I don’t get all these people saying “Oh, it’ll be revisionism” “whitewashing” “not holding my breath on it”. Well, SOME FANS we have here Personally, I’ve been waiting for a rerelease of Let It Be/Get Back since at least 1990 -the first time I bought the original movie from a fan. Been reading all the books, been buying and studying the A/B Road set etc. And this is the right year for fans anxious to get more stuff on that incredibly creative January from many years ago. I suggest to all those fans not interested in these kind of things to shut up, and keep on wasting hundreds of bucks to see the dear but voiceless Macca and his Beatles karaoke circus
Sure he can. But mainly it’s only a“Blah blah I’ll keep my 1847 LP first Antartic press, you are going to be robbed” thing, which is quite hilarious to me.
MLH's hands were tied by the four executive producers of the project. Don't blame him for not telling the true story. The new film appears destined to tell even less of the true story, as Jackson is equally beholden to the four executive producers.
I think you and I are reading different threads. I'm fairy confident in saying that no one is more excited to see new "Get Back" footage than I am. I anticipate this being the first time I'll sit through a theatrical screening two times in a row since "Smokey and the Bandit" when I was 13. That doesn't mean that I can't have a realistic discussion about what the film will reveal and what it won't.
I would actually be fantastic if the Jackson film were shown as a double bill with Smokey and the Bandit.
okay then,... "it's not revisionist if Michael Lindsay-Hogg's hands were tied by the four executive producers of the project and got it wrong the first time"
Fine with me, but I was not necessarily talking about YOU. The world is a bit bigger than the two of us
What would be the true story Ray? I'd be very interested in how you think this film should be if it was telling the true story, seeing as you probably know more about this period than most anyone on this board
Michael Lindsay-Hogg mentioned in an interview at some point in the past year that they will also be releasing his original cut of the film as well, so assuming they don't back off from that (which I do worry about considering how even Jeff Jones seems to be selling the new Jackson movie on the basis of Lindsay-Hogg's original film stinking), we should get both "versions" of the film when it comes out on Blu-ray, etc. If Jackson's film paints a "ten thumbs up!" unequivocally happy picture of these sessions, then it's not any more accurate than the original film. But let's be clear, the original film isn't all darkness either. The bigger problem with the original film is that it always looked awful (which would be fixed with a true restoration/remastering) and the editing was choppy (which of course *won't* be fixed). I look at the Jackson film as a feature-length release of LIB outtake film footage. Good enough for me. If it also provides an interesting narrative, all the better. Hopefully an eventual release will include both films as well as outtakes, and then we can all "roll our own" in the future.
The true story gets into the details of why George was sour on the project from the start, and why he walked out, and why he came back. There's plenty of interesting story and drama, right from the first day, because the project is in constant flux and open to constant debate. When they get to Apple and get into the recording groove (Jan 23rd onward) the story arc really focuses on will there be a show or won't there be, and if so, where? The more interesting story, to me, is told at Twickenham, where most of George's new compositions are not met with respect and he remains "under the thumb" of Paul and John. When George sees himself suddenly in danger of being FOURTH in the Beatle pecking order (thanks to Yoko acting as John's proxy), he leaves. When John brings Yoko to their meeting at Ringo's house on January 12th, and she again serves as his proxy, George walks out again. There's absolutely no chance that THIS story gets told in the new film.
This is a kind of whitewashing,no way to get around that,they kept Let it Be from the fans,because it’s not what Apple wants the public to see,so they took the footage and retold the story under their direction
I think there is a certain irony that if they would have told the truth in the first film, a "happy times" film from the remaining footage would be a wonderful companion piece. But since the first film largely buries the truth, there is a certain desire (sure to be unmet once again) that they tell the truth this time. That all being said ... previously unseen "Get Back" footage all synced up and restored to its original beauty - sign me up and pass the popcorn!
I don't know, I wouldn't really expect a film to go into all the gory details about the making of itself. I mean, the new film isn't "The Making of the Old Let It Be Movie", is it? Give me two previously unseen hours of the Beatles making music and acting silly and I'll be happy as a clam.
Maybe they *will* deal with the petty differences that arose during the early part of the sessions. The move to Apple studios brought a new energy and better vibes. That’s a pretty good story to set the music to, if you ask me. And, I also think “whitewashing’ is a ridiculous accusation better suited to massive coverups, which this isn’t, even if they avoid the negative vibes of the Twickenham sessions.
I agree with you. But that just goes to show how culturally significant these particular singer-songwriters still apparently are.
The only "truth" is what happened at the time. Filmmakers don't portray the truth, it's not their job. The original Let It Be film is a couple of hours out of hundreds of studio hours. To argue that this represents the truth, the whole truth and nothing but is ridiculous.
So why exactly was George sour from the very start? Did some pre-filming meetings cause George to be overly negative before the sessions even started? Because I presume that he, along with the others, agreed in late 1968 to doing the project.
Two things I do know: The original LIB is a mess and becomes a chore to watch after 15-20 minutes. John seems to be the cause of much of the inertia, sort of an anti-catalyst. Doug Sulpy's "Let It be" sessions Book gives a pretty accurate accounting of what the sessions were like. Yes, there was some tension and also some fooling around and apparently moments when they pulled together, the "Beatles" becoming some kind of psycho-magnetic force that only those four could tune into. Remember these guys made Abbey Road a few months later. Almost by casual force of will. So, a new LIB doesn't have to be a happyfest, but it can show them as functioning band of incredible and singular talent that happened to be documented when reaching the conclusion of their natural life cycle (Their first natural life cycle, in the event John was around in the 90's, maybe)
But the public knows already. We've been knowing these things for the last 50 years. There's no trick. It's history.
