Since I know I am not the only Beatle fan here, I thought I'd start a thread. Have any of you guys heard of this movie, "Nowhere Boy" about how John Lennon/Paul McCartney met? I just happened to be browsing soon to be released movies and ran across this. Anyone hear of it? The link says release date of Oct. 10, 2010, the YouTube shows the trailer dated 09. I'm not sure if it came and went or what.Maybe it was just released in the UK? Anyway, I'd like to see it. What do you Beatle fans think?





TIS

Nowhere Boy

I'm surprised you didn't mention the news item which made bigger public notice in the UK than the movie did: That the 43 year old director banged the lead actor Aaron Johnson and had his baby.

Which is progress I suppose, I mean remember when that was the other way around?

As for the movie, I'm intrigued to. I'm a sucker for those movies which primarily explore the origins of legends or larger-than-life figures before they entered myth and history. Lennon's own upbringing has material (and the of course the beginnings of that band) for an interesting picture.

Knowledge of that history certainly makes something like "Mother" much more painful.

I knew nothing about the 43 year old director either. Man, I'm really out of the loop. I can imagine the scandal.

I do find the storyline intriguing too. I don't know a lot about the early days. The boy playing McCartney looks about twelve though don't you think?

I have a feeling this came and went and I totally missed it.


TIS

TIS,

Following its world premiere at the London Film Festival last October, the film was released theatrically over here in December '09.

It has only screened in the USA as part of film festivals so far this year: Sundance in January, Seattle in May, Pronvincetown and Nantucket in June, Traverse City in July.

It's screening at the New York Film Festival on October 8. The official site says "in select cities October 8th".

The release is to coincide with Lennon's October 9 birth date. I would expect one of those "select cities" to be near you, though The Weinstein Company, responsible for the film's US distribution, doesn't specify at all.

In short, you haven't missed it after all.

Mick,

Thanks for the info. I find that in other "limited" releases that many films have come to my local theater. If I recall "Across The Universe" was a limited release as well and was at my local theater. I really liked that movie.

Anyway, I assume you haven't seen the film since you didn't share any thoughts. I know neither of the young actors, are they known in the UK or are they newcomers.

Thanks again. I will watch for the release of this film.

TIS

The director is a Beatles fanantic, Tis. This is her in a 1993 photo shoot.

FYI: She's 43, the kid from "Nowhere Boy" just turned 20.

Wow!!!! I guess she IS a Beatle fanatic. So she had is baby? Like I said, I am just finding out about this movie and knew nothing of this. Did this affect her reputation in the UK as a director?????

Still, scandal aside, I now have two movies that I KNOW I want to go see in the theater within the next couple months, Nowhere Boy AND Wall Street, Money Never Sleeps (released this month). Of course that's not to say I may just drive to the theater on a whim sometime just to see a movie that "sounds" good (if I'm get the urge to).

TIS

Thanks, TIS -- I wanna see this, too! Hopefully it'll come by here (or at least soon on DVD/BD).

I got tired of the 'Beatles' bio-movies (and books) somewhere around the mid-80's, when everyone went over the top trying to convey John's desparation/troubled-youth in contrast w/ the clean cut, mop-topped, jovial early Beatles. Frankly, we watched Lennon metamorphasize through all that and come out clean from the late 1960's through to the birth of Sean. He really came full circle right before our eyes and any interview he did during that time, in print or recorded, is far more insightful than any written film can hope to be.

And until around 1990, Paul McCartney himself "looked around twelve".

All of which reminds me, John Lennon would've been 70 YEARS OLD this coming Oct 9th, which means Sean Lennon will turn 35 on the same day. And December will mark the 30th anniversary of John's death. WOW!

This got pretty good reviews overall, though I have little interest in seeing it.

There wasn't a scandal re the director and star - why would there be? Sam-Taylor Wood's a highly respected artist; this is her first feature film.

If their genders were reversed, no one would say a word . Dirty old men have been taking advantage of young women in Hollywood for the last 100 years.

Oh God, I sound like a feminist!

Better watch out. PB will be burning his bra next.

You're right though. If it were reversed there would be little to no attention given to this story.

Still, I look forward to seeing the movie.

TIS

I never bother with those books because they end up being less about the subject and more about the author's own prejudices and biases, whether said topic was a saint or a bastard.

Of course unlike people then (and apparently now) I never understood this compulsion to pick between John and Paul. Both were great composers, both made some wonderful music on their own ("Maybe I'm Amazed", "Imagine"), both also made crap (SOMETIME IN NEW YORK, too many Wings songs), and both probably were at their best when together which neither would ever admit to.

As for Beatles biopics, I seem to remember rather (surprisingly) enjoying "Two of Us" in spite of its TV movie limitations if because I thought the performances seemed rather spot on. Of course that same director also shot LET IT BE, and God knows he would know those two from that miserable experience.



Pity, I wanted to hear your (scathing) opinion on it.



But that bit kept coming up in every British report/review I read on the movie, like every GHOST WRITER review had to tackle the Polanski shit.

Of course unlike people then (and apparently now) I never understood this compulsion to pick between John and Paul. Both were great composers, both made some wonderful music on their own ("Maybe I'm Amazed", "Imagine"), both also made crap (SOMETIME IN NEW YORK, too many Wings songs), and both probably were at their best when together which neither would ever admit to.

I agree with you RR, although I think perhaps I like Wings a bit more than you seem to (if I'm reading you correctly). Anyway, Lennon/McCartney together were geniuses as far as I'm concerned. Do you ever wonder, had John lived if the two of them would mend fences (even to a degree) and still be composing together on occasion at least? The two matured Beatles perhaps reinventing themselves in some manner. Broadway play music maybe????? We'll never know.

Surprisingly (perhaps),I have not seen "The Two of Us" that you speak of or any other biography type film that I can think of. Most of my knowledge of the Beatles is their music and whatever part of their personal lives (and I guess there was quite a bit) that was made public throughout their careers.

There's a movie running often on cable that is a documentary called "The U.S. vs John Lennon"(?), which you've probably seen. I keep saying I'm gonna see it, but never actually have as of yet. I'll catch it one day.



TIS

TIS, this sounds worth seeing! I am not big on seeing movies in theaters, and prefer to wait for the DVD release and watch at home. I'll keep my eye out for this one, though, because it sounds very good. Let's face it, Lennon was, above all else, a poet, and they're usually pretty interesting to learn more about. It will be pretty easy to teach me, because I know next to nothing about his personal life.

But in one case it's pertinent, in another it isn't. In the case of the Polanski film, at the time of its release it looked like it might have been the director's last because of his situation; also, Polanski's circumstance affected the reading of the film with regard to its themes of responsibility for past crimes, exile, right-wing media vilification, etc.

A Google search for Sam-Taylor Wood brings up only one site on the first page that takes her marriage and pregnancy to Aaron Johnson as its focus. First, it's The Daily Mail; second, it isn't a review of the film.

That doesn't amount to a scandal.

It's worthwhile and moves pretty quickly. It's centered around his peace, civil rights and feminist activism which evidently irritated a lot of people in power.

And lets admit a truth: Wings wasn't so much a band as Paul's backing band. He was the boss, it only had three consistent members (him, Linda, Denny Laine) and the rest were salary players who couldn't get commissions and royalties. It's Paul fnatasy dominating his own Beatles much like fellow egomaniac/control freak John did with his Plastic Ono band. This is why Paul himself is in the Rock Hall of Fame and not Wings, who unless my data is wrong, were the most successful rock act of the 1970s in terms of record sales.

Problem alwyas been with solo Paul is that while he's prolific with a steady output and doesn't get enough credit for his eagerness to experiment and flex outside his comfort zone (consider his reggae work in the 1970s), he's can be rather hit and miss. Not all the "miss" songs are bad per say, just too forgettable.

Of course that isn't as bad as it sounds considering that happens to most artists in varying degrees one way or another. Hell Paul a few years ago had a Top 40 UK hit in "Dance Tonight," which isn't necessarily one of his better works, but its a delightful little number none the less.

I just think that like John, his work sometimes pointlessly suffered from not having someone with authority edit him whether it be a John or George Martin.

The one knock I have against McCartney's solo output would be that like way too many singers/bands in the 1970s, he got too wrapped up in the post-production studio tinkering of songs which overwhelmed in layers upon layers whatever good potent tunes he could have cooked up. Consider "Silly Love Songs," which in lyrics is Paul defiantly embracing his reputation and telling his critics (like John) to go piss up a flagpole. But those lyrics are swamped by the production. That particular song is asking and demanding a lean mean kickass cover without the layering.

But even then that's him more in the late 1970s. His first solo album MCCARTNEY, the one he literally recorded at home during winter 1969 is quite good, free of that studio bullshit above and RAM is even better.



Sure. Beates had that official documentary long in production and development which later would become the Beatles Anthology, and I'm sure eventually those 4 would have gotten back and done something whether it be a concert or a single or something to give that shared past a proper respectful burial instead of being done in by bruised egos, lawsuits, and public feuding.



TWO OF US was a VH1 television movie and I don't believe it got a DVD release. However its floating around on YouTube in 10 something "parts" and you can watch it there.

Like any TV production you have to accept the budget limitations (i.e. "1970s" is a street with 2 guys with afros and a Nova) and the crazy fact that they couldn't afford to play any Beatles songs, so instead we get a Peter Frampton tune. Which is like making a movie about Robert DeNiro but only affording to play a clip from HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL.

Neverless, TWO OF US was pretty good. A fictional meeting between the two in 1976, but based on the fact that during that decade despite their past grudges real and petty, they would occassionally hang out together. They were apparently even on friendly speaking terms when John got shot.

Which is what gets me and most everybody. What if during that time one of those two had laid down their pride and simply said "hey care to give your two cents on this song I'm writing?" What if?



Well there's your problem.



Its hilarious how the Nixon White House/FBI were truely afraid of this self-described "phoney radical" and wasted God knows how many hours and manpower to find out how even off the drugs, he wasn't that big of a threat except in certain people's imagination.

Quite much like the (white) right wing's paranoia over rap over the last 25 years. Right Lilo?

Yeah a lot of people that were up in arms about rap lost some of their fear/anger when Eminem hit it big. I still can't believe that a musician who rapped non-ironically IIRC about raping his mother , doing likewise to his wife and then killing her was referenced approving by supposedly feminist columnists in the NYT. Go figure....

Anyway RR, are you certain about Wings being the most successful 70's rock band in terms of record sales? I would have thought that distinction belonged to Kiss, Led Zeppelin, Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd or The Eagles?

Also if Paul is a billionaire or close to it based on his partial ownership of Beatles publishing, catalog, royalties etc, does anyone know if Yoko Ono is also as wealthy based on her inheritance of John's interests? Or does Paul's wealth arise from stuff he did post-Beatles?

[quote=ronnierocketAGO][quote=



And lets admit a truth: Wings wasn't so much a band as Paul's backing band. He was the boss, it only had three consistent members (him, Linda, Denny Laine) and the rest were salary players who couldn't get commissions and royalties. It's Paul fnatasy dominating his own Beatles much like fellow egomaniac/control freak John did with his Plastic Ono band. This is why Paul himself is in the Rock Hall of Fame and not Wings, who unless my data is wrong, were the most successful rock act of the 1970s in terms of record sales.

Damn RR, you're so thorough. You are making me think and I don't know if I can take it?

No disagreement regarding Paul's band being a backing band. And you are likely right that they may have needed someone like Martin to "guide" them. As far as Wings itself, I remember a Friday late night show called "In Concert" in which McCartney & Wings played a few times and was very popular. In particular, I owned Red Rose Speed Wagon and Venus & Mars.

Yet, as far as record sales, I'm not sure. Back then there were some very popular groups that didn't get full recognition as far as radio play (or even record sales) on your basic R&R stations (if memory serve me correctly, i.e. Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, The Who and many others). For whatever reason, either lyric content or extraordinarily long songs. We referred to them as the "Hard Rock" stations. So, record sales may have not been as high as, say Wings, but still they were popular with a lot of people.

A little memory regarding these concerts/radio and the cautiousness in which the powers that be "allowed" us to hear in those days (in Michigan anyway).

That same "In Concert" show I referred to back in the early 70s scheduled an appearance from Alice Cooper. My husband and I had just seen his concert. Weird as he was, we loved it and invited some friends over to watch (and party) at our house.

Came time for the Alice Cooper portion of the concert and we get an announcement on tv saying "they didn't think this concert was suitable for the Michigan audiences." We thought wtf? I got so mad, I wrote a letter asking them "who are they to tell me what's suitable for me to watch?" I was gonna send it to, until my husband put "P.S.....assholes" on the bottom. I cooled off and never actually sent it, but still I remember the disappointment.

TIS

I tried to find top selling bands of the seventies and came across this site, naming bands that were popular "underground" and not played on regular R&R stations. FYI I'm still checking it out.



http://www.angelfire.com/music4/deejay55920/

Lilo, I would guess McCartney is worth more than Yoko. Likely, John's two kids got a large portion of his estate (although Yoko is not hurting, I'm sure). Paul, although giving so much to Heather in his divorce, still I'm thinking is worth quite a bit more. I wanna even say in the billions???? They mentioned his approximate worth during his divorce but I can't count that high.

TIS

Associated Press
Buffalo, N.Y. -- John Lennon's killer is again up for parole in New York.

Mark David Chapman is scheduled to be interviewed at the Attica Correctional Facility this week. The interview could be as early as today.

It will be the sixth try at freedom for the former maintenance man who has spent nearly 30 years in the upstate New York prison. He has been denied parole every two years since becoming eligible in 2000.

Exactly when Chapman will be interviewed this week will depend on how quickly the parole panel works its way through a lengthy list of inmates.

Chapman was originally scheduled to appear last month, but the hearing was postponed.

He's serving a sentence of 20 years to life for shooting Lennon four times outside the ex-Beatle's Manhattan apartment building in December 1980.

I wonder what determines 20 years and/or life. This was premeditated murder, I would think life sentence is appropriate.

Btw, when I was in NY last I went to the Dakota hotel (where Lennon was shot). Gave me the chills. Here's the entrance where it happened.




Also, I went to Central Park where they have a memorial called "Strawberry Fields". The day I was there there happened to be a high school choir singing Lennon songs. It was very nice.






TIS


THIS JUST IN: Mark David Chapman was denied parole.

Yoko still lives in the Dakota Building apartment, which overlooks Strawberry Fields.

I knew she was still in NYC, but really didn't know she was still at the Dakota. Mick, I assume you saw the Dakota/Strawberry Fields when you visited??



TIS

McCartney made a good portion of his fortune from buying up music copyrights, most nostably Buddy Holly's catalogue. Of course this can backfire as he gave similar advice to Michael Jackson.

As for Yoko, she (unfortunately) controls the Lennon estate. Which is why it seems every 5 years his catalogue gets re-released in "re-mastered" editions. And from a google search it seems that for some reason, John didn't leave Julian anything in his will.

Well that was dickish.

Interestingly, the Daily Mail (as Capo said, not exactly a reliable news source) claim that ole Heather cost Macca 24 million Pounds. Or to 2010 currency exchange, that's nearly $37 million.

That's Amy Irving levels of fleecing.

And when MJ died, I read that he and Sir paul were still on the outs because Paul felt that he was fleeced when MJ purchased the Beatles copyrights. I love Paul, but thought that to be a bit hypocritical. Besides, no one held a gun to his head and told him to sell.


Spielberg just wanted to get rid of her. Funny how her career tanked at the EXACT moment she got that huge settlement.

Payback from Spielberg's Hollywood pals?

I'm still getting over the fact that John left Julian nothing. I am really surprised. If true, RR is right it is very "dickish".


TIS

Macca nor any of the Beatles have ever owned the Beatles' copyrights. And yeah for the record I don't exactly feel that bad for Macca on this considering all the copyrights from Holly to Al Jolson to Roy Orbison to even songs like "The Man with the Bag."


Spielberg just wanted to get rid of her. Funny how her career tanked at the EXACT moment she got that huge settlement.

Payback from Spielberg's Hollywood pals?[/quote]

Probably, or the fact that she wasn't that much of an actress in the first place.



To be fair, it might have been one of those wreckless moves done because hey Lennon died when he was what only 40? How many people think they're gonna bite the big one at that age?

Yeah that's the thing. You never know when you're gonna go. Lennon may well have intended to change the will. Maybe. But all we can go on is what people leave in writing or what they don't leave in writing..