I don't consider Pink Floyd: Live At Pompeii : The Director's Cut to be a concert film. I consider it to be a rehearsal/recording session film with bad travelogue, vacation slides, science fiction rubbish and primitive CGI quizzically thrown in together. The original problematic concert film shot in October 1971 simply edited together with the documentary footage of the Dark Side Of The Moon sessions would have sufficed nicely.

The best aspect of this document of Floyd in their prime (post Syd Barrett, pre-Roger Waters exit) is what it shows us about their creative process in the studio while cutting the end touches of 'Dark Side Of The Moon' in January 1973 at Abbey Road/EMI Studios. Floyd was trying to strike an agreeable balance between rock 'n' roll and experimentation in the realm of what at the time was referred to as progressive yet was more along the lines of what we now refer to as alternative and at times even ambient. They were consistently able to do that and it made them legends.

The interviews give us a sense of the thoughtfulness Gilmour, Mason and Wright had in composition as well as the aloof, condescending and even confrontational quality Waters had during his days in Floyd. One often senses that Waters was merely tolerated because of his incomparable creative genius inspite of his attitude and comparatively poor musicianship in laying down even the simplest of bass lines.

Waters was the main creative force behind Floyd and composed its most influential and popular material but was also its harshest critic as well as the harshest critic of just about everything else in sight including critics as we see him here. What is seen coming from him is not the bullying of the schoolyard variety but of the kind a boss at work might employ in asking you to do something a certain way when in reality he is telling you how to do it.

There is the notion that rock musicians are cavalier party animals that do just enough work every once in awhile to create lucrative product to keep themselves in the lifestyle they have become accustomed to. The reverse of that notion is very much the reality now as it was then if not more so. The only real exceptions are bands and solo artists whom you have never heard of. The best work hard at what they do, not only to create their music but in a band, to get others to perform it the way they want it.

But some of what is characterized as interview is really just shooting footage of the guys eating and trying to get them to say something which doesn't sound rehearsed or like dry humoured put ons. It doesn't work unless you hide the camera or shoot so much footage that you actually capture something genuine and revealing by accident.

The recently deceased Rick Wright and drummer Nick Mason come across as the most insightful when asked about Floyd's creative dynamic. They refer to the tensions within Floyd, which fans may not have known were there at the time. There are moments captured which seem to allude directly the circumstances surrounding Waters' departure years later and the decision of the remaining members of Floyd to continue on as something significantly more than a Floyd cover band but something significantly less than what they were.

Mason says he is joking when an interviewer confronts him with his comments about Floyd lusting after money. But Floyd continued to tour lucratively long after Waters left the band and they had recorded anything worth hearing.

David Gilmour was by 1972 building a reputation as arguably the best heavy metal guitarist in the world and doing so without necessarily playing very much which could be characterized as heavy metal. Gilmour comes across on film as a very pleasant individual but diplomatic to the point of being cryptic and at times exceedingly banal. We see someone easygoing but at the same time a private person in a profession dominated by extroverts. This suggests that it must have taken a great deal of persuasion by, and encouragement from Mason and Wright for Gilmour to step forth as Floyd's frontman after Waters was out.

The second best aspect of the film is how Floyd's live sound was captured without the crowd noise of a real concert obscuring any of it. When you think of Pompeii's amphitheater you do not necessarily think of an open-air venue as having great acoustics but they are excellent. It is pure and allows one to fully enjoy the improvisation that can make any concert film worthwhile for longtime fans. But make no mistake; this cut of the film is for longtime fans of Floyd rather than casual fans like myself.

When I say I'm a casual fan I mean it. My favorite Floyd tracks are obscure ones like 'The Nile Song' and 'The Gold It's In The...', ones that they seldom played live and have been remarkably reticent about in interviews. I like Floyd when they were uncharacteristically Floyd. In other words this film was more of a must borrow than a must have.

The setting and crosscutting of Floyd playing with stock footage of volcano lava and panoramic vistas of the area surrounding the ancient amphitheater are quite frankly useless distractions in my view. It wasn't just bands that had little idea of what to do with the medium of film when blending it with music. Those directors shooting and cutting it had only a vague idea of how to mix the mediums themselves at the time this was shot and few do today.

The art of music video has evolved to the point where bands who have sold a great deal of units quite easily get staked by record companies to film videos in exotic locations. So this is not cutting edge anymore. But for 1971/1973 it very much was. Back then seemingly no one would have thought to make a film of a band without showing fan reaction.

Adrian Maben who conceived the project and directed it wanted to blaze a new trail with this version of a concert film. Floyd was persuaded even with the bizarre on its face notion of the idea. Keep in mind the Floyd was experimenting with using dog yelps and howls in their recordings by this time. So it is not as though Maben seemed outré to them as he may to some that view the film and see him interviewed in the DVD extras.

Finally the question remains what is a director's cut really? Is it the film the director shot edited the way he or she wanted as opposed to the way the studio released the film theatrically? Or is it just a re-release with new footage from years later tacked on? I don't consider the latter approach to really be a director's cut. The re-release however was embraced here rather than the former.