My take after watching this is that Paul is more concerned that the rest of the Beatles aren't quite up to the task of playing live. I don't think he's convinced that the rest of the band can pull it off, given the rehearsals so far.
The only reason this fuss about Heather is being made is because people are aware of the alternative. I bet many people here didn't know that audio interview segments of George being interviewed in Living in the Material World were edited so that it sounded like he was making a different point to what he actually said.
This is so true. For so long we wondered if we would ever get an official Let It Be (film) release. Now, beyond our wildest expectations, we have almost eight hours of the stuff. I'm very grateful. Thanks Peter.
By the time She Loves You was written, the end of June 1963, The Beatles had two number one singles, a number one album and were starting a long run of their own radio programmes. Even Mimi thought they had made a success of things. Jim was not going to throw a Beatle out of his house.
I'm going by memory here so I can't remember the exact details, but one that always stood out to me was when his voice is playing over the footage of them in Australia, and he says something like "An attitude came over of John and Paul, ok we're the grooves and you two just watch it" and it's followed by "don't forget I spent 10 years in the back of a limousine with them." The edit cut out this part inbetween those two lines, which imo makes what he was saying much softer and more a comment on his position in The Beatles than John and Paul doing something directly to George and Ringo in their behaviour. "Not that – they never said that or did anything, but over a period of time….I mean, I could step off the stage being in The Beatles and go and talk to somebody who say, John and Paul wouldn’t talk to, and I remember people saying, 'Oh I don’t think Lennon likes me.' And I said, 'Why?' 'Because the way he looked at me.' 'Well, he looks at you like that ‘cause he hasn’t got his glasses on! He can’t see anything.' And in a way I always felt a bit like an observer of The Beatles, even though I was with them, whereas I think John and Paul were the stars of The Beatles. I mean, on a very personal intimate level, you know –" Then he says "don’t forget I spent 10 years in the back of a limousine with them." I love his awareness of being an observer and the person who talks to the people around The Beatles. You definitely see some of that come through in Get Back.
Can anyone explain to me what's going on with the wall panels in the Apple studio? It looks like they're two-sided and can be swung open. They have handles on them and seem to have a "fabric" side and a "silver" side. I assume these are sound absorptive and sound reflective, respectively. Anyone know for sure or have an educated guess? Thanks.
You are correct. Some instruments may require hearing the room “wet”using the panel’s reflective side, whereas, the “dry” absorbent side helps prevent room sounds from reverberating. Having moving panels with both allows a blend of the two as needed.
Watching George and Ringo working on Octopus, I'm reminded of what a delight that whole scene is. I just love hearing how George sings the actual lyric 'octopus' garden in the shade'. He has his own way of singing it, sounds really lovely. And John coming in, having a go on the drums, joking about how Paul would want to play drums with his 'strong left arm'. lol Also...while George is figuring out the chords - George: ...Something to get back - Ringo: To where we started. Get Back.
What you think is news is not. There's a distinction between what PJ has done and the inevitable subjectivity of any telling of history. If a documentary filmmaker deliberately edits a scene or sequence of events so as to create a chosen meaning that the filmmaker knows is by any reasonable standard unfaithful to what actually occurred, that's not acceptable, at least, not to anyone who respects the difference between history and fairytales. And aside from that, is there any reason that I should prefer Jackson's gratuitous, chosen fictions to what actually happened on camera? No, there's not.
There are gaps in the film. There have to be shots inserted. Showing Heather reacting simply sets up her singing later. It’s your interpretation that Heathers expression shows something inconsistent with what she actually did, but the camera wasn’t on her. I don’t think PJ was being manipulative here, but merely following Chekov’s rule.
That necessity is also problematic, but at least the use of audio sync'd with visuals of the band playing something else was disclosed up front and not manipulative. This is not an example of "Chekhov's gun."
Maybe PJ used Heather as a comment on the general feeling amongst fabs and helpers about that singing, that he gleaned by being the filmmaker. And maybe Yoko thought it was a good laugh. Who knows?
A personality unlike any other. The thing that drew Paul and George to him, and made them throw away any dreams of a "normal" life to play Rock and Roll with him.
First of all, I'm not mad. Second, there are not "eight plus hours" of the kind of fictions that I've referred to. Apples and oranges.
