This promises to be much more (a clever history) than it is (a fawning backstage tour of a current show), and had opportunities to be a) a deeper history of the band and b) wittier. Anybody who has watched Robert Fripp's home videos (of him and his wife covering a wild assortment of rock and pop tunes) knows he has a sense of humor, likes rocknroll music, and can be quite amusing and self-deprecating. The documentary focuses (much of this is connoted by editorial choices, as we frequently see Fripp walking away to do something more important) on the peeved, obsessive Latin-professor aspect of Fripp, which, while real, isn't the whole enchilada, and without being complicated by the rest of his experience and personality, the impatient-professor schtick is interesting for about 70 seconds. The film-makers lined up most of the surviving members of King Crimson from the last 50 years and got them narrate about 1.2% of their experience of the history of the band. The film spends more time lavishing its camera's eye on, I am not kidding, roadies and tech-men tinkering with equipment backstage for a current show, as they field inane questions, and mutter responses as good-naturedly as they can in the circumstances, rather than on any sort of evolutionary (or crisis-based) story of the bands called "King Crimson." About 30% of the film is such backstage or empty-house tedium--this doesn't develop into a concert movie. So there are at least two main categories of "lost opportunity" here: this isn't a concert film; this isn't a history of the band. Yet the film-makers also lined up, among many members of Crimson over the years, Ian McDonald and Michael Giles, the original reed and drum section of the band--their appearance gives hope that origins and musical anecdotes (how was the song that gave the film its title made, e.g.?) are forthcoming. McDonald and Giles may not have another opportunity to narrate the early history of the band. They left the band after its first two Lps to make a funky, major-key (in contrast to Crimson's dark heft) record (still famous; it was frequently sampled in hip-hop), a classic of its 1970-moment, and unmentioned here. Nope, no time for history from these players. Pete Sinfield, the band's original lyricist is on camera for about 30 seconds and obviously could have been a trove of witty history; after a funny note on Greg Lake (the band's original singer, pre-"Emerson, Lake, and Palmer") as a young man (the only mention of Lake in the whole documentary, though the band's current singer was obviously hired largely because he can do a spot-on Lake imitation), Sinfield vanishes; John Wetton, the singer and bassist of what I think is the most interesting (mid-1970s) version of the band, is not mentioned. Bill Bruford and Adrian Belew (former long-term band members), are, gratefully, allowed to speak at some intelligent length, but again, in bits that convey the quality of working with Fripp, not how their versions of the band came together. I have yet to see any film that explained how this band evolved, somewhat like a transformer toy, throughout the 60s, 70s, and 80s. In 1972, e.g., there were two completely different versions of Crimson (one in the spring, on tour in the USA, and another, the Bruford-Wetton version, that toured England in the fall) of the band, both quite good, and both entirely different, though they played many (not all) of the same songs. The documentary lavished too much attention on the stage-preparations of this current, grandiose cover-band version of Crimson (a three-drummer, + keyboard, + etc. Version of the band) as though it were a church of Fripp service, while it could have narrated more history about each significant version of the band.
