I watched the new Rolling Stones documentary “Crossfire Hurricane” last night. Close to 2 hours, it covered a lot of the main bullet points of the Stones first 25 years or so.

I enjoyed a lot of the archival footage and interviews (especially the early clips of their live riots, I mean, shows). But I walked away feeling somewhat unfulfilled after it was over.

Despite all the sturm and drang of the live footage, I never felt fully engaged by the film. Maybe that was because there was no ‘narrative’ thread, only the band members’ off-screen commentary.

I think that while most Stones fans knows the main bullet points – their early ‘dangerous/dirty’ personae, drug busts, death of Brian, etc – the Stones’ story isn’t as embedded in our collective consciousness as, say, The Beatles’ history is. Perhaps a real narrative might have helped. 

That the film was produced by Jagger, by and for the Stones, may have been the issue. An ‘unobjective’ fan/filmmaker’s viewpoint might have been more interesting. That was my problem with the Beatles’ Anthology film – great footage, but since the Fabs had control, they glossed over things that a fan or independent filmmaker might have brought to light (how they hated each other & Yoko during ‘68-‘69, for example).

But without the band’s consent, there’d be no access to all that great archival footage. Everything’s a trade-off, I guess. Maybe it was the same with the Stones, even though they always seemed to revel in the public airing of their dirty laundry. Keith certainly holds nothing back!

Too bad. I was looking forward to a great Stones film, but for me this wasn’t it. “Ladies & Gentlemen” or “Shine a Light” are more viscerally moving and entertaining. And you get full songs that illustrate the band’s groove. But I’m still looking forward to seeing “Charlie is My Darling”, the newly released film of their 1965 tour in Ireland.