Talk:Cocksucker Blues

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Documentary films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Rock music Low‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Rolling Stones Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject The Rolling Stones, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Rolling Stones on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.The Rolling StonesWikipedia:WikiProject The Rolling StonesTemplate:WikiProject The Rolling StonesThe Rolling Stones articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Last Sentence[edit]

The last sentence "The film itself is under a court order which forbids it from being shown unless the director is physically present, most likely due to the various illegal activities depicted taking place around the band. However, bootleg copies of the film are available. needs a source, and probably should be deleted until one is provided, but I didn't feel like deleting it. TheRingess 07:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC) I will not be deleting this at all producer Jerry L Saunders has said in a press interview by Barbara Walters...[reply]

the article at the internet movie database, linked to at the bottom of the page, states this, so i'm going to remove the verify tag. --Heah ^talk 08:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fay Artists?[edit]

Does this mean "ofay" artists, or something else? If the former, remove?

>>uhm, the link for "fey" now redirects to a page called "gay slang," on which the word "fey" doesn't even exist. maybe that should be fixed...

I removed it. Hopefully someone will be motivated to put it back with an explanation, if it's significant. 17:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wainstead (talk • contribs)

Court Order question[edit]

What happens when Robert Frank dies and so can't be physically present at screenings? Will the film never be shown again after that? 86.132.140.84 00:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole "court order" thing smells like an urban legend. Other sources mention a negotiated agreement between the parties. Whatever it is, there needs to be some more definitive source cited. [Unsigned,undated comment]

The cited 1977 Rolling Stone article says "The Rolling Stones and filmmaker Robert Frank have reached an agreement". The cited 2009 Rolling Stone article says "Frank won a 1977 court ruling". A court ruling is not the same as a legal agreement - you have to abide by a court ruling whether you agree with it or not. I wonder which is correct? PatConolly (talk) 06:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No pornography content[edit]

I have removed the porno category tag.Dogru144 00:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction (re. Marilyn Manson)[edit]

The information about Marilyn Manson living in Mary Astor's house in Los Angeles is inaccurate. I bought the house (built in 1929) on Appian Way in 1979 from film producer Michael Gruskoff and lived there until I sold it on July 7, 2004 to film and TV actress Andrea de Matteo. Marilyn Manson was never there when I owned it. Mrneige (talk) 19:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)Thomas R. Snow 9/20/2009[reply]

^{[citation needed]} tomasz. 01:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review I edited this page to add a review —Preceding unsigned comment added by Compaqfel (talk • contribs) 19:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did it play regularly in San Francisco?[edit]

(Please fact check. This is from memory: ) "Cocksucker Blues" was shown for about 20 years only once a year, in one theater, in San Francisco, where Robert Frank lives. However, sometime in the mid-90's, the film was screened at the Anthology Film Archives in Manhattan (I attended). I do not know if Robert Frank was present.

I've moved this interesting comment from the page, where it was floating in the reference field. MartinSFSA (talk) 13:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who wrote this?[edit]

"Curiously sparse on songs and ostensibly unconcerned with band’s musical process, the film, rather than act as bystander, becomes one with its subject. Haphazardly arranged, Cocksucker Blues is less a film than a chattering cocaine hum."

That's some terrible writing. --71.205.212.187 (talk) 10:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that sentence. In the future, please take the initiative to remove it yourself :) Kingturtle = (talk) 14:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has it been released?[edit]

I stumbled across this film on the list of banned films page. However, when I checked the BBFC website there is a 15-rated film of a similar name, released on video on 01/02/2010. Is this the same film? - Shastrix (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no, definitly not. its an edited short-version of the original documentation, only 20 min. long. i remember sawing the trailer for this on youtube 2 years ago. you can be pretty sure that all the "illegal" stuff (like mick snorting cocaine) is cut out.--Kulturbastardo (talk) 14:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Point of view[edit]

Due to the language and tone of the sentence, "The provocative title notwithstanding, its nudity, needles and hedonism was enough to get the picture shelved, and this was during a liberal climate that saw the likes of Chafed Elbows, Deep Throat, and Cry Uncle! playing in neighborhood theaters.", I felt it was necessary to provide a POV disclaimer on the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.247.166.29 (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

availability[edit]

sorry my broken english, but are you guys aware of the bootleg of that film? it was copied on vhs in the ´80 and is available all over the internet. wasnt the existence of that bootleg mentioned in an older version of this article?--Kulturbastardo (talk) 10:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC) I bought a copy of it on amazon.com four years ago. It's still on there, but I paid $30 for it. It's still on there, but for "from $124.79". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuckwagon54 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cocksucker Blues. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also the name of a officially unreleased Stone's song (aka Schoolboy Blues)[edit]

The title of this movie shares the name with a then unreleased song the Stone's song (Cocksucker Blues, aka Schoolboy Blues) recorded solely to fulfill a contractual obligation to Decca, their label at the time, in 1970. Schoolboy Blues was intentionally filled with explicit gay sex reverences so it would be unrealizable by the label. It was intended to be a song Decca wouldn't ever release but which would satisfy Decca's claim they needed to submit at least one more single before their current contract could be concluded with. As a way to get back at Decca management whom the Stone's had grown to detest, the wrote and submitted a very vulgar song. This was successful i allowing then leave to form their own label while preventing Decca from profiting off their last single for the label. The song was intended by the band to always remain unreleased but a German Record label accentually released it on a Stone's box set in they produced 1983 though after discovering their mistake, they recalled and released the box set without the song included. The song has since leaked onto the internet. I don't known whether the documentary movie got it's title from the song or not but maybe that can be clear up. Since their isn't a article on the song itself and since this article makes reference to their being a Stone's song of the same name, maybe we should include a mention of the song in this article, as the inspiration for the movie's title, if that can be verified. Or maybe the song itself is notable enough to deserve at least a stub article separately. Notcharliechaplin (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the song should indeed be considered sufficiently notable. In particular, I just came about it via a footnote in chapter 3 of the 2019 book Entertainment Science (https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-89292-4) which itself cites the 2013 TopTenz listicle "Top 10 Albums Only Recorded Because Of Contractual Obligations" (https://www.toptenz.net/top-10-albums-only-recorded-because-of-contractual-obligations.php). "Six by nine. Forty two." (talk) 18:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]