It has been widely pointed out that Gimme Shelter is a highly structured film, intercutting events widely separated both spatially and temporally. This is a throwback to early Drew Associates techniques (especially in Primary, Eddie, Football, The Chair, and Crisis) of sending out as many camera teams as you can to get a larger view of an event than is possible for any single witness and then wait until editing to fit all the jigsaw pieces together. By adding the dimension of filmed participants viewing themselves some time later (a la Rouch-and-Morin's Chronique d'un Été), the Maysles further complicate the levels of action. At any rate, Gimme Shelter's structure seems not so much complex as overly intricate. For some strange reason, however, no one has asked why Gimme Shelter is put together this way, especially in view of the structural simplicity of earlier Maysles work.

While it may seem to be begging the question of social responsibility, this structure seems to me to be an outgrowth of the Maysles's own confusion as to the significance of the event and partially as recognition of the difficulty in synthesizing such disjointed activities…. [If] Altamont were indeed the culmination of a logical progression of events, a simple chronological structure (like the one the Maysles have employed so often previously) would have been wholly appropriate and easily developed. Instead, I think the Maysles were torn between previous preoccupations in personality studies and an only partially felt need to deal with social issues. Gimme Shelter is a paradigm expression of the personality-issue tension in American cinéma vérité films.

Cinéma vérité tradition has a strong effect on Gimme Shelter, well beyond the Drew-like method of heavy coverage. In fact, if the film is a synthesis of anything, it is as a compendium of ten years of c-v influences, styles, and subject interests. One cannot evaluate, for instance, the function of the Melvin Belli planning conferences by telephone (intercut throughout the movie) without considering the precedents for such scenes in earlier c-v work, primarily because it is earlier uses of similar material which probably motivated their inclusion here (rather than a concern for exploring another facet of the Altamont event). Gimme Shelter cannot be viewed as an accidental cultural artifact, simply an impersonal recording of an event. Instead, the film should be considered as a Maysles Brothers film, a personal response to people and events, one that draws heavily on their earlier work and the films of their past colleagues such as [Richard Leacock, Robert Drew, and D. A. Pennebaker]. (pp. 14-15)

Gimme Shelter also has more than accidental affinities to their What's Happening! The Beatles in the U.S.A., a 1964 film about the group's first American concert tour. The prime similarity is not a happy one: both films are a by-product of the continuing exploitation (often with the filmmaker's own impetus included) of cinéma vérité for the purpose of making publicity films about rock stars. This is not to deny such films the possibilities of genuine insight and merit, but it seems pretty clear that the Maysles are not wholly attuned to their subject, despite public statements about complete personal rapport with the Stones….

A real strength of the film is that no conclusions are put forth; no excuses are offered. The film leaves itself open to the harsh criticisms of the Stones's at least partial responsibility for the violence that took place, offering its own version of the event (itself free of direct comment) through this added emphasis upon their deliberate selectivity…. The Maysles, drawing upon earlier lessons of their colleagues, seem to me to offer a great deal of latitude for interpretation of what took place. In the context of a film seriously compromised at the outset by its entertainment function, that's a reasonable accomplishment.

In terms of social concerns, then, Gimme Shelter leads to some limited conclusions. The Maysles were almost like spectators at native tribal rites, but without the knowledge of their subjects so basic to ethnographic work. Lacking this foundation, they fell back on interests and methods developed in ten years of American c-v work, their own and others. This reliance was a saving grace, for the film's feeling of tentativeness, its own admissions of selectivity, are a virtue not shared by the authoritative tone of many documentary films…. The Maysles, whatever their limitations in this film, were not lacking in self-awareness. (p. 15)