|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Oct 7, 2011 14:15:23 GMT -5
It is a really interesting 3 hours and 45 minutes. I found most of it facinating. It gave me a renewed appreciation of George. Speaking of Clapton, I like the way he discribed the Beatles in 1968 when doing While My Guitar Gently Weeps. He noticed they had changed quite a bit from the early days and he meant in a positive way. He talks about how impressed he was with them recording the song--the great harmony vocals, Paul on piano, great song, all playing together live (in the studio) in real time --they apparently left a lasting impression on him. I guess he thought they were track everything. I think at that time (1968-1969) Eric would have joined the group in a flash. I wish they would have seriously asked them. It might have kept them together. I just don't know if George would have felt like the odd man out. But it would have relieved him from his rock guitar role. He could have relaxed and concentrated on his songwriting etc. In fact, that might have been a way for them to feel more comfortable doing live performances. Eric could have done all the guitar parts George didn't feel like recreating on stage. And all of Paul's guitar contributions could have been picked up by Eric and Paul could concentrate on piano and bass even switching them off with George on certain songs. Think of what kind of concert that would have been. And the Beatles could have done Layla!!! Talk about a supergroup. Its not so unprecidented. Think of Mick Taylor and all he contributed to the Rolling Stones. Also, Eric would have acted as a buffer between the warring factions in the Beatles (mainly John and Paul and George). I've said it before. The Beatles could have reinvented themselves again around 1969 with an ensemble including Preston and Clapton. Harrison could shift to bass/rhythm, Paul bass/piano with Preston on organ. Then they could have had that live archive from the late period so desperately missing other than the roof-top. Let 'em all sing too- Billy and Eric. The Quarrymen Ensemble. The first supergroup. Maybe in that parallel universe on Fringe. Now I remember you suggesting that. The idea and its (at one time) possibilities are mind-boggling.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Oct 7, 2011 14:52:35 GMT -5
Peter Harrison died in 2007. Terry Sylvester of the Swinging Blue Jeans and then the Hollies was his apprentice panel beater (that's auto body guy to us Americans). www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/views/obituaries/2007/07/23/peter-harrison-64375-19499100/Lots of folks (not here necessarily, but in other online fora) are disappointed that this documentary wasn't a 3 hour music video. This film was about George the person, and obviously includes his music, but Hari was more than a Beatle and a guitarist/singer/songwriter. The documentary showed his career in the entertainment industry but also spent a good deal of time exploring his spiritual quest, which as we know was probably George's most important journey. I too felt at times that the film moved slowly and was on the verge of getting boring. Not good for this George fan! Ultimately, I was pleased with the production. The ending was very moving. Leg-End has it that George and Louise reconciled on his deathbed. That may be so but she is not in this documentary and I'm sure that was deliberate. Her former neighbor in Benton, Illinois has some not-so nice things to say about Louise being jealous of George's fame and talent and trying to hog his spotlight. I'm glad we have this chronicle of George on film. Let's see if it wins any Emmys. Thanks for the comments, scousette.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Oct 7, 2011 15:33:12 GMT -5
Peter Harrison died in 2007. Terry Sylvester of the Swinging Blue Jeans and then the Hollies was his apprentice panel beater (that's auto body guy to us Americans). www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/views/obituaries/2007/07/23/peter-harrison-64375-19499100/Lots of folks (not here necessarily, but in other online fora) are disappointed that this documentary wasn't a 3 hour music video. This film was about George the person, and obviously includes his music, but Hari was more than a Beatle and a guitarist/singer/songwriter. The documentary showed his career in the entertainment industry but also spent a good deal of time exploring his spiritual quest, which as we know was probably George's most important journey. I too felt at times that the film moved slowly and was on the verge of getting boring. Not good for this George fan! Ultimately, I was pleased with the production. The ending was very moving. Leg-End has it that George and Louise reconciled on his deathbed. That may be so but she is not in this documentary and I'm sure that was deliberate. Her former neighbor in Benton, Illinois has some not-so nice things to say about Louise being jealous of George's fame and talent and trying to hog his spotlight. I'm glad we have this chronicle of George on film. Let's see if it wins any Emmys. Part II was superior in trying to learn who George was. Man, there were long parts of Part 1 where I had to remind myself that this was about George Harrison! I obviously enjoyed it with a rating of 7 1/2 stars out of 10 but it could have been even better. It is must see for everyone here. I learned tonight that my wife was fascinated with Part 2 and she asked me if I had any books on George. Whoa, maybe this was a great documentary and I'm too much of a Beatles' geek to realize it. ;D What George book do I recommend to my wife? She's a Hari newbie.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Oct 7, 2011 19:20:51 GMT -5
Peter Harrison died in 2007. Terry Sylvester of the Swinging Blue Jeans and then the Hollies was his apprentice panel beater (that's auto body guy to us Americans). www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/views/obituaries/2007/07/23/peter-harrison-64375-19499100/Lots of folks (not here necessarily, but in other online fora) are disappointed that this documentary wasn't a 3 hour music video. This film was about George the person, and obviously includes his music, but Hari was more than a Beatle and a guitarist/singer/songwriter. The documentary showed his career in the entertainment industry but also spent a good deal of time exploring his spiritual quest, which as we know was probably George's most important journey. I too felt at times that the film moved slowly and was on the verge of getting boring. Not good for this George fan! Ultimately, I was pleased with the production. The ending was very moving. Leg-End has it that George and Louise reconciled on his deathbed. That may be so but she is not in this documentary and I'm sure that was deliberate. Her former neighbor in Benton, Illinois has some not-so nice things to say about Louise being jealous of George's fame and talent and trying to hog his spotlight. I'm glad we have this chronicle of George on film. Let's see if it wins any Emmys. After seeing and hearing Louise at a Beatlefest in NJ a few years back; she was overbearing, wanted to hog the weekend, and felt she was an absolute authority on anything and everything that had to do with George's life, both with The Beatles and without them. I was extremely turned off by her and left the auditiorium where she was being interviewed.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Oct 7, 2011 20:33:49 GMT -5
Peter Harrison died in 2007. Terry Sylvester of the Swinging Blue Jeans and then the Hollies was his apprentice panel beater (that's auto body guy to us Americans). www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/views/obituaries/2007/07/23/peter-harrison-64375-19499100/Lots of folks (not here necessarily, but in other online fora) are disappointed that this documentary wasn't a 3 hour music video. This film was about George the person, and obviously includes his music, but Hari was more than a Beatle and a guitarist/singer/songwriter. The documentary showed his career in the entertainment industry but also spent a good deal of time exploring his spiritual quest, which as we know was probably George's most important journey. I too felt at times that the film moved slowly and was on the verge of getting boring. Not good for this George fan! Ultimately, I was pleased with the production. The ending was very moving. Leg-End has it that George and Louise reconciled on his deathbed. That may be so but she is not in this documentary and I'm sure that was deliberate. Her former neighbor in Benton, Illinois has some not-so nice things to say about Louise being jealous of George's fame and talent and trying to hog his spotlight. I'm glad we have this chronicle of George on film. Let's see if it wins any Emmys. After seeing and hearing Louise at a Beatlefest in NJ a few years back; she was overbearing, wanted to hog the weekend, and felt she was an absolute authority on anything and everything that had to do with George's life, both with The Beatles and without them. I was extremely turned off by her and left the auditiorium where she was being interviewed. I saw her at Chicago Beatlefest in very late 1990's and she was popping off on George's health declaring George absolutely, positively free of cancer and she probably knew as much as we did. We saw her two years ago at a Liverpool Legends show and she, with a straightface, took 100% credit for the Beatles conquering America! She said Eppy blew it on getting The Beatles airplay here and it was Louise who called all the radio stations to play "I Want To Hold Your Hand." Mostof us weren't buying much of what she said. She does have some good stories about George coming to southern Illinois in 1963 and helping George at the Plaza that very first visit. I suspect George cut her off once she did that "Tell all" album later in 1964: John and Paul probably teased George about that album! Louise Harrison is not completely likeable.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Oct 8, 2011 22:11:00 GMT -5
I learned tonight that my wife was fascinated with Part 2 and she asked me if I had any books on George. Whoa, maybe this was a great documentary and I'm too much of a Beatles' geek to realize it. ;D What George book do I recommend to my wife? She's a Hari newbie. For the casual-fan newbie, I think the Rolling Stone commemorative book would be ideal. For the Beatle-nut like us, I can't say enough good things about Simon Leng's While My Guitar Gently Weeps: The Music of George Harrison. The Scorcese doc will be out on DVD very soon, right??
|
|
|
Post by brothermichael on Oct 9, 2011 10:39:12 GMT -5
Possible spoiler alertThere may be peace between Paul and Yoko(see photos Steve posted on Examiner from film premier) but Yoko gets some digs in like her comment on Paul getting all the "A Sides" and how John "always" stayed so close to George(which we know is not true post Bangladesh). I don't think that's even true about their pre-Bangladesh relationship. The Playboy interviews are stark about that. Step right up on the bandwagon, Yoko.
|
|
|
Post by theman on Oct 9, 2011 18:48:11 GMT -5
It is a really interesting 3 hours and 45 minutes. I found most of it facinating. It gave me a renewed appreciation of George. Speaking of Clapton, I like the way he discribed the Beatles in 1968 when doing While My Guitar Gently Weeps. He noticed they had changed quite a bit from the early days and he meant in a positive way. He talks about how impressed he was with them recording the song--the great harmony vocals, Paul on piano, great song, all playing together live (in the studio) in real time --they apparently left a lasting impression on him. I guess he thought they were track everything. I think at that time (1968-1969) Eric would have joined the group in a flash. I wish they would have seriously asked them. It might have kept them together. I just don't know if George would have felt like the odd man out. But it would have relieved him from his rock guitar role. He could have relaxed and concentrated on his songwriting etc. In fact, that might have been a way for them to feel more comfortable doing live performances. Eric could have done all the guitar parts George didn't feel like recreating on stage. And all of Paul's guitar contributions could have been picked up by Eric and Paul could concentrate on piano and bass even switching them off with George on certain songs. Think of what kind of concert that would have been. And the Beatles could have done Layla!!! Talk about a supergroup. Its not so unprecidented. Think of Mick Taylor and all he contributed to the Rolling Stones. Also, Eric would have acted as a buffer between the warring factions in the Beatles (mainly John and Paul and George). I've said it before. The Beatles could have reinvented themselves again around 1969 with an ensemble including Preston and Clapton. Harrison could shift to bass/rhythm, Paul bass/piano with Preston on organ. Then they could have had that live archive from the late period so desperately missing other than the roof-top. Let 'em all sing too- Billy and Eric. The Quarrymen Ensemble. The first supergroup. Maybe in that parallel universe on Fringe. Ha. Love the "Fringe" reference. Great show. Didn't one of the "alt universe" storylines suggest that John didn't get murdered. I may be mixing that up with the JFK relected headline ;D.
|
|
|
Post by theman on Oct 9, 2011 18:51:48 GMT -5
I learned tonight that my wife was fascinated with Part 2 and she asked me if I had any books on George. Whoa, maybe this was a great documentary and I'm too much of a Beatles' geek to realize it. ;D What George book do I recommend to my wife? She's a Hari newbie. For the casual-fan newbie, I think the Rolling Stone commemorative book would be ideal. For the Beatle-nut like us, I can't say enough good things about Simon Leng's While My Guitar Gently Weeps: The Music of George Harrison. The Scorcese doc will be out on DVD very soon, right?? Agree with Panther on the Simon Leng book. Maybe she'd enjoy the new coffee table book.
|
|
|
Post by theman on Oct 9, 2011 18:54:20 GMT -5
I liked Part II better than part one, although I wish they had spent a little more time informing the casual viewer that George did have a post-Beatles music career after ATMP and LITMW.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Oct 9, 2011 21:42:00 GMT -5
I learned tonight that my wife was fascinated with Part 2 and she asked me if I had any books on George. Whoa, maybe this was a great documentary and I'm too much of a Beatles' geek to realize it. ;D What George book do I recommend to my wife? She's a Hari newbie. For the casual-fan newbie, I think the Rolling Stone commemorative book would be ideal. For the Beatle-nut like us, I can't say enough good things about Simon Leng's While My Guitar Gently Weeps: The Music of George Harrison. Both are good choices. I have both to share with her. My job is not to overwhelm her but let her discover George, if she cares to, at her own pace.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Oct 10, 2011 7:38:15 GMT -5
I've said it before. The Beatles could have reinvented themselves again around 1969 with an ensemble including Preston and Clapton. Harrison could shift to bass/rhythm, Paul bass/piano with Preston on organ. Then they could have had that live archive from the late period so desperately missing other than the roof-top. Let 'em all sing too- Billy and Eric. The Quarrymen Ensemble. The first supergroup. Maybe in that parallel universe on Fringe. Ha. Love the "Fringe" reference. Great show. Didn't one of the "alt universe" storylines suggest that John didn't get murdered. I may be mixing that up with the JFK relected headline ;D. Honestly I've only seen a few episodes, but I was a big fan of the old show "Sliders" until it went of the deep end or "jumped the shark" with "Kromags" and other bizarre story lines.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Oct 10, 2011 12:46:58 GMT -5
Saw Living in the Material World last night. Verdict = it's good and certainly worth seeing, but is curiously pointless. What I mean is, I never quite figured out what sort of perspective or what sort of point Scorcese and his peeps were trying to push. Was a simply straight biography? Of course not, because it had a large musical emphasis, and important events like George's first marriage weren't even mentioned. Was it all about his music then? No -- lots of stuff was completely overlooked, including songs like "Taxman" and the entire Cloud 9 period. Was it then an attempt to depict his spiritual journey? Somewhat... but the spiritual stuff took a back-seat to biographical stuff and friends' anecdotes about trivial things like his teenage haircut.
So, in one sense, I enjoyed the agenda-less way the film was constructed (utterly unlike No Direction Home, which had a major agenda it tried to sell), but on the other hand I was left a bit confused by what the film was trying to emphasize, if anything.
As such, it did succeed in presenting a fairly balanced picture of George. His virtues and vices were both mentioned.
As far as some of the interviewees, Klaus Voorman and Jim Keltner (as usual) were brilliant, Voorman in particular. Klaus just seems like a wonderful guy, so honest and caring. Astrid's little parts were nice, too, especially as she rarely talks on camera for these sorts of things. Although Paul needs to get over his obsession with who-did-what in The Beatles, he earned points for crediting George with things like the guitar riff in "And I Love Her", and his comments in general were nice (though I could have done without his backhanded swipe that one of George's reasons for taking up songwriting was "financial" -- thanks Paul!). Eric Idle's parts were great. Best of all were Olivia's comments, which are mainly near the end. She was so honest and did very well. (Best Beatle-wife of the year award is hers.)
On the downside, Yoko came across as a John-apologist (surprise, surprise!) in a movie about George Harrison, and her one-sided comments about John's loving relationship with George were way over-simplified, as even casual Beatle fans must know. Phil Spector (did they drag him out of jail?) had some interesting comments, but he looked a bit too freak-show for comfort.
By the way, where did Scorcese get that 1974 tour footage, which was clearly professionally shot? There must be more of that out there...?
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Oct 10, 2011 14:45:30 GMT -5
Saw Living in the Material World last night. Verdict = it's good and certainly worth seeing, but is curiously pointless. What I mean is, I never quite figured out what sort of perspective or what sort of point Scorcese and his peeps were trying to push. Was a simply straight biography? Of course not, because it had a large musical emphasis, and important events like George's first marriage weren't even mentioned. Was it all about his music then? No -- lots of stuff was completely overlooked, including songs like "Taxman" and the entire Cloud 9 period. Was it then an attempt to depict his spiritual journey? Somewhat... but the spiritual stuff took a back-seat to biographical stuff and friends' anecdotes about trivial things like his teenage haircut. So, in one sense, I enjoyed the agenda-less way the film was constructed (utterly unlike No Direction Home, which had a major agenda it tried to sell), but on the other hand I was left a bit confused by what the film was trying to emphasize, if anything. As such, it did succeed in presenting a fairly balanced picture of George. His virtues and vices were both mentioned. As far as some of the interviewees, Klaus Voorman and Jim Keltner (as usual) were brilliant, Voorman in particular. Klaus just seems like a wonderful guy, so honest and caring. Astrid's little parts were nice, too, especially as she rarely talks on camera for these sorts of things. Although Paul needs to get over his obsession with who-did-what in The Beatles, he earned points for crediting George with things like the guitar riff in "And I Love Her", and his comments in general were nice (though I could have done without his backhanded swipe that one of George's reasons for taking up songwriting was "financial" -- thanks Paul!). Eric Idle's parts were great. Best of all were Olivia's comments, which are mainly near the end. She was so honest and did very well. (Best Beatle-wife of the year award is hers.) On the downside, Yoko came across as a John-apologist (surprise, surprise!) in a movie about George Harrison, and her one-sided comments about John's loving relationship with George were way over-simplified, as even casual Beatle fans must know. Phil Spector (did they drag him out of jail?) had some interesting comments, but he looked a bit too freak-show for comfort. By the way, where did Scorcese get that 1974 tour footage, which was clearly professionally shot? There must be more of that out there...? Sorry but as spiritual as George was he had a good appreciation for the value of a dollar (or pound). I don't think Paul's comment was off base. He has said that about himself and John. They wanted to make lots of money. There is no sin in that unless you think the rich will get to heaven only through the eye of a needle.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Oct 10, 2011 17:52:25 GMT -5
Saw Living in the Material World last night. Verdict = it's good and certainly worth seeing, but is curiously pointless. What I mean is, I never quite figured out what sort of perspective or what sort of point Scorcese and his peeps were trying to push. Was a simply straight biography? Of course not, because it had a large musical emphasis, and important events like George's first marriage weren't even mentioned. Was it all about his music then? No -- lots of stuff was completely overlooked, including songs like "Taxman" and the entire Cloud 9 period. Was it then an attempt to depict his spiritual journey? Somewhat... but the spiritual stuff took a back-seat to biographical stuff and friends' anecdotes about trivial things like his teenage haircut. So, in one sense, I enjoyed the agenda-less way the film was constructed (utterly unlike No Direction Home, which had a major agenda it tried to sell), but on the other hand I was left a bit confused by what the film was trying to emphasize, if anything. As such, it did succeed in presenting a fairly balanced picture of George. His virtues and vices were both mentioned. As far as some of the interviewees, Klaus Voorman and Jim Keltner (as usual) were brilliant, Voorman in particular. Klaus just seems like a wonderful guy, so honest and caring. Astrid's little parts were nice, too, especially as she rarely talks on camera for these sorts of things. Although Paul needs to get over his obsession with who-did-what in The Beatles, he earned points for crediting George with things like the guitar riff in "And I Love Her", and his comments in general were nice (though I could have done without his backhanded swipe that one of George's reasons for taking up songwriting was "financial" -- thanks Paul!). Eric Idle's parts were great. Best of all were Olivia's comments, which are mainly near the end. She was so honest and did very well. (Best Beatle-wife of the year award is hers.) On the downside, Yoko came across as a John-apologist (surprise, surprise!) in a movie about George Harrison, and her one-sided comments about John's loving relationship with George were way over-simplified, as even casual Beatle fans must know. Phil Spector (did they drag him out of jail?) had some interesting comments, but he looked a bit too freak-show for comfort. By the way, where did Scorcese get that 1974 tour footage, which was clearly professionally shot? There must be more of that out there...? The point of the film, IMO, is that George had a conflict about balancing his religious and musical life. And I think you can see that very much in his later years. As for the '74 footage, wasn't that wonderful? I would have liked to have seen more of the tour footage with Eric, but hey...
|
|
|
Post by secretfriend on Oct 10, 2011 18:01:33 GMT -5
I loved 1) the 1970 "Threetles" photo of Ringo, John, George, Billy Preston and sound engineer (?) taken during an All Things Must Pass session (seen in part 2); and 2) the film (1974/75?) of Paul and George signing the legal papers to dissolve the band. I thought George & Paul got together in late 1974 to do this in New York City (when John wouldn't come across Central Park to sign the paperwork, instead sending a balloon), but this piece was filmed at 3 Saville Row in London. Can anyone clarify this? Did they get together on two occasions?
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Oct 10, 2011 23:44:19 GMT -5
Sorry but as spiritual as George was he had a good appreciation for the value of a dollar (or pound). I don't think Paul's comment was off base. He has said that about himself and John. They wanted to make lots of money. There is no sin in that unless you think the rich will get to heaven only through the eye of a needle. I wasn't suggesting that George didn't appreciate "the value of a dollar". I was suggesting that Paul -- despite my general approval of his comments in the film -- possibly didn't need to mention the financial aspect after being asked about George's motivation to start writing songs. It sort of goes without saying for any job/commercially-related enterprise, doesn't it? Yet Paul said it.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Oct 10, 2011 23:47:42 GMT -5
The point of the film, IMO, is that George had a conflict about balancing his religious and musical life. And I think you can see that very much in his later years. Maybe you're right. Well, but there's not much challenge in balancing religion and music, is there? Or by "music" do you mean all the things associated that go along with rock stardom/hero worship, etc.? Agree about wanting more Clapton/George footage. I should have mentioned that Eric's comments were fantastic, too. Since his autobiography, he's totally into disclosing everything, with no apparent masks. One minor gripe -- did they really need to show the face of the crackpot who attacked George and Olivia in 1999?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 11, 2011 7:27:04 GMT -5
I thought there was some nice rare footage in the documentary, but I always wondered how anyone could make the quiet George Harrison interesting in a film, and Scorsese only succeeded at infrequent intervals. I didn't think the doc was exceptional or anything. I thought there was far too much time devoted to The Beatles (as usually happens) and that the first half or more could have been any old Beatles documentary instead of a movie about George.
Aside from rare footage my favorite moment was perhaps Ringo breaking down when recounting the Last Words his friend spoke to him. I also thought Olivia did a great job relating the story of when she and George were attacked. But the film missed some things, one of which that stuck out in my mind was the "My Sweet Lord/He's So Fine" fiasco in court. That was a huge oversight -- if it WAS an oversight.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 11, 2011 7:29:55 GMT -5
One minor gripe -- did they really need to show the face of the crackpot who attacked George and Olivia in 1999? I only enjoyed seeing it to see the damage done to his face.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 11, 2011 7:32:54 GMT -5
As for the '74 footage, wasn't that wonderful? I would have liked to have seen more of the tour footage with Eric, but hey... Yes, the '74 concert footage was a rare and welcome treat. And I agree about the 1991 tour footage -- they overlooked that as well, and should also have concentrated more on George's CLOUD 9 "musical comeback". They also could and should have examined the solo albums a bit more as they were released. I did enjoy many of the interviewees too, I should mention -- very nice seeing Astrid and Klaus, and Eric was indeed very interesting and forthcoming. It was valuable hearing Phil Spector as well, but he was damn scary.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 11, 2011 7:35:28 GMT -5
Sorry but as spiritual as George was he had a good appreciation for the value of a dollar (or pound). I don't think Paul's comment was off base. He has said that about himself and John. They wanted to make lots of money. There is no sin in that unless you think the rich will get to heaven only through the eye of a needle. I don't think there was anything off base about Paul's comment either. (But of course, I knew you wouldn't find ANYTHING Paul ever says to be off base! )
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Oct 11, 2011 9:07:17 GMT -5
I loved 1) the 1970 "Threetles" photo of Ringo, John, George, Billy Preston and sound engineer (?) taken during an All Things Must Pass session (seen in part 2); and 2) the film (1974/75?) of Paul and George signing the legal papers to dissolve the band. I thought George & Paul got together in late 1974 to do this in New York City (when John wouldn't come across Central Park to sign the paperwork, instead sending a balloon), but this piece was filmed at 3 Saville Row in London. Can anyone clarify this? Did they get together on two occasions? I would love to see photo captures- anyone?? You Tube is pretty quick at squelching all of the footage.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Oct 11, 2011 9:57:48 GMT -5
I thought there was far too much time devoted to The Beatles (as usually happens) and that the first half or more could have been any old Beatles documentary instead of a movie about George. Agree about too much time on The Beatles. Olivia basically said as much in her NY Times interview as well! Musically, the film only got interesting at about 1967, as much of George's earlier stuff was skipped over completely. However, I don't think the early part was as conventional as you say -- Scorcese's editing was kind of non-linear and a bit weird, with lots of sudden scenes interjected into the main narrative, etc. Certainly there should have been at least cursory mention of George's mid-70s through late 80s' solo releases. I realize there isn't time to go into it in detail, but some of those songs -- 'You', 'Blow Away', 'This Is Love' -- should have at least been snippeted. But the film missed some things, one of which that stuck out in my mind was the "My Sweet Lord/He's So Fine" fiasco in court. That was a huge oversight -- if it WAS an oversight. I strongly disagree -- it wasn't any sort of oversight at all. It's likely that someone in that set of interviews must have mentioned it, but obviously Scorcese and his team decided it wasn't significant enough to warrant mention, AND I AGREE. Honestly, some of you are over-fascinated by minor issues of borrowings and 'nicks' in rock songs. It's not that big of a deal, and no major artist has ever been exempt. God only knows how you all would treat Bob Dylan's catalogue!!
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Oct 11, 2011 10:23:01 GMT -5
One minor gripe -- did they really need to show the face of the crackpot who attacked George and Olivia in 1999? I only enjoyed seeing it to see the damage done to his face. They mentioned Chapman, too, which I found unusual for anything Beatle. I thought his name was never mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 11, 2011 18:09:08 GMT -5
I strongly disagree -- it wasn't any sort of oversight at all. It's likely that someone in that set of interviews must have mentioned it, but obviously Scorcese and his team decided it wasn't significant enough to warrant mention, AND I AGREE. Honestly, some of you are over-fascinated by minor issues of borrowings and 'nicks' in rock songs. It's not that big of a deal, and no major artist has ever been exempt. God only knows how you all would treat Bob Dylan's catalogue!! WHOOAAA! Hold on a minute, panther --- you've got me wrong; how I personally feel about "nicking songs" has ZERO to do with it, honestly. Maybe you never heard me say something that I have maintained for years about the "My Sweet Lord" lawsuit -- and that is, I really think there are many other songs by other artists which sound more "nicked" than George's song did! In fact, I never really felt MSL sounded a lot like "He's So Fine" except for possibly the singing of those three words. I think George got a bad deal there, and they went after him because he was a Beatle. When I say that I felt the documentary shouldn't have glossed over this, I'm saying it because -- even though I think it was a bogus affair -- it WAS a significant part of "George's Solo History", and as such it should have been covered. I'm not saying it should have been covered "because I feel George was guilty", or anything like that.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Oct 11, 2011 20:12:08 GMT -5
it WAS a significant part of "George's Solo History", and as such it should have been covered. I'm not saying it should have been covered "because I feel George was guilty", or anything like that. Okay, I've got your point. The thing is -- is it really a significant thing in his 31-year "solo" history? I mean, it's all relative, but is it more significant than the entire Cloud 9 project? Certainly not. Is it more significant than the birth of his child and his second marriage? Certainly not. Is it more significant than his entire 1974 to 1987 stretch of music? No way. I think all those things would logically deserve more attention than a money-dispute behind the scenes in courtrooms.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Oct 11, 2011 22:09:41 GMT -5
it WAS a significant part of "George's Solo History", and as such it should have been covered. I'm not saying it should have been covered "because I feel George was guilty", or anything like that. Okay, I've got your point. The thing is -- is it really a significant thing in his 31-year "solo" history? I mean, it's all relative, but is it more significant than the entire Cloud 9 project? Certainly not. Is it more significant than the birth of his child and his second marriage? Certainly not. Is it more significant than his entire 1974 to 1987 stretch of music? No way. I think all those things would logically deserve more attention than a money-dispute behind the scenes in courtrooms. I agree with Panther on this. I always wondered if the line "Keep me free from birth" meant George did not want to have kids. Having progeny might keep a soul earth bound. Sharing a child with Olivia is major. There is much much more to explore that Bright Songs.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 12, 2011 7:01:23 GMT -5
it WAS a significant part of "George's Solo History", and as such it should have been covered. I'm not saying it should have been covered "because I feel George was guilty", or anything like that. Okay, I've got your point. The thing is -- is it really a significant thing in his 31-year "solo" history? I mean, it's all relative, but is it more significant than the entire Cloud 9 project? Certainly not. Is it more significant than the birth of his child and his second marriage? Certainly not. Is it more significant than his entire 1974 to 1987 stretch of music? No way. I think all those things would logically deserve more attention than a money-dispute behind the scenes in courtrooms. That's like saying a John Lennon documentary shouldn't have details like John's fight to stay in America, or the political sides of John's life away from his music. Of course things like George's "My Sweet Lord" controversey should have been mentioned -- how long would it have taken? Five minutes' screen time? I also think the lawsuit could have added something spicy to the film. It didn't have to be approached from the side of the court; it could have been approached from George's benefit, on his side. But I don't see why there has to be a "what's more important, CLOUD 9 or (blank)" approach. Why not just cover it all?
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Oct 12, 2011 9:00:39 GMT -5
There seems to be agreement that whether this film was primarily about George the man or George the musician, Part 1 gets swallowed up in The Beatles and we get precious few insights on that experience for George. As I wrote above, there is a surprising amount of Lennon/McCartney music being played in a "George" documentary during Part 1.
Maybe that symbolizes the creative oppression George felt in those years. Maybe George is deliberately downplayed in Part 1 to let us, the viewers, feel his pent-up frustration culminating in the epic ATMP.
;D
By the way, Sir George Martin tells the unflattering story of how George Harrison shows up to the SPLHCB sessions with a song Sir George doesn't feel is up to what Martin already feels will be a majestic album and tells George that he should bring something better to the table which Hari ultimately does with "Within You Without You" which Martin rightfully praises.
I take it that the song George first offered up was "Only A Northern Song?" Sir George wisely doesn't name the song he thought not Pepper worthy.
|
|