In 1984, British journalist Arthur Stuart investigates the career of 1970s glam superstar Brian Slade, who was heavily influenced in his early years by hard-living and rebellious American singer Curt Wild.
London, 1971 - Flower Power is on the wane and floundering hippie troubadour Brian Slade feels old-fashioned and out of step until he experiences the raw power of rock musician and exhibitionist Curt Wild at a live concert. Smitten and inspired, Slade rises from the ashes of fussy brocade, reincarnating as the ambiguous pop-rock God/dess of platinum dust and phoenix feathers, Maxwell Demon. His alluring androgynous imagery and the seductive sounds his 'glitter rock' seduce teenagers across the world, offering refuge for the weird and unwanted with the promise of an everything-goes hedonism. At the height of his fame and cultural influence, he plots his sensational demise to escape, alienating his fans and falling into obscurity. On the 10th anniversary of the character assassination, journalist Arthur Stuart investigates Slade's disappearance, forcing him to revisit his own confusing teenage identity crisis and rebirth mirroring that of his idol Brian Slade.Written by
Mae Moreno
The movie was loosely based on a song by the same name (Velvet Goldmine) by the legendary David Bowie See more »
Goofs
(at around 1h 26 mins) In the scene "The Break-up" as Toni Colette's character walks away from Jonathon Rhys Meyers a boom microphone shadow comes into view. See more »
Quotes
Curt Wild:
Make a wish, and see yourself on stage, inside out, a tangle of garlands in your hair. Course, you are pleasantly surprised.
See more »
I have a fondness for good artists that have skilled energy, grand scope and fearless ambitions. If they give us that, who really cares if a project doesn't meet its infinite horizon? Is it less powerful when it fails? Does it matter that the subject is about precisely this?
About the subject, a gay boy grows up with talent and contrives to make a lush production with extremes of sexual matters and societal thinnesses. Slade and Haynes.
Sure, I thought the flying saucer business extreme stylistic gaudiness, but isn't that the point? I found all the narrative threads broken, the first manager, the fan/groupie/reporter, the wife. Sure it was a Citizen Kane with big gaps. Sure it was an experiment in several, parallel narrative devices not entirely integrated. Wasn't that the point?
Contrast it to Oliver Stone's film of the Doors. Polished, emotionally safe. Does that make sense?
Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.
14 of 20 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this
I have a fondness for good artists that have skilled energy, grand scope and fearless ambitions. If they give us that, who really cares if a project doesn't meet its infinite horizon? Is it less powerful when it fails? Does it matter that the subject is about precisely this?
About the subject, a gay boy grows up with talent and contrives to make a lush production with extremes of sexual matters and societal thinnesses. Slade and Haynes.
Sure, I thought the flying saucer business extreme stylistic gaudiness, but isn't that the point? I found all the narrative threads broken, the first manager, the fan/groupie/reporter, the wife. Sure it was a Citizen Kane with big gaps. Sure it was an experiment in several, parallel narrative devices not entirely integrated. Wasn't that the point?
Contrast it to Oliver Stone's film of the Doors. Polished, emotionally safe. Does that make sense?
Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.