"Backbeat:" Zzzzzzzz......
ALBERT WALKER III
Is it just me, or is this an incredibly boring film? I just saw it, and
it was a pretty tedious experience. Now that I think about it, who's the
moron who thought of doing a film about Stu Sutcliffe?
-------------------------------------------------------------
| Albert Walker III (albertwa @ scf.usc.edu) "I want you. |
| I want you so bad. I want you so bad, it's driving me |
| mad, driving me mad. She's so heavy." |
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert L Ryder
>
>Is it just me, or is this an incredibly boring film? I just saw it, and
>it was a pretty tedious experience. Now that I think about it, who's the
>moron who thought of doing a film about Stu Sutcliffe?
>
I just saw the film Saturday night and loved it! I was never 'bored'
and spent most of the film hoping that it would continue on. I was
very curious about how they would portray various episodes in their
lives (I could easily been three to five hours long)! It seems that
a lot of crucial background info was missing, especially John's past,
which would explain his angry attitude. My only beef with the movie
was John's reaction to Stu's death. From the biographies I've read,
when Astrid told John that Stu was dead, John laughed aloud and just
walked away. Anyone else read this, too?
Rob R.
r...@inr.com
Jamesa M Willer
>Is it just me, or is this an incredibly boring film? I just saw it, and
>it was a pretty tedious experience. Now that I think about it, who's the
>moron who thought of doing a film about Stu Sutcliffe?
Four words:
"Dead men don't sue."
jaMesa Willer
[any opinions above should be served with a white wine and garlic sauce]
Martin Rundkvist
mastermind of the Beatles' success...
James Ciminera
>>moron who thought of doing a film about Stu Sutcliffe?
I haven't seen the movie, so I am not defending it against charges of being
boring, but if Stu would have lived and gone on with the band, he would have
eclipsed the other members in popularity. First off, he looked like James
Dean. More important than that, he was the most sophisticated and
artistically gifted member of the group. But I think more important than
that, Lennon looked up to him. He would have been the defacto leader of that
band instead of John.
Jim Cim
Phil Miller
: I haven't seen the movie, so I am not defending it against charges of being
: boring, but if Stu would have lived and gone on with the band, he would have
: eclipsed the other members in popularity. First off, he looked like James
: Dean. More important than that, he was the most sophisticated and
: artistically gifted member of the group. But I think more important than
: that, Lennon looked up to him. He would have been the defacto leader of that
: band instead of John.
Really? Could he sing or write songs? All we ever hear about is that
he couldn't play the bass very well.
philll
Mike Finley
> : that, Lennon looked up to him. He would have been the defacto leader of that
> : band instead of John.
>
Yes -- you would think musicianship would play some sort of factor in a world-famous
mous rock group.
Btw, if you think this movie was boring, check out last year's movie about a
presumed dalliance between Lennon and Epsetin in Barcelona in 1964. Dull as
dust.
========================================================================
Mike Finley
mfi...@skypoint.skypoint.com
========================================================================
saki
>James Ciminera (James_C...@babylon.montreal.qc.ca) wrote:
>: I haven't seen the movie, so I am not defending it against charges of being
>: boring, but if Stu would have lived and gone on with the band, he would have
>: eclipsed the other members in popularity. First off, he looked like James
>: Dean.
This was by no means a positive asset; in fact it was a bit of a
liability. Look at poor Pete Best, whose similar adherence to fifties
dress and style partly handicapped his future (as has been argued here
before, so did his perfunctory playing ability.) Quite without sensing
their own potentially groundbreaking prescience, the Beatles followed
a new lead---one which had been suggested to them via Astrid Kirchherr
and Stuart himself, who under Astrid's influence, abandoned the James-
Deanesque visage and fine-tuned his artistic persona to a more
European existentialist would-be-new-wave-beatnik, if you can stand
such a portmanteau category. :-)
On the other hand, one could well argue that the Fabs went further
than this, popularizing an amalgam of graphic and personal style
which included faint remnants of the fifties admixed with teen/student
culture of France and Germany, early-sixties mod, updated teddy-boy
rocker, and an insouciant intellectual disregard for any intentional
image. Miraculously, and almost intuitively, they gave the impression
of being both at home with their distinctive "look" and living beyond
its merely visual confines into the genius of their music.
>: More important than that, he was the most sophisticated and
>: artistically gifted member of the group.
I'll go with you as far as the boundaries of so-called "fine art",
which was Stuart's forte. But one might well claim that John was
the most eclectic artist of the fivesome---the only one who could
excel at line-drawing, caricature, prose and poetry, lyrics and
melody. Of course in the art world, more so then rather than now,
a "fine" artist was held in higher regard than a popular artist,
and pop music was considered to be pretty far down the hierarchy of
creative achievement...hence John's and Paul's quaint, touching
early concerns about how they'd earn their artistic living after
the fad itself faltered.
>: But I think more important than that, Lennon looked up to
>: [Stuart]. He would have been the defacto leader of that
>: band instead of John.
Historical record suggests that Lennon and Sutcliffe belonged to a
mutual admiration society, and bolstered each other's creativity.
Sutcliffe was certainly dedicated to the muse of abstract art, and
much more the proper art-school student, whereas John was the one
who stretched the confines of the aesthetic envelope. Stu's somewhat
quiescent and retiring personal nature would also have been less
helpful to a musical group whose success depended upon a more
brash vision of pop art than Stu could deliver, I'd venture to
say.
Stu's undeniable talent seems to have burned within, for himself.
John's creative flame, on the other hand, illumined the way for his
musical compatriots and provided a plethora of passion upon which
the Beatles fueled their fecund synergy. John's and Stu's paths were
split in the early sixties, with no apparent rift in their respect
for each other's divergent choice. Had each lived a full life within
their craft, they might have both found themselves rematched through
conceptual or pop art, an avenue which was not yet fully (or even
partially) available to them in the early sixties.
Phil Miller writes:
>Could [Stu] sing or write songs? All we ever hear about is that
>he couldn't play the bass very well.
Mr. Miller's point is well taken. As a member of a rock-and-roll
music group, Stu would have had to transform his considerable
visual talent into a musical dialect, something which it appears
he was neither willing nor able to do. John's initial support
of Stu's membership in the Beatles was an admirable sentiment,
but even John must have begun to see, as Stu himself certainly
did, that each had their own paths to traverse, parallel but
instrinsically distinct.
--
"Nice lads of course---as we are always being reminded---in spite
of their fans, their clothes and their haircuts."
-------------------------------------------------
saki (dm...@math.ucla.edu)
David Hines
Umm...yes, perhaps. But he couldn't sing or play an instrument, so don't
you think his input may have been a little limited?
--
___________________________________________________________________________
DAVE "She's a drag, a well known
(From NZ) drag. We turn the sound down
David Hines..(rum...@pinn.nacjack.gen.nz) on her and say rude things."
- George Harrison
"A Hard Day's Night"
___________________________________________________________________________
Rob Hedges
(saki) wrote:
> In article <2r8bbj$m...@hpscit.sc.hp.com> mil...@sc.hp.com (Phil Miller) writes:
> >James Ciminera (James_C...@babylon.montreal.qc.ca) wrote:
>
> >: I haven't seen the movie, so I am not defending it against charges of being
> >: boring, but if Stu would have lived and gone on with the band, he would have
> >: eclipsed the other members in popularity. First off, he looked like James
> >: Dean.
>
> This was by no means a positive asset; in fact it was a bit of a
> liability. Look at poor Pete Best, whose similar adherence to fifties
> dress and style partly handicapped his future (as has been argued here
> before, so did his perfunctory playing ability.)
I also think of Ian Stewart, who was relegated to second-class citizen-
ship in the Stones for basically being too clean-cut. In early group photos
he sticks out like an un-sore thumb!
--
Rob Hedges (colo...@leland.stanford.edu)
"The chief enemy of creativity is good taste." -Picasso
Marc Doi Matsumoto
Bryan D. Woolley
To whoever said that had Stu lived he would've been the most
popular Beatle and the leader over John:
The above may be true if the Beatles came out in today"s Mtv
saturized music media. Today image is everything, and talent
is secondary.If you look good, or cool, or anti (fill in the blank)
you'll be sure to sell a lot of records via video rotation and
magazine sales. However, to say Stu would've been the leader
and the most popular is really incorrect.
Bryan
no e-mail please.
Kent Fletcher, HNL ME Group, 808-625-3210
"Defacto leader of that band instead of John." ??? Thats crazy. Yes, he
may have been a popular member, but unless he suddenly sprouted some great
musical playing or songwriting ability, he would have continued to be
a Beatle ONLY because he was John's friend. As Astrid has recently stated,
his presence in the band caused friction between Paul and John, so one can
only wonder how the Beatles would have developed had Stu stayed in the band.
das3
Pete Best could play the drums, and was considered the best looking member
of the band, and yet he was not considered good enough for a recording act.
Question: How long do you think a musician of Stu's obvious ability - ie. none
at all - would have lasted once the recording contract appeared?
Dave.
eddm3
>Pete Best could play the drums, and was considered the best looking member
>of the band, and yet he was not considered good enough for a recording act.
>Question: How long do you think a musician of Stu's obvious ability - ie. none
>at all - would have lasted once the recording contract appeared?
Well Dave, I suppose that depends on how much influence Stu had on Lennon
iif as it seems he was at least partly responsible for Lennon's excellence then
he could have perhaps remained with the band for longer than you think. The
creation of great music, as I am sure you know, depends to some extent on the
relationships between songwriter and band members.
Anyhow isn't this all hypothetical as Stu in fact had already left the band
when he died, recognising his own inability. Stu had ability, but as an artist.
Ed.
David Finestone
But, then again if Hippos could fly we'ld all be schlepping steel
umbrellas.
Is Mr Sutcliff alive ? Nope !
Did Peter Max channel his artistic ability in to song writting
after his paintings stopped selling? Don't think so!
Did Astred dodge any and all Beatle historians untill
someone offered her stacks of cash to put "her" story
on film?
Oh, yes she did, that she did!
To sum up, Again!
There were four (4) Beatles, perhaps if Stu had lived
and decided to rejoin the band after he quit, they might have
been "The Shoes" (cool inside joke, someone else will explain). But he
didn't. So your well written conjector aimed at James Dean fans is best
mused over after the 2 for 1 video rental of "Giant" & "Backbeat" viewed
while and after massive amounts of reality altering substances have been
consumed! Woah, sounds cool, mind if I join you.
"Far out, the guy playing the grossley misrepresented and hollywoodized
version of Stuart Sutcliff looks kinda like James Dean!, Wanna put on
"Giant"? --insert your posting here-- "Yea ? ya think so ? Got any more
stuff I'm comming down"
By the same token, I think that Socrates was a literary
invention of Plato designed to further Platos' dialogues on philospher
Kings over democracy" But who cares ? It's a moote point.
David Hines
Umm...yes, perhaps. But he couldn't sing or play an instrument, so don't
saki
(David Finestone) writes:
>Wow, keen insight, well written with an ampel amount of $.50 words.
You couldn't be quoting me, then. All my words cost two-fifty.
(Alt.folklore.urban fans will know what I mean.)
BTW, I've noticed that several semi-regulars in rec.music.beatles
seem to be flying without benefit of netiquette, or an adequate
comprehension thereof. Your post responds to someone's article but
with no clue as to its author. Many Internet news posting programs
allow automatic citation of the article, via quotes and attribution
lines; this makes it easy to follow your reasoning and consider from
whence it was inspired. If there's no automatic way to do this at
your site, or if you haven't figured out the software yet, you
might inquire with your system administrator for a brief tutorial.
Or, if it isn't asking too much, and if your energy level allows,
perhaps you could refer to the previous writer and his/her subject
matter briefly in a summary. Otherwise one gets the impression that
you are talking to yourself, a pastime as disconcerting on the net
as it is in real life.
> Did Astred dodge any and all Beatle historians untill
> someone offered her stacks of cash to put "her" story
> on film?
> Oh, yes she did, that she did!
I'm puzzled by your claim, or what seems to be your claim. My
understanding was that Astrid Kirchherr did not necessarily
"dodge" Beatles historians at all. She was interviewed as early
as 1966-67 by "authorized" Beatles biographer Hunter Davies, and
has responded to occasional requests for information since then.
Her profile has been low, admittedly; one gathers that her life,
since Stuart's death, has not been particularly happy, nor her
marriages entirely blissful. Certainly her professional career
has taken some odd turns (from photographer to hotelier).
Unless I'm very much mistaken (and, as usual, I'd appreciate
a correction if so), no one offered Astrid "stacks of cash" for
her film life. Do you have information to the contrary? Your
apparent contention that she "sold out" requires some substantiation.
>"Far out, the guy playing the grossley misrepresented and hollywoodized
>version of Stuart Sutcliff looks kinda like James Dean!, Wanna put on
>"Giant"? --insert your posting here-- "Yea ? ya think so ? Got any more
>stuff I'm comming down"
I'm not often completely baffled by a posting in this newsgroup, but
your tone here does leave me all at sea, or nearly so; perhaps it's
a tad too rich in irony. Are you saying you *do* appreciate musings
on the varied paths of the Fabs' multiplicitous career? Or that
such investigations have no raison d'etre? (pardon my French....)
> By the same token, I think that Socrates was a literary
>invention of Plato designed to further Platos' dialogues on philospher
>Kings over democracy" But who cares ? It's a moote point.
It's back to prosaic old Herodotus for us, I guess. :-)