Was this movie based on any source material? A book, an article, interviews with somebody perhaps? Paul McCartney apparently dismissed certain stories/events/details in this movie as inaccurate. So how did they make this movie without any legal action being taken against them by The Beatles?
shareOkay, on the BEACKBEAT DVD there's an interview with director Iain Softley in which he says that the story was based mainly on first-hand interviews with Astrid Kirchherr.
But I'm still not clear on how you can make a story about real people, like The Beatles, and portray them in an unflattering light at times, and avoid any legal action by the people being portrayed.
I'm not sure what you mean by an unflattering light. I thought the film was a very affectionate look at the early days of the Beatles.
The sex (with the girls they pick up in the club), the drugs ('speed' in this instance) and the arguments among the group are common knowledge and have all been written about in biographies, interviews, reminiscences etc down the years. Also Cynthia Lennon and George Harrison were happy with this film.
Only Mac was a bit sniffy.
And have you read some of the horrendous stuff written about the Beatles (especially Lennon) in the last decade or so?
Unflattering? I think this film was positively celebratory as regards the Beatles and elegiac in its treatment of Sutcliffe. (I believe his sister was also involved in making this film).
What didn't Paul agree with?
shareIt seems he objected to John being shown singing the lead on one of the songs he (Paul) always did the vocals for.
Lets face it - this film isn't really about the Beatles. Paul, George and Pete Best are fairly minor characters and what they are depicted getting up to in Hamburg has been in the public domain for donkey's years. Softley was very keen to get the full support of Astrid (her memories are at the heart of the film), Cynthia Lennon and the Sutcliffe family to back up the more detailed personal and emotional stuff concerning the relationship between the three main characters. It seems he succeeded.
Poor guy. Gets shafted for the umpteenth time in his life with this film. In real life, he supposedly was one of the most charismatic and handsome of the original quartet. Now here he's simply a chump...
shareThe song you're referring to is "Long Tall Sally." Paul always sang lead on that one, but in the movie John sings lead. I did read in a book that Paul objected to that, but I also think he was portrayed very inaccurately in the movie. Even though in the movie, John tells Stu, "It's not my band, it's a group," the rest of the Beatles are portrayed more like John Lennon's back-up group. That, and the movie makes it seem like John and Paul didn't really get along very well. Although it is true that Paul didn't think Stu was a good bass player (which he wasn't), John and Paul were closer than a lot of people realize. They may have had their differences after the group broke up, but they loved each other like brothers- this has been confirmed by everyone close to the Beatles, and John even said in one of his last interviews that he still loved Paul despite all they had been through. Yet the movie makes it seem like John was close to only Stu, and kept everyone else at arm's length.
shareYes I agree. The movie isn't about the Beatles, it is about John and Stu. The director was so focused on getting that part right, that everything else just flopped.
shareAfter watching this movie, I think it's time an actual Beatles film be made. A movie about the band itself from the early years to the height of their fame to the break of the group.
Of course there would probably a lot of legal rights and copyright problems with the songs being played. Paul McCartney would have to agree with it and be on board. I think it'd be cool though.
This movie is mainly about Stu, John, and Astrid not the Beatles. I didn't think they were shown in any negative way. Paul openly admitted on the Beatles anthology that he and Stu had a few arguments. He said Stu was John's friend mainly, not his....and that he basically sucked as a bass player.
Ian Hart did a great job as John by the way. I knew that accent had to be real.
Jack Nasty Loves You!
Some of the unflattering bits about Paul are also in "Shout!" which Paul also took issue with.
I don't know if "Shout!" was a source, though it must at least be unlikely that Softley (and, for that matter, Astrid) haven't read it.
i agree with the comment that it's time for an bio pic on the Beatles to be made. i know i'd like to see it.
i thought this movie was pretty good, but i actually think they should have brought the paul/john friendship in a bit more, because paul also said in the anthology that a lot of the reason he didn't get along with stu was due to jealousy for john's friendship. makes sense to me, because paul and john were friends before he met stu anyway. it would have made things more interesting.
[deleted]
Quibbling over who sang lead on particular songs seems silly -- in the marathon 8-12+ hour sets the Beatles did in Hamburg, a lot of time swigging beer all night long, I would be shocked if John and Paul didn't sing "each other's" songs all the time.
Plus it has long been a cornerstone of Beatles legend that they honed their stage act in Hamburg, it would be surprising at some point if John didn't say, "Hey, tonight let's have ME sing 'Long Tall Sally' and YOU can do 'Twist and Shout,' let's just see how it sounds."
Of course in their "official" recording career, the Beatles released a version of "Roll Over Beethoven" with George on lead, even though it is generally remembered that John usually sang the song on stage, my guess is George had run through it a few times back in the Hamburg days.
================
4) You ever seen Superman $#$# his pants? Case closed.
I remember when the movie was being made. George did not have anything to do with it. He could have because he had his own production company. But I heard "Backbeat" had his unofficial blessing.
share