Sunday U2 Sermons: Rattle and Yawn?

It's been called pretentious, conceited and bloated. It marks the end of one decade in U2's career and the beginning of the second phase -- a more humorous, sarcastic and ironic phase than the picture of four solemn men standing near a Joshua Tree. In a need to scratch a U2 itch, I finally saw Rattle and Hum, and I have to say that the critics have a point with their barbs.

The movie for me, was a reminder about why I prefer 90's U2 over 80's U2. Don't get me wrong, both are pretty damn good, but it's like the Elvis vs Beatles discussion -- there's always something that you prefer a smidge more than the other.

Maybe the biggest problem is that the movie's so unfocused -- there's some concert footage mixed in with some speeches mixed with rehearsals and other crap. Are we following the band on tour? Are we watching them make their follow-up album to Joshua Tree? Are we just watching Bono spray paint sculpture in San Francisco (which was ugly to begin with)? There's no real answer to that. The entire movie lacks focus. It's almost like they gave up in the end and said, "ah fuck it. We'll give the people what they want -- which is concert footage."

Perhaps the problem is that the band (is, was and probably forever will be) exerted an insane amount of control over the film. There's not really anything interesting to it, because there almost seems to be fear of showing something interesting because it might be unflattering.

There's some great moments though. Watching the four exchange jokes and barbs such as Larry's "If I had a head like yours, I'd bleedin' bury it" as a retort to The Edge's comment: "If I had feet like those, I wouldn't want them in the film." Or the opening interview where all four members stumble through describing what the movie's about. Those moments are a glimpse into their interactions and are a refreshing counterpoint to the solemn, stoic image that the band during that time period.

The funny thing is that this was the same time period that Irish DJ Dave Fanning pulled off the "nude" interview with the band -- all four members and Fanning in their underpants (or in Adam's case, naked as a jaybird). If they could do that on the radio, why not that same spontaneity for a movie?

I can't help but compare Rattle and Hum to Madonna's Truth or Dare, which was released two years after the U2 flick. The beauty of Madonna's film is the lack of control she exerts over her image -- she allows herself to be seen in ugly and beautiful ways. The interesting thing is that for most people, Madonna remains a cipher, constantly changing her image. But U2 -- a band that most fans feel close to -- come off as distant in their movie.

Even Metallica's documentary Some Kind of Monster is a marvel simply for the guts required to display that much insecurity, ego and in-fighting on the screen. I've got more respect for that band now because of the willingness to bare it all.

U2's never really going to be able to do that. As a family (which I think it's safe to call them), they have to be adhering to the code of "What goes on in the family, stays in the family." I don't blame them for that -- I mean, that's what families do to protect themselves from outsiders. I just wish they recognized that before they made Rattle and Hum.