|
Post by ursamajor on Jul 10, 2011 23:23:55 GMT -5
I saw this on TV last Friday, has some good actors in it. It's the story of John's life from 1967 to 1971 and about his insecurities and pain mainly to deal with his abandonment as a child. It starts off Hard Day's Night era where John meets his dad for the first time since he was a child. It was not a happy meeting.
This was an eye opener for me as I did not realise that John's dad was in his life quite abit up until the JL/POB album. I didn't like that it showed too much of the negative side of John, the tortured man, there is a line where he says to Pete Shotten that an artist must also destroy when he was at a low point and living like a junkie with Yoko. Yoko is not shown to be manipulative or in a bad light, just the thing that John needed to get out of his funk. Does not show much of John's wit and charm which you can see in interviews during this period.
Also, it shows Paul to be abit of a dope, the character that played him and the way he was played was abit dopey, if you see it you will know what I mean. The story where John throws a rock through Paul's window is shown after Paul has released the McCartney album and John is enraged and then goes and throws the brick through the window.
One scene I like was during MMT meeting, John and Paul both go to the toilet, Paul finishes and washes his hands while John doesn't, thought that summed them up in a way.
Also, there is a disclaimer at the beginning that it is based on true events but obviously the words that are spoken during these scenes are made up for cinematic affect as no one can verify what was really said.
For me it seems that John had major issues from a child, all this was masked and covered up as an adolescent and then during Beatlemania as well as he had his 3 mates with him globe trotting the world, I think once the Beatles stopped touring his past caught up with him again and those feeling of anger and betrayal came back to haunt him and all this lead up to going Primal Scream with Arthur Janov.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jul 12, 2011 16:24:07 GMT -5
I haven't heard about this. Sounds interesting. (I must say I thought 'Nowhere Boy' was over-rated -- it was kind of okay, but no great shakes. I much preferred 'Backbeat'.)
I agree that Freddy Lennon seems to have been denigrated unfairly in a lot of the 70s/80s-ish Beatle history. The guy who runs away from the woman-with-child will always appear in a bad light, but there's also the fact that Britain was at war and Julia was a bit of an (ahem) "easy" to know woman...
In my opinion, the only reason that Yoko never comes off badly in these productions is because she's still alive. (That is, she controls Lennon's estate.) Once she passes on someday, a more balanced portrait of her will inevitably emerge in Beatle-related productions. In the 70s, she was generally demonized as the Dragon-Lady (given another push by Albert Goldman in 1988), and since then she's been over-sanitized and is nowadays presented rather saintly. Neither extreme is accurate, I think.
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Jul 12, 2011 20:43:21 GMT -5
True and after watching this I think there has been alot of misrepresentation about John and his dad, in most Beatles bio's the story that is mostly repeated is that John's dad abandoned him as a child and then never saw him again, he came back into his life in 1964 and in 1967 he lived with him at his house. At the end it shows John inviting his dad to his house and playing the song Mother to him and asking him if he knows what the song is about and his dad replies "it doesn't sound like the Beatles". So there was alot of contact and the other misrepresntation for me is that John only had these issues come out when he met Yoko, they were always there. Also, since you can see what it would have been like when the Beatles were having meetings I can see that there is no way John could have continued in the Beatles he definitely had to get out.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jul 12, 2011 21:19:01 GMT -5
I agree that Freddy Lennon seems to have been denigrated unfairly in a lot of the 70s/80s-ish Beatle history. The guy who runs away from the woman-with-child will always appear in a bad light, but there's also the fact that Britain was at war and Julia was a bit of an (ahem) "easy" to know woman... Agreed and I wrote recently: Freddy Lennon gets a bum rap in history. He was no saint, was not the father of the year but in fairness to him it was the harsh years of the Second World War when he was a seaman and couldn't always sit home and play Sony Playstation 3 with his son and he was dealing with a very determined Mimi Smith who wanted to separate John from both his Mum and Dad and was fierce in doing so. Philip Norman's "John Lennon: The Life" is eye opening as to the Lennon side of the family. They never gave up on seeing John but Mimi didn't think men were important and certainly not Fred. Fred could not see John for so long as John was under the rule of Mimi. That book sets out John's relationship with his father through the years and I was surprised and ultimately pleased that John came around on his dad. Fred was not a bad guy and not an unloving father. In Norman's book there are anecdotes how little John, from birth to about five, would spend considerable time with old Grandma Lennon! Who ever knew that!? Hunter Davies never mentioned Granny Lennon. In all books the Lennon Family is made out to be bums that had no contact with John. Not true. True, once Mimi got custody of John the Lennons were booted out of his life but John came damn close to living with not just Freddy but another Lennon relative who John did live with between the tug of wars between Julia and Mimi. I think Mimi's heart was in the right place but damn she was a strange woman: never consummated her marriage with kindly Uncle George; was extremely stern with John, no toys allowed and little to no displayed affection towards him; thought men idiots; then later on she is getting shagged by the medical student boarding with her! She was absolutely ruthless towards Freddy and Julia although they weren't the most structured parents. Mimi was trying to do the right thing but in her dictatorial kind of way. She was in no way it seems love-able or a secret teddy bear. She did provide structure to John's young life.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Jul 12, 2011 21:50:54 GMT -5
This has been out for a while on DVD here. I bought the UK DVD and, frankly, it stunk. Lennon's a grouchy jerk all the way through it. This ranks just above "The Beatles Hidden Secrets" (the one that has all the tabloid stuff) and the Paul McCartney dead-or-is-he DVD in being not worth your time, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Jul 12, 2011 21:52:38 GMT -5
True John, but Mimi was alive when John was old enough to know this, in Nowhere Boy John blames his mum for not making contact with him even though she basically lived down the road, I don't think John ever criticised Mimi for this. I think it's a very sad story, quite heartbreaking and that John repeated this on poor little Julian and then never lived long enough to salvage some kind of relationship with Julian is just a tragedy.
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Jul 12, 2011 21:54:13 GMT -5
This has been out for a while on DVD here. I bought the UK DVD and, frankly, it stunk. Lennon's a grouchy jerk all the way through it. This ranks just above "The Beatles Hidden Secrets" (the one that has all the tabloid stuff) and the Paul McCartney dead-or-is-he DVD in being not worth your time, IMO. They made Paul look like an even dopier version of Noel Gallagher, couldn't string a sentence together, I thought that was ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jul 12, 2011 22:16:48 GMT -5
A Bono sang on U2's first album, "It's in his childhood, it's in his childhood" -- therein lies the difference between John and Paul.
Paul -- learns competition early because he has a similar-in-age brother. Associates "manhood" and success with out-competing others.
John -- has no real siblings, and is raised alone. Associates "manhood" and success with going your own way.
Paul -- has fairly good, workmanlike relationship with his Dad; nevertheless, feels a need to "do better" than the sometimes emasculated Mr. McCartney.
John -- has no relationship with a father figure; main parent is his sexless, domineering Aunt. Feels a need to rebel against all authority as a result.
The real wonder of these two personality types is that they DID function seamlessly in The Beatles for a good 6 or 7 years.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jul 12, 2011 22:46:03 GMT -5
A Bono sang on U2's first album, "It's in his childhood, it's in his childhood" -- therein lies the difference between John and Paul. Paul -- learns competition early because he has a similar-in-age brother. Associates "manhood" and success with out-competing others. John -- has no real siblings, and is raised alone. Associates "manhood" and success with going your own way. Paul -- has fairly good, workmanlike relationship with his Dad; nevertheless, feels a need to "do better" than the sometimes emasculated Mr. McCartney. John -- has no relationship with a father figure; main parent is his sexless, domineering Aunt. Feels a need to rebel against all authority as a result. The real wonder of these two personality types is that they DID function seamlessly in The Beatles for a good 6 or 7 years. Wow, those are great observations. If I was a law school professor teaching Family Law, I would use John's childhood factual scenario as an essay question worth 100% of the students' semester grade.
|
|
|
Post by Jason I on Jul 13, 2011 11:09:58 GMT -5
This has been out for a while on DVD here. I bought the UK DVD and, frankly, it stunk. Lennon's a grouchy jerk all the way through it. This ranks just above "The Beatles Hidden Secrets" (the one that has all the tabloid stuff) and the Paul McCartney dead-or-is-he DVD in being not worth your time, IMO. I was about to post a very similar review. I saw it on BBC when it first aired. Just, terrible. I can imagine it would do well with people not familar with Johns persona, but for the fan, who know all his interviews, it's like someone doing a terrible impersonation the whole time. He quotes parts of John interviews, yet he's always complaining, annoying and negative. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure John was like that at times, but we all know from his interviews (and outtake footage that was not meant to be seen), that John was funny. He was a very sharp witty guy, and as introverted as he could be at times, judging from what many have said the guy was a very interesting man to converse with and incredibly driven and positive. The other issue is the actor playing Lennon in this, is about 50, and yet John is supposed to be 30 odd in this period. The positives. I will say that the costume and stage departments did great. The clothing looks absolutely spot on for all concerned, and the settings are incredibly accurate. A shame the film couldn't live up to it.
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Jul 13, 2011 15:50:12 GMT -5
Like Jason I saw it on the BBC and although it featured some genuine music it was very one sided and made John out to be a nasty mixed up man. And they had a former Doctor Who Chris Eccleston playing John. He wasn't too bad at the role he was given other than it was about 20 years too late for him to play it . But the script painted John out to be a monster and the other Beatles as total dopes.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jul 13, 2011 18:56:41 GMT -5
I think Mimi's heart was in the right place but damn she was a strange woman: . Yeah, Aunt Mimi was a piece of work (I wonder if it was the subliminal effect of having the name MeMeMeMe . . . ). In Cynthia Lennon's book there's a scene where John buys a house for Cynthia's mum. Mimi is outraged (as usual). Calls up Cynthia and screams and yells at her and reads her the riot act: "WHAT HAS SHE DONE TO DESERVE ANYTHING!!!" Later Cynthia tells John about it and he shrugs it off: "Nothing ever pleases Mimi." True, she provided John with a stable household physically. But as one person described it: "Mimi constantly criticized and shamed John." Nothing John did ever won her approval. Except for one thing, John being awarded an MBE. Which she displayed in a place of honor on top of her television set until John took it back and returned it to the Queen. I'm sure Mimi never forgave him for that one. But to be fair to stern ole Mimi, as Paul put it: "Mimi always had a twinkle in her eye when it came to John." She actually accompanied the Beatles on their tour of Australia in 1965. And as Paul put it: "And for once John behaved himself."
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jul 13, 2011 19:02:04 GMT -5
One line from Mimi that I did like. When John dropped by and introduced her to Yoko for the first time in 1969, Mimi said: "So John, whats with the poison dwarf?"
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jul 14, 2011 2:14:52 GMT -5
There's a meeting that should have been filmed! Can you imagine John, with Yoko in tow, fully bearded and decked out in hippy gear, arriving at Mimi's house for a cup of tea?
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jul 14, 2011 4:05:38 GMT -5
One line from Mimi that I did like. When John dropped by and introduced her to Yoko for the first time in 1969, Mimi said: "So John, whats with the poison dwarf?" Yeah, I bet that happened!
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on Jul 14, 2011 11:46:14 GMT -5
A Bono sang on U2's first album, "It's in his childhood, it's in his childhood" -- therein lies the difference between John and Paul. John -- has no real siblings, and is raised alone. Associates "manhood" and success with going your own way.
John -- has no relationship with a father figure; main parent is his sexless, domineering Aunt. Feels a need to rebel against all authority as a result.In both great points the strong authoritive woman is the big key. John needed that and didn't have it as he ran wild through the Bealtmania years - until he found it again - Yoko. That's why it bugs me when people blame her entirely for apparently takingover John's mind.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Jul 14, 2011 12:38:37 GMT -5
One line from Mimi that I did like. When John dropped by and introduced her to Yoko for the first time in 1969, Mimi said: "So John, whats with the poison dwarf?" Yeah, I bet that happened! If I remember right, the source for that quote came from Tony Cox -- Yoko's ex-husband -- who was traveling with the Lennons at the time along with Yoko's daughter Kyoko. That was the trip where John (attempting to drive for once, at Yoko's insistence) crashed the car and almost got them all killed.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Jul 29, 2011 12:39:27 GMT -5
Yeah, I bet that happened! If I remember right, the source for that quote came from Tony Cox -- Yoko's ex-husband -- who was traveling with the Lennons at the time along with Yoko's daughter Kyoko. That was the trip where John (attempting to drive for once, at Yoko's insistence) crashed the car and almost got them all killed. To the person that doubted it happened, Mimi admitted she gave an unflattering welcome to Yoko in an interveiw. She recounted the meeting. I don't know if those were the exact words "poison dwarf", but it was in that vein.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Jul 29, 2011 16:29:34 GMT -5
Nice trick, John. Being on topic and off topic at the same time.
|
|
nine
Very Clean
Posts: 840
|
Post by nine on Jul 30, 2011 4:13:36 GMT -5
First thing I noticed in the (link) pic was that there wasn't a copy of The Times in shot.
|
|