s tax evasions had more impact on this than his drug habits. To quote Richards: &#8220;I never had a problem with drugs, only with cops.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

