In a twist of events surrounding the release of the documentary focusing on Melania Trump, a source connected to Mick Jagger has disputed claims made by the film’s producer regarding the use of the Rolling Stones’ iconic track “Gimme Shelter.” The film, which chronicles the build-up to Donald Trump’s second inauguration in January 2025, has ignited debates over the intersection of music, politics, and celebrity endorsement.
Producer’s Bold Claims Under Scrutiny
Marc Beckman, the producer behind the documentary, asserted that his team secured Jagger’s endorsement for the use of the Rolling Stones’ classic hit in the film. He claimed in an interview with Variety that the band was supportive and involved in the project, suggesting that their collaboration was purely artistic rather than political. “We worked very closely with them on that,” Beckman stated, adding that the film is simply about Melania transitioning from a civilian to a role in the White House.
However, a spokesperson for the Rolling Stones has since clarified that the agreement for the song’s use was strictly between the rights holders and the documentary’s producers, with no direct involvement from the band. This disavowal raises questions about the authenticity of Beckman’s assertions and paints a picture of a film struggling for credibility amidst its political associations.
The Music Industry’s Hesitation
The controversy doesn’t stop with the Rolling Stones. Beckman revealed that other prominent artists, including Guns N’ Roses and Grace Jones, declined to allow their music to feature in the documentary, citing political concerns. He mentioned that Guns N’ Roses members were divided on the decision, while Jones could not look past the political implications, despite Beckman’s insistence that the film is not about politics.
The tale of the music licensing hurdles continues with Beckman revealing that although the rights holders for certain songs were in favour of their use, the legal representatives managing those estates often vetoed requests. A notable example involved a Prince song, which was blocked by the estate’s lawyer who stated, “Prince would never want his song associated with Donald Trump.” Such refusals illustrate the complex landscape of music rights and the shadows cast by political affiliations.
Box Office Performance and Critical Reception
Despite the behind-the-scenes controversies, the documentary has seen a significant investment, with Amazon reportedly paying $40 million (£29.6 million) for the rights and an additional $35 million (£25.9 million) on marketing. The film debuted with a strong $7 million (£5.2 million) in its opening weekend in the US but suffered a drastic 67% drop in the following week. In the UK, it opened at a modest No. 29 before plummeting to No. 62, with no current showtimes available.
The disparity in critical reviews and audience scores on platforms like Rotten Tomatoes has also been a point of contention. Beckman has attributed this gap to what he perceives as a bias among critics, suggesting that many reviews are influenced more by political views than by the film’s artistic merit. “It’s worse than bias. It’s like they’re voting with political ideology first,” he remarked, highlighting the challenges faced by politically charged projects in today’s climate.
Why it Matters
The unfolding drama surrounding Melania Trump’s documentary reflects broader societal tensions where art, politics, and celebrity culture intersect. As the film navigates its way through controversies related to music licensing and political implications, it underscores the challenges filmmakers face in a polarized environment. With public perception heavily influenced by political affiliations, the reception of such works can often become more about the figures involved than the content itself, raising critical questions about artistic expression in a politically charged era. The documentary’s journey is emblematic of the intricate dance between celebrity, art, and public opinion—one that continues to evolve with each new release.
