catesa
I am a total nut about The Beatles, particularly John Lennon, and particularly when he was young. In spite of a few character flaws (the occasional smacking around girlfriends, etc.), pre-Yoko Lennon was always my favorite Beatle, and frankly one of my personal heroes.I went into this movie already thoroughly acquainted with the story of Lennon's upbringing, of Mimi vs. Julia, The Quarrymen, art college, etc. Having been burned by movies like "Backbeat" and "Birth of The Beatles", I was bracing myself for a barrage of misinformation, out-of-order chronology, and embarrassing rock n' roll clichés. All in all I was very pleasantly surprised. The attention to detail and historical accuracy was such a breath of fresh air after all the years of sub-par Beatle bio-flicks.It was a joy to see they actually filmed at Mimi's house, Mendips. They had John Lennon's actual artwork and childhood photos hanging around. They found an identical guitar to the one he first played in school, etc. But these are superficial things to pay so much attention to. The main thing I wanted to write about are the characters: I was particularly happy to see the way Aunt Mimi was portrayed. She always gets a bad rep as this shrewd, cold, mean old lady, and it always bugs the crud out of me (actually, in the initial script she was written that way; McCartney and Yoko had to tell Sam Taylor-Wood it was unfair to her). She and Lennon were super-close; at odds sometimes, but they always had a deep love for one another.However, it was a little distressing to me how poor Julia was treated. The movie makes her out to be some mentally unstable skank; a neglectful, childish strumpet who never bothered to know her son until he was almost grown. The truth is Julia and John saw each other during his childhood as often as circumstances allowed (albeit infrequently), and were very close in the years leading to her death. It doesn't seem as if the real Julia was as loose and out of control as the movie implies. I think it was more a matter of her whimsy and eccentricity bothering straight-laced Mimi. Mimi allegedly got custody of John after ranting and raving to child services that her sister was "unfit to be a parent" and insisted on taking him. Given how old-fashioned Mimi was, there's a good chance that Julia's "hard living" was blown way out of proportion (Ironically, there's some evidence that Mimi was having an affair with her young student lodger in spite of her disapproval of Julia). By today's standards, the whole situation isn't really that scandalous(*gasp*, you sleep with someone you're not married to!), but I suppose it was for then. Just some food for thought.I was also a little rubbed that they had young Paul McCartney acting like John's teacher or something. He might've known more chords, or written a song or two, but he and Lennon were both relatively clueless when they began playing together. Lennon asking him "Why do you know so much?" - kinda lame considering that McCartney was pretty in awe of him too.Lastly, the man, the myth, the legend himself: I think this movie hits closest to the mark on young Lennon's personality out of any film ever made about him. He was a complex guy, especially in his youth (before he was Mr. "Peace and Love"). I think the tough guy posturing was probably dead on. The unchecked confidence that just oozes from Aaron Johnson's pores really sells it. You get the sense that teenage Lennon is only bluffing his "dangerous troublemaker" bit, which was probably the case. I would've liked to have seen a little more of his sense of humor (the classic cheeky Lennon wit is missing a little bit). Although I appreciate the effort to also have him show some sensitivity, I think in this movie it's the wrong kind.I think John could've been written a little friendlier, warmer, kinder. Despite his teddy boy image, he apparently could be a sweetheart (you know, when not mocking the disabled or swearing at old ladies). It's the mixture of that "I'm a badass" hardness and who he was underneath that make him such a fascinating character.It's common knowledge that his family situation was something he was deeply embarrassed about, and that his mother's death was really hard on him, but young Lennon was also notorious for hiding any emotion that wasn't blind rage. I'm seriously doubtful that he would've gotten into some screamy-crying emotional spat with Mimi and his mom. I mean, come on - punching out Paul, running out of the house crying like some whiny little brat? Where's the chilled-out, laid back sarcastic guy we all know and love? Lennon was plenty interesting enough on his own - no need to make him carry on like a soap star.In the end, I have to keep in mind that it's only a movie, and compared to what's come before it I think it does a relatively wonderful job of showing post-war, pre "fab" Beatles; the history is pretty on the nuggets (it would've been cool to see Stu make an appearance, but you can't have everything), the writing and the acting are superb, and It's cool to see so much of Liverpool. Go watch it. Right now. Do it. Now.
popcorninhell
What makes for a good biographical epic anyway? Since watching movies is a visceral experience I'd like to think the best movies based on real events like Gandhi (1982) and Amadeus (1984) keep the spirit of the person or event intact. Small embellishments or endearing character traits can sometimes add to the story so long as they don't go overboard. Anyone remember Patch Adams (1998)? How about Men Who Stare at Goats (2009)? Two stories certainly worth telling that were dragged in the muck because of one too many tall tales.Well, I didn't think it was possible but it seems it can work the other way around too. You can have too little embellishment, too little false characterizations and too little drama. Thus was the case of the 2009's look at John Lennon's adolescents Nowhere Boy. Now anyone who knows me knows I'm a pretty big admirer of The Beatles. Not big enough to own all their albums on vinyl but big enough to actually know which album is which. You could say in comparison to others in my generation who have never actually seen them live, I'm a fan. I say all this to put my opinion of Nowhere Boy in a context. You may be a bigger fan than I and loved the film in which case bully for you. I however found it dull.John Lennon's early adolescence consisted of a broken household and a lost identity. Living with close relatives for most of his life, the young John meets his birth mother only after the death of his uncle. His aunt, of course is not a fan of them gallivanting around Liverpool when he should be doing his homework. Nor is she a fan of John starting a band with schoolmates for that matter. Things however reach their climax when John begins to put the puzzle together and confronts his mother with complex questions like "why did you leave me?" "who is my father?" and "how many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop?"Its all pretty heavy and if it were anyone else, the story and its resolution would have worked, but this is John f*****g Lennon! Seeing him breaking a washboard over a friends head in a drunken rage or wagging his bits at school girls make him look like a particularly maladjusted teenager not the symbol of love, peace and awesomeness I've pictured. I'm not saying he wasn't a total jerk in grade school, he likely was, but why is his broken home worth the biographic treatment? If anything it should consist of a very small part of a hero worshiping epic starring Michael Sheen and directed by James Manigold. Not the whole subject of a movie about a poor boy with an Oedipus complex starring the kid from Angus, Thongs and Perfect Snogging (2008).
