MartinHafer The story of The Clash is rather incredible. They went from a fringe punk band who often sounded cacophonous in the beginning to a stadium filling mega band in the 80s...and almost immediately imploded and were no more. It's rather well documented in the recent documentary "The Rise and Fall of the Clash". While I am not a lover of most punk (aside from the Ramones, who were brilliant), I was intrigued enough after seeing this documentary to want to learn more. A friend of mine had a cope of "Westway to the World" and suggested I give it a look. Unfortunately, it bored me to tears much of the time--mostly because of the style of the film.Now there are some very good things about the film. There is a lot of excellent film footage that's almost completely in color and in great condition--not the usual grainy stuff you expect in 70s and early 80s footage. But the film also lacked any sort of narration or coherent direction and just consisted of the band members (and no one else) talking about the band. They are all very talented folks...but they also were way out of their element and came off as a bunch of amateurs, as does the film. So, instead of a document showing the band's creation, rise and fall, it's more a bunch of guys remembering their past...somewhat. Not my cup of tea. Perhaps it might have been better and more professional looking had I not watched the director's cut- -20 minutes or so longer than the original film.

MisterWhiplash First the obvious: Don Letts is no Julien Temple. For those who don't know or need a reminder, Temple was director on both the Sex Pistols' The Filth and the Fury and the recent Joe Strummer documentary The Future is Unwritten. As far as the latter goes it is for at least 2/3 of the time focused on Strummer's time leading up to and in the Clash, and oddly enough that short time period in the midst of a two hour movie may be somewhat more substantial as enthralling documentary cinema and storytelling than Westway to the World. This doesn't mean to say that Letts' work in putting together the interviews and a very general outline (i.e. general in about 80 minutes or less running time) is necessarily bad. It isn't. It's actually quite good. But when compared to the buck-stops-here docs on the quintessential British punk rockers, it ends up a little short.This isn't to say that if you're a fan you shouldn't check it out. In fact, it works even greater when seen in conjunction with the Future is Unwritten. Not least of which because Temple, making his film years after, lifted some specific lines from Strummer for his film in voice-over, but because we get to see with Letts' film an idea of what it was like to be in the highs and lows and what-the-hell-is-this-trip quality of the Clash. They were a band that started out with almost a "Stalinist" method of cutting off from previous friends, starting from ground zero, and made some of the most eclectic and hard rocking and lyrically important music of the 20th century. Like the Doors or Jimi Hendrix they were around for less than a decade, but their mark is significant for their natural musical ability, their tough but rewarding forms of musical collaboration, and their f***-all attitude about doing things very proper in conforming to what people would want.What one takes away with in Westway to the World is a solid glimpse at a band that knew what they wanted and broke apart for reasons that were petty and harsh but also akin to what many band goes through in terms of mistakes and rubbish between friends. At the same time we also get the sense from all members that they would do it the same if they had to do it over again. That takes some guts. One only wishes that Letts, who has here some notable musical performances (some never seen before) and a couple of choice nuggets as far as real confessions or interest goes, could have gone a step further with the style or not relied as heavily on the shabby title cards. But, as said, it's a must for fans of the "only band that mattered."

paul2001sw-1 This short film is celebrated by devotees of The Clash; to non-fans, it's still interesting, less in the story of the band but in the style of its telling. "We came, we fought, we made great music" - that seems to be the take home message, all four of the band's original members contribute (and the film indeed contains little other than a mixture of their interviews and concert footage); but there seems to be a very deliberate decision not to present a blow-by-blow description of every action, but rather, for the band members to present their history as a simple fact of nature - something that just happened. Given that the band rose and closed in just five years, maybe there's some truth in this curt account, although perhaps also the band (and film-maker Don Letts) realised that less can be more in terms of effect. In spite of past quarrels, the band all essentially sing the same song here; the other thing of note is quite how posh lead singer Joe Strummer can actually sound. But I'd have liked a little more social context - regardless of their musical talents, the post-punk Clash represented their times (the end of the seventies and the start of the eighties) maybe more than any other band - but this is only weakly conveyed in this (somewhat introverted) account.

billjsw The Clash may have been one of the most interesting, important and best rock bands to have ever existed. And this documentary does in fact support that theory. However, the selectiveness of the subjects leaves much to be desired. Hindsight, as they say, is 20/20 - and in the case of the people responsible for this documentary - it's also very selective. There's absolutely no mention of the post-Mick Jones Clash that existed from 1983-1986. Four years of a bands history is an awful lot of time to simply not feel like mentioning. Sure the album this band produced (1985's Cut The Cr*p) may not have been on par with say London Calling but few albums are. To completely fail to not mention it makes me wonder why the filmmakers would simply choose to re-write history as if it never existed. All this does is support the fact that documentaries edit history any way they want. The unmentioned band (Simonon/Stummer/Pete Howard/Vince White/Nick Sheppard) toured the US in 1984 and also did a busking tour of England in 1985. By not mentioning them at all does no favors for any new young fan who actually wants to know about The Clash's history (and not just what was graciously selected for them).Then there is the issue of obtaining great rare footage only to have seconds of it peppered throughout the documentary! This seems to be the biggest complaint from everyone I know who has seen it. To not add any of this footage (i.e The Clash playing both songs on SNL/Their appearance on Friday's/Tom Snyder/US festive footage/etc) is simply not caring about the band or it's fans. All this does is give bootleggers even more viable footage to sell. Real smart.Having said all that it is a welcome documentary. And there is the bonus footage of all the existing footage for The Clash On Broadway. Footage that I should add the reason why so little exists is because Topper took out an injunction so that film never be released. Since it was never finished (because of the injunction) most of it was thrown away or deteriorated since it would never see the light of day anyway. Gee thanks Topper, now we really see you in a positive light!