John with Aunt Mater, Uncle Bert, and cousins Liela, David and Michael. Bobby Dykins with John's half sister, Jacqui.
Virginia and Bill Harry, Mersey Beat John's contribution to Mersey Beat volume 1 Ringo at the Mersey Beat office days after joining the Beatles.
John looks like a right brat in the first photo, pulling a face. Regarding the second photo: I think this is the first photo I have ever seen of "Twitchy". He looks quite old and repectable.
I think he was always cool/adorable. So to answer wildestcat's question: yes, but with the addition of adorable.
The Tune In (Volume 1) book only goes up to December 31, 1962. Mark Lewisohn's typewriter has been broken for the past 7-8 years, so he not yet completed the proposed Volume 2 and Volume 3. Well, that might not be the real reason...
Another reason why, despite the historical inaccuracies (and the kid playing George not really able to nail his accent), Nowhere Boy remains the only Beatles biopic I can handle.
I really like that movie. Even with the inaccuracies, it's got a good feel to it, and tells a story, instead of being something where it needs to check the boxes for being a Beatles biopic.
I totally agree. I appreciate their attention to detail in how they cast everyone. Most notably, the kids playing the Beatles actually *look* like kids, rather than 35 year olds trying to pass off being 19. The kid playing Pete Shotton looked strikingly like the pictures I've seen of Pete. They also clearly shot the whole thing in Liverpool. There are also little nuances in the lines that strike me as authentic. Example: when Paul introduces George on the bus, John says "what are you gonna show us? magic tricks?" since of course he thought George was just a little kid. Later on, after George nails a song in one of their gigs, he turns to John and says "abracadabra, eh John?" That just seems so authentic to George's apparent cockiness as a kid. They got the guitars right, as opposed to Backbeat where, not only could I not tell who was supposed to be whom, but they had ridiculous things like them playing Strats in Hamburg. Come on. Paul said he thinks the movie is generally accurate, with the exception being the scene where John punches him, which he says never happened. He said John would yell at him, but never threw a punch.
I agree with all of this. One thing that always went through my mind is when I read Pete Shotton's book, and how what I read there really made the movie a little more plausible. Pete even said that when he said he wanted to quit The Quarrymen, John did break the washboard over his head. Also, it gives a good possible reason behind the story of John laughing when Uncle George died. Made that a little less of John being cruel and more mistaking it for Uncle George goofing around. And someday I need to get my hands on a Hofner Club electric!
I also think the laugh may have been his response from just being freaked out. I've seen people do that before. It's not them being cruel or not empathetic; it's a reaction to not knowing what to do and being in shock. I think one reason the movie comes across as authentic is that apparently Paul read the script beforehand. Mimi was apparently originally written as much meaner, and he told the director, "no, she wasn't cruel; she was just strict, but she really loved John."
Things like taking care to have Paul's input welcomed and affect the script being changed is one of the many reasons I like this movie. It feels like a bunch of teenagers growing up, and creating the feeling in the viewer that you know what lies ahead for them, but they're just being teens growing up in Liverpool.
Totally. I wish they would've done a sequel that had them in Hamburg, but I suppose at this point, the actors are a bit too old for that.
