Movies with Meaning, by Brent Marchant, TGMN Movie Correspondent

What Might Have Been

No matter how well life may treat us, almost everyone undergoes a memorable, fulfilling experience that, unfortunately, doesn’t last as long as we thought (or hoped) it would. These scenarios – usually romantic in nature – leave such profound, enduring impressions on us that we can’t shake them when they end, often abruptly and somewhat unceremoniously. We tend to look back upon them fondly, but we also can’t help but feel saddled with a certain measure of ennui that they didn’t last. They thus invariably form the basis of classic “what might have been” experiences, situations characterized by a mix of both pleasant and sad feelings. We long for them so much that we might be tempted to try and get them back, but such pursuits are nearly always frustrating, fruitless and heartbreaking. But need they always be that way? That’s a question examined in the new Icelandic romantic mystery, “Touch” (“Snerting”) (web site, trailer).

Life is beginning to close in on 75-year-old Kristófer Hannesson (Egill Ólafsson). The Icelandic restaurateur has begun experiencing health issues that have been slowly wearing on him, both physically and cognitively. And, as much as he’d rather not acknowledge it, he sees the handwriting on the wall, sensing that his time could be running out sooner than he’d like. His physician, Dr. Stéfansson (Benedikt Ellingsen), would seem to confirm this, too, advising Kristófer that now may be the time to consider wrapping up unfinished business while he still has the chance and the capability to do so. It’s earnest but frank advice that comes as a wake-up call. But Kristófer also takes the guidance seriously and decides to avail himself of the opportunity to get his affairs in order.

For many, an undertaking like this usually concerns financial and legal matters that have loose ends to tie up. But, for Kristófer, the situation is a little different. His unfinished business is of an emotional nature, and he longs to address it before he’s no longer able to. In addition to his health issues, he’s also facing mounting pressure from outside considerations, namely, the emergence of the COVID pandemic. It’s March 2020, and concerns about the spread of the illness are rapidly ramping up, changing almost daily and leaving everyone with questions about quarantines, travel restrictions and an uncertain new normal. If these measures were to be implemented, they could seriously hamper his efforts at wrapping up those matters that weigh so heavily on him.

So what exactly is troubling him? As noted above, the issues are emotional in nature – specifically tracking down the love of his life, someone he had met and fallen for passionately 51 years earlier. And now, given that his wife, Inga (Maria Ellingsen), has passed on and his daughter, Sonja (Harpa Elísa Ϸórsdóttir), is all grown up, there’s nothing holding him back from pursuing his lost love. But taking on this challenge requires travel, a venture filled with uncertainties at this time. Nevertheless, Kristófer is determined not to let this stop him. He ceases operations at his restaurant, sets aside the concerns of his daughter and his doctor, and throws caution to the wind, heading off to London where everything began.

Through a series of flashbacks, viewers witness the life of 24-year-old Kristófer (Pálmi Kormákur) when he’s enrolled as a student at the London School of Economics. However, despite his academic prowess, as a progressive social and political thinker, he’s disillusioned by the conservative conventional atmosphere of such an established, inflexible institution. He spontaneously decides to quit school and impulsively takes a job at a Japanese restaurant as a dishwasher. His friends view his decision as quite a comedown from what he had been doing, but it readily suits Kristófer’s changed temperament. Even more fortuitously, though, it presents him with an opportunity for something far more meaningful and heartfelt.

While working at the restaurant, Kristófer meets Miko (Kōki), a beautiful, young, free-spirited server whose father, Takahashi-san (Masahiro Motoki), owns the establishment. Miko and her dad opened the eatery when they emigrated to England from Japan 12 years earlier to start a new life, but they’re somewhat hesitant to discuss their specific reasons for leaving the homeland behind. Nevertheless, both father and daughter quickly take a liking to the young Icelander. As an employee, Kristófer becomes a favorite of Takahashi-san, who quickly gives him more to do than wash dishes, marking Kristófer’s emerging interest in the restaurant business. Meanwhile, Miko is quite smitten with her new co-worker (and vice versa), leading to a passionate romance between them.

All seems to be going well between the young lovers until one evening, when Kristófer has a perplexing encounter with Miko. She comes across as uncharacteristically distant, evasive and cryptic, and she offers no explanation for her behavior, even when Kristófer attempts to get her to open up. But what comes the following morning is even more startling: Takahashi-san has sold the restaurant and moved back to Japan with Miko in tow. Needless to say, Kristófer is mystified – and understandably devastated.

Such are the events that prompted latter-day Kristófer to begin his search for what happened to Miko. The events of his effort to track her down are intercut with the aforementioned flashbacks, weaving the two story threads together to show how this mystery emerged and unfolded. And now, amidst Kristófer’s failing health considerations and the implementation of the ubiquitous new COVID restrictions, he forges ahead to unravel the mystery of Miko’s sudden disappearance. To say more here would reveal too much about the story, but, suffice it to say that viewers are presented with an intriguing and captivating tale that leads Kristófer from Iceland to London and then to Japan.

Will the lovelorn senior succeed in his quest? Or will he be derailed by the multiple challenges posed to him? Will the outcome live up to his expectations? Or will he come away from this venture more disappointed than ever? And will he solve the mystery that has gnawed away at him for more than five decades? One thing is for certain: As the film’s title implies, this is a story that will truly touch those who see it. The question is, of course, in what way?

Based on the lengths to which he’s willing to go, Kristófer quite clearly believes in the possibility of being able to find Miko, despite the many years that have passed and the physical distance between them. Some might think he’s wallowing in naïve, wishful thinking and that a belief is precious little on which to hang his hopes of success. However, as some of us are well aware, beliefs are powerful tools that can aid us significantly in realizing our dreams. It’s not clear how many of us are aware of this school of thought or the veracity of its principles, but some, like Kristófer, truly are, even if only subconsciously. Indeed, they’re among those who have come to believe that it’s possible to transform “what might have been” into “what actually could be.”

So what does Kristófer know that makes him so optimistic about his chances of success? To begin with, on some level, he understands the power and persistence of beliefs. And, given how long and how strongly he has held on to his beliefs about what might have developed between him and Miko, it’s apparent that he’s not ready to give up on the idea, even after all these years. In fact, considering the declining state of his health, he has an added incentive to undertake the pursuit of this goal while he still has the chance. The quarantine restrictions coming into place provide additional motivation, given that his window of opportunity could be getting ready to close. This thus tells him that it’s now or never.

This venture is further prompted by his faith in the notion that he can find his lost beloved. Faith is itself another form of belief, and quite a potent one at that. In many regards, it provides the fuel for any belief-based undertaking, giving it the juice needed to succeed. Again, considering the conditions under which Kristófer is taking on this task, he understands that now is the time to tap into his reserves of this resource. And, fortunately for him, he’s well armed as he goes about this quest.

As his search unfolds, Kristófer keeps himself motivated by successfully drawing to him people and circumstances that continually reinforce his faith, determination and resolve. For example, when in London, Kristófer locates another former co-worker, Hitomi (Meg Kubota), who has information about how he might find Miko in Japan. It’s a valuable lead that keeps him enthused and on track, coming just at a time when he needs it most.

Similarly, when Kristófer arrives in Japan, he begins wondering if he’s in over his head, despite the progress he’s made. He also realizes he’s missed his daughter’s birthday, without even sending her a greeting to mark the occasion. It makes him wonder if his memory is truly getting worse. It also prompts him to question whether he’s being unduly selfish about the journey he’s on; how could a supposedly loving and devoted father put his own needs ahead of something as important as his own child’s birthday – so much so that he forgot all about it? Consequently, he quietly wonders whether he should continue this Quixotic odyssey. But, just as these doubt-riddled, discouraging thoughts begin crossing his mind, he befriends Kutaragi-san (Masatoshi Nakamura), a kindly soul whom he meets while dining out one evening. The two gentlemen quickly become fast friends, especially when Kutaragi-san helps bolster Kristófer’s spirits, convincing him that pursuing personal goals can be just as important to oneself as living up to obligations to others. It’s another development that helps keep Kristófer going.

These occurrences, seemingly small though they might be, are proof that Kristófer is indeed on the right track. These synchronicities – fortuitously timed and seemingly tailor-made coincidences – turn up just when he needs them, reinforcing his faith, strengthening his beliefs and even pointing him in the direction of the next valuable clue. Suddenly, Kristófer’s supposedly wishful thinking might have some actual merit.

As time passes, thoughts of “what might have been” begin to transform into “what could – or even will – be.” That’s comforting, not only to Kristófer, but also to anyone who has ever held a cherished, long-unfulfilled dream. That’s especially true where romance is concerned, an area of life often driven by powerful emotional feelings that don’t readily dissipate, even over time. Many of us have no doubt had experiences with “the one who got away,” would-be loves who had such strong connections to us that we can’t help but wonder what life with them might have been like. In scenarios like that, it’s rare that we get a second bite at the apple, but, when we do, we can’t resist the chance to find out if the old magic still exists. Kristófer is fortunate to have been presented with just such an opportunity, and he jumps at it. We should all wish him well, not just for his sake, but also for those of us who never had a shot at such a second chance.

Romance is one of those subjects that can be easy to get wrong on screen. Filmmakers can easily fall prey to cliché, predictability and heavy-duty schmaltz. However, in telling this tale of love, mystery and intrigue, writer-director Baltasar Kormákur succeeds commendably for the most part, presenting a colorful mix of genuinely original characters in an array of circumstances that have not been depicted on the big screen before. Admittedly, the pacing could stand to be stepped up in a few places (an outcome that could have been accomplished with some judicious editing), and further enhancement of the back story and better character development might have provided more meaningful depth to the overall narrative. However, given the captivating trail of breadcrumbs that the filmmaker doles out for viewers, this heartfelt release leaves audience members continually wondering what’s coming next. And, in doing so, the picture serves up a number of little-known, eye-opening cultural revelations that add spice and diversity to a genre that seldom ventures into such unfamiliar territory, an objective carried out with a sincere sense of warmth without becoming unduly sentimental. In my view, this is the picture that the vastly overrated “Past Lives” (2023) was trying to be (and could have been), one that entertains, enlightens and educates all at the same time while providing audiences with a tale that’s sure to tug at the heartstrings. The film is currently playing theatrically.

The cynics of the world frequently maintain that happy endings only happen in the movies, that it’s unrealistic to hold out hope for such improbable outcomes. And sometimes they’re right. But, then again, sometimes they’re not, even when it comes to second chances. It’s truly uplifting to witness hoped-for scenarios that manage to work out in the end, particularly when matters of the heart are involved. Such circumstances provide us all with a great sense of encouragement, that there’s indeed hope for us all, no matter how unlikely the possibility or how late in the game it may be. And what a tremendous feeling that can be.

A complete review is available by clicking here.

In Praise of a Cinematic Masterpiece

Few Hollywood productions have been as utterly prescient as director Sidney Lumet’s cinematic masterpiece “Network” (1976) (web site, trailer), a chillingly serious satire about the television business in the 1970s and where it was ultimately headed in years to come. Written by TV pioneer Paddy Chayefsky, this winner of four Oscars on 10 total nominations provides a comical but cynically disturbing look inside the workings of a fictitious American television network.

In telling this story, the film eerily forecast the direction this medium would take in the decades that followed with remarkable accuracy, stunningly predicting such developments as the tabloidization of TV, the consolidation of media ownership, the impact of foreign influence and investment, and the dumbing down, sensationalism and line-blurring of its content in both its entertainment and journalistic programming. It also nailed developments outside the television business with great clarity by focusing on the pivotal role that TV played (and would come to play) in those occurrences. And, even though it’s something of a nostalgic time capsule of the period in which it was filmed, the picture has held up remarkably well (it gets better with every viewing for me), even unwittingly providing viewers with an ironic and unsettling metaphor for the ubiquitous rise of social media (with TV serving as a stunningly fitting surrogate). Chayefsky’s Academy Award-winning script is positively brilliant, epitomizing what good screenwriting can (and should) be. And its casting is about as good as it gets, earning Oscars for the performances of Faye Dunaway, Peter Finch and Beatrice Straight, along with well-deserved nominations for William Holden and Ned Beatty and noteworthy accolades for Robert Duvall and Marlene Warfield. In fact, I’m stunned that this offering lost out to “Rocky” for best picture and that nominee Lumet was passed over for the best director award.

Those oversights aside, however, I was nevertheless privileged to view this offering at a recent retrospective screening in honor of the filmmaker’s 100th birthday to a nearly sold-out audience. The film has also been airing on cable TV recently as part of Lumet’s centennial celebration. I’m pleased to see that this celluloid gem still garners so much viewer attention nearly 50 years after its release and that it’s attracting the interest of moviegoers of all ages.

“Network” is an absolute must-see for avid cinephiles, as well as highly recommended viewing for anyone who truly wants a poignant, insightful look at what’s truly going on in the world around them, particularly when it comes to the workings of said world and the selective filtering of information about it. This film just might deservedly open a few eyes – and raise quite a few eyebrows at the same time.

What Lies Downwind

 

When testing a new technology, one might realistically think that its creators should be able to evaluate its effectiveness after a reasonable number of evaluations, such as, say, several dozen trial runs. But, if that’s genuinely the case, then why did it take American nuclear weapons developers 928 tests to figure out that their devices indeed worked? That’s not an unreasonable question, but it’s one of many such issues raised in “Downwind” (web site, trailer), an often-shocking documentary from directors Douglas Brian Miller and Mark Shapiro.

According to the film, between 1951 and 1992, the US government detonated 100 aboveground and 828 underground nuclear weapons at the Nevada Nuclear Testing Grounds, with fallout from these blasts spreading downwind from the detonation site (and not just in the immediate vicinity). This relentless onslaught of tests thus earned the US the dubious distinction of having experienced the heaviest bombardment of atomic devices on the planet. This weapons research subsequently affected a wide range of the population, from resident Native Americans to Hollywood movie crews working in nearby desert filming locales to average citizens far removed from the site of the explosions, nearly all of whom were disparagingly and uncaringly looked upon as “expendable for the sake of national security.”

The resulting widespread environmental damage and devastating public health effects are still being felt to this day, ramifications that are likely to be around for many, many years to come. And, to add insult to injury, through a carefully orchestrated campaign of propaganda and disinformation, the public has been misled for decades regarding the severity of this calamity, including the supposed safety of underground tests that still released radioactivity into the atmosphere, both locally and far afield.

The film details all of these issues, both on the macro level and in a variety of personal case studies, through a variety of recent interviews and a wealth of archive material (including a number of now-laughable government-sponsored propaganda films), all narrated by actor Martin Sheen. While the contents of a few of this documentary’s segments could have been a little better organized, the magnitude of these troubling revelations is quite astounding, particularly in terms of how much this story has been downplayed and the extent of lies that have been systemically perpetrated over the years. And don’t become complacent in thinking that this is all in the past: The film reveals that present-day proponents of this type of testing would like to see the current moratorium against them ended in favor of a new round of experiments. And, if that’s not unsettling enough to get our attention, I don’t know what is.

Do watch this. Even if you live nowhere near the test site, anyone who’s downwind of the experiments is not immune. And, if the testing is allowed to be brought back, we could all experience a new round of fallout as devastating as what happened in the past.

Celebrating the Beauty of Innovation

Innovators are indeed a rare breed. They have ways of seeing things that many of us lack or haven’t yet developed. When they ply their abilities, they come up with inspiring, original conceptions that often attract huge followings and many imitators. And yet, despite these gifts and accomplishments, they sometimes don’t receive the credit or recognition they truly deserve, an unfortunate development, to be sure. Thankfully, though, these oversights can – and often are – corrected by those who see the genius of these individuals and take steps to make sure that others recognize it as well. Such is the case of a talented musician known for his outrageous, energized performances and provocative compositions who came into his accolades later in life than he probably should have as seen in the insightful documentary, “Little Richard: I Am Everything” (web site, trailer).

Richard Wayne Penniman – professionally known as Little Richard (1932-2020) – burst onto the pop music scene in the mid-1950s with an unrestrained, frenetic style that set him apart from other aspiring and established performers at the time. Born in Macon, Georgia into a conservative religious family and a culture that still overtly discriminated against the African-American community, the artist who eventually emerged from this background was decidedly different from those with whom he grew up. While it’s true that his music incorporated elements from his gospel-based upbringing, Little Richard would go on to establish a unique style all his own.

In part, Richard drew from and subsequently fused an array of musical influences, including those from his experiences singing in church, as well as the styles of such artists as Ike Turner, Sister Rosetta Tharpe, Ma Rainey, Billy Wright Lloyd Price, Brother Joe May, Marion Williams, Ruth Brown and Esquerita, to name a few. By combining these diverse elements, he created a sound all his own.

But Richard’s musical style is only part of the story of his success. He embellished this distinctive sound with an original and outrageous stage presence that truly set him apart. As a flamboyant gay Black man at a time when society at large was considerably less accepting than it is today, both ethnically and in terms of openness about one’s sexual orientation, his concerts were a counterculture clarion call, an artistic assault on the conventional nature of the times. Yet, despite highly vocal concerns that he was corrupting the youth of his day, Richard’s uninhibited performance style and on-stage gyrations struck a chord with an awakening younger generation that was beginning to question the overly staid, conformity-driven values of the time. What’s more, his music and concerts were attracting attention among listeners across racial lines, something almost unheard of at the time. Hits like “Tutti Fruitti,” “Good Golly Miss Molly” and “Long Tall Sally” achieved tremendous followings and even led to cover versions performed by White artists seeking to cash in on this wildly popular new sound.

Richard’s colorful off-stage persona backed up his on-stage presence, too. He was just as unorthodox in his personal lifestyle as in his professional pursuits and didn’t try to hide it, all of which added to his mystique among followers. He embodied a sense of personal freedom and resolute liberation to which many of the era’s repressed were enthusiastically drawn. Richard was indeed becoming a cultural icon, even if his ways weren’t particularly acceptable to pillars of society.

Consequently, even though Richard was a rising star – one that led to considerable radio airplay and even concert movie appearances – there was a price to pay: He was roundly criticized for his antics and values by those in “respectable” capacities. He suffered from unbridled discrimination and was arrested on occasion. He received a mere pittance in royalty payments for his recordings. And, despite his immense popularity, the watered-down covers of many of his biggest hits by performers like Pat Boone and Elvis Presley sold more copies than his own versions. These factors somewhat overshadowed his successes, keeping him from attaining the recognition he should have received.

Richard was personally conflicted at times, too. For example, even though he had apparently embraced his rather hedonistic lifestyle for many years, there were times – such as in the early 1960s and on several occasions thereafter – when his strict religious upbringing caught up with him, impinging on his conduct and leading to internal personal conflicts. It even caused him to change tracks musically, abandoning his secular works in favor of religious recordings.

Richard was also conflicted about his sexuality at times, having had relationships with women and even marrying once. But Richard’s involvement with a wide range of male partners was widely known, and he made little effort to hide it. Yet his comfort level with this aspect of his life wasn’t always as self-assured as he led others to believe, perhaps as a result of his religious upbringing and the strictures against such “unacceptable” behavior. He struggled with this issue on and off over the years throughout his life, even denouncing it at one point and labeling himself a former gay man.

Like many in the music business, Richard also became heavily involved in drug use, including marijuana, cocaine and PCP. These habits took quite a toll on his health, as well as his finances and artistic output. He later lamented his addictions, but he managed to recover from them to resume his career.

Despite these challenges, however, Richard always seemed to land on his feet, bouncing back into the limelight, both in the US and overseas. But, even though he was able to reclaim his success as an artist and was part of the inaugural class of inductees into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1986, he never publicly received the credit he deserved as an innovator of the rock ʼn roll genre.

Privately, though, many of the industry’s biggest stars – such as Mick Jagger, Paul McCartney, David Bowie, Billy Porter, Tom Jones and Nona Hendryx – maintained that this art form wouldn’t be what it is if it were not for Little Richard. In subsequent interviews, both in this film and elsewhere, these artists publicly acknowledged that Little Richard is the real king of rock ʼn roll, despite contentions to the contrary. That recognition may be coming a little later than expected, but this documentary sets the record straight at last. Better late than never.

Innovation really is something to be commended, and Little Richard clearly embodied that notion. It’s seen throughout his repertoire, as well as those who followed in his footsteps. Yet some have said that his creations are more amalgamations of the works of others than anything truly his own. But isn’t that true to an extent for every artist? They all have their influences, but the ways in which they combine them or build upon them is what makes them stand out as their own, and that’s just what Little Richard did in the style of his music, his costuming, his stage presence and the subject matter of his songs. They’re all his own, and he fashioned the template that came to characterize him and his place in the rock ʼn roll genre.

So what made Little Richard so successful at this compared to many others? Quite simply, he believed in what he was doing, exuding a confidence that made it apparent to everyone that he knew what he was doing and that he knew his style was something all his own. That kind of faith in oneself is, in turn, essential in convincing others to go along with it, as he did with the throngs of followers he attracted to his music. Beliefs like that are an integral element in manifesting one’s vision. It’s unclear whether Little Richard had ever heard of this school of thought, but, based on his achievements, he obviously knew how to make use of its principles to his advantage. And he was unabashedly well aware of that, without reservation, a belief that kept him going for so many years, even helping him bounce back when he experienced setbacks that threatened to derail his career.

An old saying maintains that “fortune favors the bold,” and that belief was apparently one of Little Richard’s core convictions. Consider, for example, the suggestive content of many of his biggest hits, such as “Tutti Fruitti,” a song with clear sexual connotations. The lyrics may not overtly express anything salacious, but they certainly imply a great deal. The fact that a release as controversial as that could achieve such tremendous popularity during a conservative, largely repressed period like the 1950s speaks volumes about the impact such a bold venture had. And Richard didn’t hesitate to record it, release it and capitalize on it. In this case and many others like it, fortune indeed favored the bold.

In many ways, Richard was sending a powerful message to society through his music and personal style, especially to the youth of the time – don’t be afraid to be yourself. This was a message that meant a great deal to him personally, and he was anxious to share it with others. And what better way was there to do this than through an art form that was innately rebellious, one that questioned the status quo and firmly entrenched limitations. These were radical values that Richard firmly believed in, and he was unafraid to express them through his music, his performances and his lifestyle.

Of course, one might question the reasoning behind the emergence of the challenges he drew into his life, developments that seemed to work at cross-purposes with his beliefs and undertakings. It’s almost as if those experiences were expressions of self-doubt in those supposedly cherished values, yet, considering his upbringing, they’re also understandable. That’s significant, too, given that doubt is one of the greatest forces that can undercut the realization of our beliefs in finished form. Perhaps those challenges played a crucial role in helping Richard galvanize himself in the beliefs that he held most dear, presenting him with an opportunity to overcome them and ultimately re-emerge stronger for it. It’s interesting to note that he nearly always returned to his long-held convictions after going through those ordeals, proving to himself that he indeed possessed the capability to be himself and to live his truth – one of the qualities that inherently and fundamentally characterize rock ʼn roll, as well as its king.

Sometimes it takes a movie to help set the record straight. And, when it comes to designating the true king of rock ’n roll, this documentary from director Lisa Cortes does just that. Even though the protagonist developed a strong following and a reputation for chart-busting releases, he never quite attained the widespread notoriety or financial success that he deserved. What’s more, as a flamboyant, openly gay Black musician at a time when those qualities were far from well tolerated, he became a target for ostracism and scorn from conservative circles who lambasted his “decadent” music and “perverted” lifestyle. Yet his blend of colorful performances, mixed with outlandish costumes, pancake makeup and frenetic stage antics and backed by tunes that fused boogie woogie, rhythm & blues and gospel, made him a standout, a style that countless artists drew from – and who have since openly acknowledged influenced their musical careers. The result here is a revelatory examination of someone who set a standard on the music scene. “Little Richard: I Am Everything” features a wealth of historical footage, including many interviews with the artist himself, along with observations from the likes of Mick Jagger, Billy Porter, Paul McCartney, Tom Jones, Nona Hendryx and superfan filmmaker John Waters, as well as an array of music industry, African-American and gay community historians. Viewers are likely to come away from this offering knowing a lot about Little Richard that they hadn’t known previously, enabling them to gain a new appreciation for the rock icon and learning much about the many triumphs and challenges he faced during his colorfully enigmatic life. Audiences are sure to come away from this one proclaiming “Long live rock – and the king who finally gets to wear his much-deserved crown.”

“Little Richard” has received its fair share of accolades, too. This release received a Grand Jury Prize nomination in the Documentary Category at the 2023 Sundance Film Festival. Likewise, it also earned a well-deserved 2023 Critics Choice Documentary Award nomination for best feature. This is a great watch for both music fans and documentary devotees. The film is available on home media and for streaming online.

To fully and accurately appreciate the significance of an individual’s accomplishments, sometimes it helps to take a step back and reassess, and, where Little Richard is concerned, this film allows us to do just that. There’s more here than what most of us have probably seen before, and that sheds new light on a legend who we thought we already knew. But, for diehard fans of rock ʼn roll, this release is a genuine revelation, one that should rightly cement his legacy in the music world, American pop culture and the hearts of his followers.

A complete review is available by clicking here.

Copyright © 2023-2024, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.