As a long time Zappa fan, this movie has been on my to-watch list for decades, and I finally got around to watching it (thank you, Netflix). If you like Zappa, you need to watch this movie. If you're not a Zappa fan, this will not change that. What can I say? If I had seen it 40 years ago, I probably would have said it was the greatest movie I'd ever seen. Partly because the effects would have been more impressive back then, but mostly because I was a teenager. It doesn't have much of a plot as such. It loosely follows the exploits of a fictionalized version of the Mothers (several of the musician/actors had already been fired from the band when the movie was made). It's basically a running commentary on the music industry. That's a common theme for Frank, and he did it much better years later with the Joe's Garage series. It was recorded on videotape, and they threw ever special effects trick in the book at it that was available at the time. Given Frank's strong anti-drug stand, it's a bit ironic how often I found myself thinking "Wow, I really wish I were high for this". Particular highlights:Flo and Eddie! They clearly loved being in this movie and making music with Zappa, and it showed on their faces in every scene they were in.The London Symphony. They were at the opposite end of the spectrum. They played what was written (including the occasional barks and other noises) with stoic precision, but the looks on their faces said "I just hope the check clears".The perennially good sport Theodore Bikel. I mean seriously, who doesn't love him?In the end, I think what bothered my most about the movie was the extreme cynicism of it. Zappa was an incredibly talented guy, but he was clearly nervous about "putting himself out there", so he tended to to everything with a wink. He could have tried to make a "good" movie, but instead he made something overtly absurd, so if people didn't like it he could say "You weren't supposed to; I was being *ironic*".

There is in 200 Motels an expression of insecurity matched by delusions of grandeur creating an atmosphere of low self-esteem. I realize musicians can provide a service that seamlessly blends with our lives, intensifying drama and fun, but seeing 200 Motels again at Anthology Film Archives I remember that the point of composing is to add something new to what's already out there...Some composers innovate while sounding pleasing, their music blending well with other music of the times... Acceptance may be the composer's most comfortable accomplishment...It is encouraging when people like your music, and perhaps you have also delivered something advancing the possibilities of sound... Zappa was completely capable of fitting in while being innovative and original. He's actually a very successful pop star, and his material was always somewhere within the mainstream of commercial distribution.He represents the universal reflexive response to rejection: reject! He wasn't accepted because why? He could have stepped into the orchestral shoes of the universally acclaimed Guy Lombardo! What a nice guy easing us into a new year with pleasing sounds.Anyway, in my rejected adolescent insecurity I wasn't appreciating Muzak. I wanted to hear beautiful explosive sounds, and at the time, 1960's-1970, harmonic innovation was part of pop music, primarily through Burt Bacharach, but also with The Beatles, The Fifth Dimension, The Mamas and the Papas... Other innovators of the time include Edgar Varese, Hans Werner Henze, Luciano Berio, Karl Stockhausen... for me the most accessible of radical orchestral composers is Leonard Bernstein. George Gershwin of course passed away at a young age (38) at the height of his innovations and discoveries...so again with Frank Zappa at 53. It appears that musical innovators are not long for this world and it's amazing what they accomplish in their short lives.The point here is that 200 Motels pushes away the refined classical crowd with a sense of vulgarity...the funniest outcome will be that a tuxedoed audience will jocularly sing along with the lyrics in the songs....200 Motels offers great performers and musicians interpreting Frank Zappa's writing, while spoofing his plagiarizing leadership, and they especially deserve to be recognized and glorified... and yes, Frank Zappa, through great effort, offers a path for the advancement of musical composition... I wish making the movie was less contentious... It is beautiful and inspiring.

Tony Palmer Films has reissued 200 MOTELS on DVD in "restored" form, with an interesting audio commentary from Tony that expands on how the film was produced and dispels some of the film's long standing rumors (ex: "the master tapes were destroyed" - Tony claims he still has them intact.).Unfortunately, the film print used, while having decent color, suffers from restoration artifacts and is often dirty and scratched (why the video tapes themselves were not used to make a new print is unknown). The 2 channel mono audio's muddy and occasionally drops out on one side or the other. Occasional splices obliterate short sections of the film, including Ringo Starr's description of how he, as "Larry the Dwarf", attracts women.Definitely worthwhile for Frank's fans who will again have access to this relatively obscure work.

There is no film quite like 200 Motels, but a lot of its very strange appearance (especially when viewed on a cinema screen) is due to its videotape source. (Actually, it isn't the first film released theatrically, to have been originated on this medium. One of the versions of Jean Harlow's biography to be released in 1965 used something called 'Electronovision', which is much the same thing, although it seems suspiciously like an afterthought over a successful TV play in that case.) The 1971 double album was my introduction to Zappa's music, back in 1973, and I first saw this film in 1978, on a double bill with - wait for it - Annie Hall. Now, that's bizarre. I was mesmerised by this messy production, but everyone in the cinema, including my friends, seemed to hate it. Even by 1978, the effects were dated, and the sound quality left a lot to be desired. However, ten years later, when I saw the film in on VHS, I scooped it up, and I still enjoy it.More satire and music would have been welcome in place of the cast and orchestra being forced to recite childish swearwords, although it must be realised that this is an exercise to defuse the effect of 'bad language', much as Shaw did with Pygmalion (the original play has the word 'bloody' repeated over and over, opposed to achieving the comedy shock effect as in the 1938 movie) There are some very well worked out scenes, such as the stars' dressing-room/racehorse chute sequence, and the dialogue between Jim Black and Theodor Bikel, and maybe sufficient time and budget would have yielded more of the same.The music was sufficient to launch me into thirty years of collecting Zappa's music, and I still enjoy it today - it's more fulfilling to listen to than the movie is to watch, but the movie is worth seeing, as long as you are not expecting anything too coherent.In amongst the confusion is a worthwhile film about groupies, and genius, and the sadness, as opposed to the glamour, of the life of rock stars, and I can't help feeling that someone with fifty million dollars to spend could do worse than remake this. It's about time Zappa's output reached a wider audience. Stop remaking films that were fine as they were, you guys. We didn't need another Planet of the Apes, Tim Burton! Do a film about Frank Zappa. Johnny Depp could play Frank!