I saw the documentary in bits and pieces online and the whole time I kept thinking that your posts provide both a better overview and deeper insights. This was a dull documentary and it didn't have to be considering the people involved and the footage available. I missed the presence of someone like Joan Baez from Scorsese's Bob Dylan doc - someone who's clear-eyed and articulate and has utterly no desire to romanticize or revere the subject.
I think the problem, or the difference, may be that Scorsese didn't feel he had to convince anyone of Bob Dylan's greatness, or importance as a songwriter, and that Bob the enigmatic isn't the type to get fuzzy about. Whereas Scorsese obviously feels protective about George. And I assume so does Olivia; the Dylan documentary wasn't co-produced by the current Mrs Bob (is there one, or is he single right now?), was it? The drawback of authorized biographies. On the one hand, you have all this access. On the other, there are obviously areas you can't go because otherwise you'll lose it
( ... )
[the Dylan documentary wasn't co-produced by the current Mrs Bob (is there one, or is he single right now?), ]
There is no current Mrs. Bob, but he sings about a "wife" in a naughty song on his latest album, and confirms that there is a real "person" who "gets a kick out of it."
Excellent review. Have you ever reviewed Many Years From Now? I'd like to know your take on it, as well, considering it is also an authorized biography. Also, you should share your insights in the new JHP discussion, if you are so inclined. You're too unbiased to stay to completely out of it. Your views would be really helpful, I think.
I reviewed it briefly in my initial list of important Beatles books about two years ago, and satirically in my "if biographies and memoirs had fanfic disclaimers" list
( ... )
[but the film doesn't bother introducing the first Mrs. Harrison in any way. No mention of George marrying her, how they met, what she was doing]
Scorsese's documentaries seem to be very focused on what particularly interests him about a life story, without worrying too much about the audience. The Dylan doc was very focused on that 1965-66 period, and gives little context, explanation, or timeline, either within that period or outside of it. In the case of the George doc, I'd guess Scorsese doesn't give a rat about the Patti story, so skips it. In this case, I'll probably be ok with that because I'm not interested either.
[And what good old Marty really does well, and in depth, is delve into George's life long spirituality.]
Yeah, I think there is no answer about who is the intended audience, because that's not the question for Marty. The question is, what theme about the person's life and character interests Marty?, and the films explore only that. And his titles refer to his particular chosen angle, too.
I personally think of it as more defining for George than his marriages.
Well, I would beg to disagree re: the second marriage, but undoubtedly the relationship with John was one of the most important of George's life, and yes, very much helped defining him. My problem with the depiction is neither that it's given importance - which it more than deserves - nor that the supportive part of it is shown/heard of, because I don't see John supporting George in some cases and cutting him down in others as mutually exclusive, either. My problem is that by leaving out anything even remotely unpleasant or dark about it, it paints a false picture. (And btw also loses some of its intensity. That 70s meltdown May Pang described was the one that convinced me John actually cared a lot for George beyond considering him a handy divorce tool.) So far from being "the next best thing to the truth", it struck me as as much connected to the truth as, say, the film Help! is to the Beatles actual lives
( ... )
This is very interesting - you're probably right that the fanboy element plus the Olivia element ended up removing that nuance from Scorsese's character study. I can't wait until my partner opens the DVD that Santa ordered for her from the UK. :-)
I'm disappointed to hear there's not much backstory given on George and Olivia. I've always liked her and was interested in learning more about her, and how she and Geo met, etc.
Re: the whitewashing of the John/George relationship... I wonder if for Scorsese "de mortuis nihil nisi bonum" becomes exponentially more inviolable the more deceased public figures you add to the equation? Alternatively, perhaps it was the price of Yoko's involvement. Otherwise, that's just such a boring choice and I can't imagine why he'd do it.
Seriously, is there some sort of moratorium on discussion of the Allen Klein debacle in Beatles land? They didn't touch it in Anthology either.
Was VERY interested to hear about George's reaction to the Python's argument. I'm thinking they all might well have experienced some form of PTSD from the Beatles experience.
No surprise that Ringo's in fine form; he's great at this sort of thing. And I'm excited to hear from the Pythons, too. :)
re: Olivia and George meeting: Chris O'Dell has a bit about that in her book. Apparantly George first fell for Olivia's voice in the telephone when she was working as a secretary at A&M, started to talk with her outside of business calls, and they became phone budddies. And then he asked Chris to photograph her because he was curious what Olivia looked like. After which their romance took off. Though bear in mind that this is second hand. (Also Chris O'Dell admits she didn't seen George that often anymore after he got together with Olivia because while Pattie was her friend, she felt like a third wheel when being in George's and Olivia's presence (particularly as they were in the falling in love phase, which, you know, is normal - who cares for a third party to be around in that situation
( ... )
Oh good, I'm glad to hear that bit about George and Olivia meeting. She does have a smart, kind, calming voice. Aww. :3
So, my money is on Martin Scorsese being that much of a fanboy plus Olivia possibly not wanting to go into exploration of the darker sides, either (and she was the one providing a lot of material, letters, the ultry dry diary entry when George walked out of Let It Be that I quoted in the review of the book already), photos and home movies) beyond acknowledging they existed.
Good point about Olivia. That would make sense and be understandable. As far as Scorsese himself goes, I suppose filmmakers can be fanboys, too. ;) I guess I would just expect the FILMMAKER part to win out a bit more.
Oh oh, there's something else I wanted to ask you. Do you feel like you got more insight into the George/Eric relationship? I understand it was a very intense friendship, with a lot of mutual admiration, shared experience, etc., but I've never been able to get a handle on how those two minds 'met', if you know what I mean.
George/Eric: oddly enough yes, not least because those Clapton quotes when said out loud instead of being read come across as less egotastic and more self deprecating. (Though still with an ego.) Also with affection for George - it's in the tone of the delivery which doesn't translate into the printed word always. My impression was, and Eric C. says as much at one point, that at first the attraction was that they each represented an ideal that the other wanted to be. Fantasy alter egos. Eric as the world wide admired guitarist who was more or less on his own (yes, he was in the Yardbirds and then Cream, but mostly he got famous for being Eric Clapton, not "Eric Clapton the member of..."), free, unbound, and George as the one of the four most famous people in the music business, not just in a group but in THE group, with a loving family where Eric had mother issues to make John look semi-normal (he was raised by his grandmother with his mother pretending to be his sister until he found out the truth and he admits, though not in this
( ... )
Comments 46
Reply
Reply
There is no current Mrs. Bob, but he sings about a "wife" in a naughty song on his latest album, and confirms that there is a real "person" who "gets a kick out of it."
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Scorsese's documentaries seem to be very focused on what particularly interests him about a life story, without worrying too much about the audience. The Dylan doc was very focused on that 1965-66 period, and gives little context, explanation, or timeline, either within that period or outside of it. In the case of the George doc, I'd guess Scorsese doesn't give a rat about the Patti story, so skips it. In this case, I'll probably be ok with that because I'm not interested either.
[And what good old Marty really does well, and in depth, is delve into George's life long spirituality.]
Yeah, I think there is no answer about who is the intended audience, because that's not the question for Marty. The question is, what theme about the person's life and character interests Marty?, and the films explore only that. And his titles refer to his particular chosen angle, too.
Reply
Reply
Well, I would beg to disagree re: the second marriage, but undoubtedly the relationship with John was one of the most important of George's life, and yes, very much helped defining him. My problem with the depiction is neither that it's given importance - which it more than deserves - nor that the supportive part of it is shown/heard of, because I don't see John supporting George in some cases and cutting him down in others as mutually exclusive, either. My problem is that by leaving out anything even remotely unpleasant or dark about it, it paints a false picture. (And btw also loses some of its intensity. That 70s meltdown May Pang described was the one that convinced me John actually cared a lot for George beyond considering him a handy divorce tool.) So far from being "the next best thing to the truth", it struck me as as much connected to the truth as, say, the film Help! is to the Beatles actual lives ( ... )
Reply
Reply
I'm disappointed to hear there's not much backstory given on George and Olivia. I've always liked her and was interested in learning more about her, and how she and Geo met, etc.
Re: the whitewashing of the John/George relationship... I wonder if for Scorsese "de mortuis nihil nisi bonum" becomes exponentially more inviolable the more deceased public figures you add to the equation? Alternatively, perhaps it was the price of Yoko's involvement. Otherwise, that's just such a boring choice and I can't imagine why he'd do it.
Seriously, is there some sort of moratorium on discussion of the Allen Klein debacle in Beatles land? They didn't touch it in Anthology either.
Was VERY interested to hear about George's reaction to the Python's argument. I'm thinking they all might well have experienced some form of PTSD from the Beatles experience.
No surprise that Ringo's in fine form; he's great at this sort of thing. And I'm excited to hear from the Pythons, too. :)
Reply
Reply
So, my money is on Martin Scorsese being that much of a fanboy plus Olivia possibly not wanting to go into exploration of the darker sides, either (and she was the one providing a lot of material, letters, the ultry dry diary entry when George walked out of Let It Be that I quoted in the review of the book already), photos and home movies) beyond acknowledging they existed.
Good point about Olivia. That would make sense and be understandable. As far as Scorsese himself goes, I suppose filmmakers can be fanboys, too. ;) I guess I would just expect the FILMMAKER part to win out a bit more.
Oh oh, there's something else I wanted to ask you. Do you feel like you got more insight into the George/Eric relationship? I understand it was a very intense friendship, with a lot of mutual admiration, shared experience, etc., but I've never been able to get a handle on how those two minds 'met', if you know what I mean.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment