Review: Jimi: All is By My Side

The early days in the musical career of blues-rock guitarist Jimi Hendrix (played by Andre Benjamin, AKA Andre 3.17- what? Oh alright, Andre 3000) as he makes the move to London in 1966-67, and also dealing with the women in his life as he is just on the verge of riding the meteoric wave of success. Imogen Poots plays Linda Keith, the posh former girlfriend of Rolling Stones’ guitarist Keith Richards (played in the film by Ashley Charles), who shacks up with Jimi. That is, until he leaves her for Kathy Etchingham (Hayley Atwell, better than this film), and a far more volatile relationship begins. Ruth Negga turns up as a pot-stirrer of a temptress, who is the third woman in Jimi’s life depicted during this brief period.

 

Even if this 2014 biopic had been wonderfully well-made, interesting, and exceptionally acted, it’s still founded on at least one piece of bullshit according to one of the real-life figures depicted in the film. With that one piece of bullshit (that really, the person involved would have no reason to lie about), it throws the accuracy and authenticity of everything else into question. I call bullshit on a lot of this film, written and directed by John Ridley (the Oscar-winning writer of “12 Years a Slave”), I barely believed a word of it, and probably still wouldn’t have believed very much of it had the real-life Kathy Etchingham not come out to publicly deride the film. But let’s start with Etchingham. The film claims that Jimi was a violent, moody drug user who beat Etchingham on more than one occasion. One cannot really get away from the idea that Jimi might not have been an entirely nice guy all the time (there’s plenty of stories about him being abusive to women, not sure how accurate but they’re out there), however Etchingham says that he was never once violent towards her and was indeed a sweet, gentle person. How can you not take her word for it? Why would she lie about being beaten by a guy she was only with for a brief time? The thing is, she wasn’t consulted by the filmmakers here, and when you add to that the fact that the filmmakers weren’t allowed to use any of Jimi’s own music unless his estate had full control of the film…this whole thing really starts to smell, and smell really bad.

 

I also think the film ridiculously misappropriates Jimi’s drug use for what is a film set in a fairly early time in his career. This isn’t the story of his final days or his death. However, it depicts Jimi as a moody, somewhat cold-hearted drug addict that goes quite against what I’ve always heard and read about him as being gentle, funny, a bit of a hippy-dippy type. That doesn’t make my beliefs true (and given his fatal overdose, one can’t deny he was a drug abuser, of course), but given how wildly inaccurate Etchingham (whose offer to assist the filmmakers was rejected) believes it to be, and given the issue of the music, I have a hard time accepting much of this as true, especially for the rather early period specifically depicted in the film. And if those in control of Jimi’s estate think this thing is garbage (and that is apparently the case), that means something to me. Sure, film’s chop and change and bullshit all the time in the name of drama, but usually I’m ignorant to it. Here, I was pretty sure I was watching almost total BS and that made it hard to watch, let alone endorse. I mean, the most significant moment of violence takes place in a pretty public arena (a pub), pretty sure if that really happened, Etchingham couldn’t credibly deny it. Yet, she does. I will admit that Jimi is my all-time favourite guitarist, but there’s no fanboy denial going on here. I’ve accepted that he might not entirely have been the laidback, peace and love guy, but this specific portrayal of him? Factually BS. It seems to equate being quiet with being moody and volatile, which is really unfair.

 

The film is incredibly boring, too, in addition to being poorly written and choppy. It’s glum and portrays Jimi as somewhat glum, too, which doesn’t feel right. Occasionally you’ll come across a line of dialogue that seems somewhat believable, but that’s a rarity. It’s not just Jimi and Kathy who suffer here, in one brief bit we see Rolling Stones guitarist Keith Richards, who as played by Ashley Charles, sounds like an upper class ponce! Keith with a posh accent? Really? Have you ever heard the guy (even when the Stones were starting out)? The most hilarious thing is that Keith complains that Jimi is a drug addict! Fucking what now? It’s an utterly absurd portrayal, so I’m glad it’s only a cameo. This movie, like Jon Snow knows nothing. It’s rambling as fuck too, with an appearance by Michael X (played by Adrian Lester), who was like England’s Z-grade Malcolm X, I think (My only previous exposure to the character was in the based on a true story heist flick “The Bank Job”). I have no idea what the hell that was all about, and I have absolutely no clue what overall point this film was making about Jimi. I got nothing useful from it. What was Ridley trying to say here, beyond Jimi being a druggie and spousal abuser? He comes across more like Ike Freaking Turner than Jimi Hendrix!

 

The one and only thing it seems to get truly right is that it shows how Jimi was too much of an ‘outside the box’ kinda guy to play the blues the traditional way back in the US, and perhaps the UK was thus more receptive and open to his space alien slant on the blues. Jimi may have played the blues, but the man was an alien from outer space, I swear. There was never anyone like him before, and has never been anyone like him since (No, not even you, Lenny Kravitz. Sorry). I’m not sure if the story depicted is entirely accurate, but Eric Clapton’s stunned look at seeing Jimi play for the first time is priceless (Clapton was ‘God’, but God wasn’t comparable to Jimi!), and the actors playing him and fellow Cream member Ginger Baker are alright.

 

Even without hearing Etchingham’s denials and anger towards this film, I don’t think I would’ve bought any of this nonsense. Andre Benjamin doesn’t look like Jimi (they’re not even the same skin complexion!) and at 39 years old is way too old to play a guy who died at age 27. However, he does a fair enough job in the lead, and he gets the hushed, hesitant speaking voice down rather well. It’s not his fault that this film sucks. It’s Ridley’s, it’s all on the writer-director (his debut in the latter field), no matter how you slice it. This is so wrong and disrespectful. And seriously boring! Can Oscars be revoked for later cinematic crimes? Just a thought…

 

Rating: D