The McCartney Years dvd coming up

I can't believe anyone as smart as those two would do something that stupid. Jeez.....we say Lee Harvey Oswald, John Wilkes Booth and Sirhan Sirhan without a problem!!

 

Which is part of the reason it makes so little sense to me that Chapman - there, I said it! - gets the Voldemort treatment. His name's out there, and consciously NOT saying it doesn't repair the damage done. Again, I understand that folks feel Chapman did what he did to be famous and they don't want to grant his wish, but it's too late. All the fan refusals in the world won't eliminate his name from the history books - like it or not, if he shot Lennon to be famous, he got his wish...

 

Mark David Chapman? That's his name. There is no reason not to say or write his name. We say and write the names of people who did horrible things, and Mark David Chapman should not be treated any differently. He is not a god or an immortal being, whose name cannot be spoken. He is a man who did a horrible thing. John Wilkes Booth killed Lincoln. Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy. Osama Bin Laden killed 2,974 people in New York, Washington D.C., and Shanksville, Pennsylvania. We say and write their names. We say and write the name Adolf Hitler, who killed over 6 million people. There is absolutely no reason not to say or write Mark David Chapman's name, whatever sick, crazy thoughts were running through his mind when he killed John Lennon.

 

My point entirely.

 

It's the single version--a totally different version than the album version, a re-make recorded with the "touring band." Like everything else, it has been remixed to 5.1, but in stereo sounds essentially the same as the single.

The video has always used the single version, and not the LP version.

 

Yeah, but is it relevant to include his name in a career timeline included with a Paul McCartney DVD? Pete Best and Stu Sutcliffe don't get mentioned, and he does?

 

I don't really disagree, which is why I pointed out in my post that I don't have a problem with mentioning his name. I was only not mentioning his name in that post for the sake of furthering the discussion, as I wanted to make a point that Paul had used his name, and I didn't want that point getting lost in a potential debate over whether everybody or anybody should use the name or not. It doesn't appear from what I can tell that anybody in the thread is super adament about not using the name, so it probably was a debate that didn't need to be avoided.

I don't mind people using or not using his name. The argument that the name is out there and everybody knows it works both ways. It doesn't bug me that Beatlefan doesn't use the name, because we already know the name anyway. Similarly, when people use the name, whether it's a journalist or Paul or anybody else, I don't care either. In conversations with people over the years, I've used his name. Saying "Lennon's killer" instead of Mark Chapman in print seems a bit less strange than saying it in actual conversation, at least to me for some reason.

I did find it a bit odd that Beatlefan did print the name of the guy who attacked Harrison. Did they draw the line somewhere between doing something that could potentially kill a Beatle and actually killing a Beatle? I remember when that attack happened, I anticipated a similar blackout of the name in Beatlefan. I was surprised to see the name in the next issue. That was a bit of a head-scratcher. Of course, I've been shocked in the aftermath of Harrison's attack that it really has faded into obscurity. I don't know if it was because Harrison was already ill, or if Harrison was a more low key "celebrity", or if a non-fatal attack just doesn't garner as much attention. I'm just thinking that if some A-list movie star had been attacked in that fashion in 1999, it would still be mentioned a lot more than Harrison's attack seems to be.

 

Because John's death had an impact on Paul's solo career. The other two guys had no bearing. It is after all a McCartney DVD, not a Beatles one.

 

I think the rationale goes back to the motives involved. AFAIR, Chapman claims he did what he did to become famous, so some folks want to attempt to deny him that fame by never mentioning his name. I think the guy who attacked George was just mentally unstable. Maybe he had the same goal, but I don't think that was the case.

And as far as the publicity goes, I think it's because George was hurt but recovered - that's not nearly the event an actual murder is...

 

Yes, of course, but it would have been classier just for the entry to say "John Lennon is murdered." Maybe adding that Paul spent the next day in the studio with George Martin and didn't record anything. (That would have been more relevant to McCartney's solo career, which is what the DVD is about.)

This is all splitting hairs anyway...I'm glad this is out. So John has "Lennon Legend," George has a DVD of his music videos...does Ringo have one?

 

His murderer gained noteriety whether we mention his name or not, unfortuneately. In some ways it can take more remembering to not mention his name than to let it just be another set of words.

 

Just the wonderful few that are on the recent Best of special edition. Only You still may be my favorite video from all 4 of them.

 

Plus, "Only You" was the only film on the Ringo DVD that actually looked markedly better than the versions that had "circulated" for years among collectors. Ringo has a surprisingly large number of promo films/videos, including some really obscure items from the mid-late 70's.

Not unlike the "Junior's Farm" clip on the McCartney DVD set, they also dubbed Ringo's "Sentimental Journey" film with the standard album audio even though it had a unique lead vocal.

 

I agree with you Eric (by the way, happy new year).
Besides the fact that Paul's been riding the craziest wave in his life these days (and apparently didn't bother to check out the booklet - eg. Off The Ground wasn't released in 1989!), I don't think there're so many folks in this planet who hates MDC more than him. Period.

By writing his name, it will not chance a bloody thing, that's the fact.
Of course, we don't feel like doing it...but anyway, even though we don't keep publicizing - IT WON'T CHANGE IT. It's terrible and it almost still unbelieveable. Tragical. Irritating. No words can describe it.

AND...and although we've been trying hard to avoid doing it, there're millions of people out there writing books and making documentaries out of this tragedy that are even more harmful than the attitude of "writing" a single name. Writing the devil's name, I don't get tired to say - will not change things. On the other hand, I think those tabloid-like shows that go on telly make things look even worse after 27 odd years.
Anyway, I've got the strange feeling that even if these bloody docs were never made, it would make no difference at all. The idiotic assassin was imortalized in the moment he pulled the trigger. That's the most sinister scenary, in my opinion.

 

It won't change anything regarding John Lennon. But keeping the name alive of a killer gives incentive to those who might seek out infamy through killing other famous people in the future. Sadly, there are people who will do horrible things just to see their name in the news. The less attention we give to the killer's names, the better.

 

I agree with you, but people seem to relate mentioning his name to something even worse than the act itself. Who writes/speaks his name isn't the criminal. That's forgotten.

 

I still think the weirdest thing is that they cast an actor named Mark Chapman to play Lennon in a movie about... Mark David Chapman!

 

I used to think not using the name was a bit silly, but I've grown to have some sort of respect for the concept over the years. I seem to recall that Paul is "on record" as liking that concept as well, though I don't know if I'll be able to cite a specific reference to that. When Macca was doing his "poetry readings", one of the poems he was doing was his "Jerk of All Jerks" poem. I believe that, during an interview around that time (circa 2000?), he was asked about the poem, and he said something about how he prefers not to use the guy's name, and reference him as the JoaJ instead...

He may have provided more commentary on the subject but, like I said, I can't provide a specific reference at this time - it's just what I recall.

 

I found it odd that Sean Lennon was involved in the movie about MDC.

 

No. What I said is not ignorant at all. Mark David Chapman killed John Lennon. It's part of history. A lot of people do horrific things for crazy reasons (including everlasting fame) and we still say their names. See my earlier post for examples. Anyway, this is turning into a bit of a threadcrap so PM me if you must if you want to discuss further.

 

I think someone else said it but there is a point at which not saying his name gives him more noteriety. If it's your personal preference to not say his name that's fine but the world moves on and so does history. Mark David Chapman is extremely famous - he got exactly what he set out to get.

Speak of his fame, I assume this movie has already been mentioned on SH.TV:

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertai...08-01-02_chilling_killing_of_john_lennon.html

The Killing of John Lennon.' Drama retracing the steps and behavior of assassin Mark David Chapman. With Jonas Ball. Writer-director Andrew Piddington (1:54). Unrated: language, violence. At IFC Center.

With the assassin's own diary to work with, writer-director Andrew Piddington didn't feel a need to embellish the story of Mark David Chapman in his riveting "The Killing of John Lennon."

Chapman's archived thoughts, repeated verbatim in the voice-over narration by the actor playing him, gives the movie a properly creepy forward momentum as we follow the killer on his mission to end the life of a man whose music he claimed to love.

Court-appointed psychiatrists found Chapman delusional and possibly psychotic, but the defendant ended the argument by pleading guilty to second degree murder. He is still behind bars at Attica 27 years later.

As played by newcomer Jonas Ball, Chapman comes off as a perennial loser who finds a kindred spirit in the misfit hero of J.D. Salinger's "The Catcher in the Rye." He is inspired to kill Lennon because of his perceived hypocrisy as a celebrity preaching against materialism while wallowing in his own wealth.

Chapman is looking through a book on Lennon when he is stopped by a photo of the Beatle squatting on the gabled roof of the Dakota building where he, Yoko Ono and their 5-year-old son live.

"Something inside me just broke," Chapman would later write. "As soon as I saw that picture I knew I was going to kill him."

Ball doesn't look anything like the obese, pig-faced Chapman, but his quirky mannerisms certainly present an authentically unhinged character, both in Hawaii where Chapman lives with his Asian wife, and in Manhattan where it takes him two trips to complete his dark deed.

Piddington does a beautiful balancing act, creating a movie that works both on the level of suspense and as a detailed factual chronicle. The shrine to himself that Chapman leaves for the police to find in his hotel room on the day of the murder is a chilling reminder of his dangerous narcissism.

New Yorkers won't miss the geographic gaffe when a taxi driver heading south through Times Square tells Chapman they're about to pass the Dakota, which is more than 30 blocks in the other direction. But everything else about the movie and its central performance feels absolutely true.

 

I generally agree with this, but I think that people like the man who shot John Lennon are so wacked out that you can't expect them to conform to your logical reasoning. Future celebrity murderers aren't going to say, "Well, I see that no one on SteveHoffman.tv will mention the name of John Lennon's murderer, so I'll abandon my scheme to stalk Lindsay Lohan or whomever."

 

It seems that Ringos' reference to Johns' murderer and mine are right in step. That is, "the a$$hole whole who killed John".
Who benefits from mentioning the clowns birth name?
He gets what he wanted, that's all.
As far as everlasting notoriety is concerned, that was his prime motive. He reportedly didn't "want to go through his life being a nobody". So I would argue that yes, mentioning his name is fulfilling his wish. Why give him that, and possibly inspire some other a-hole to do the same? How does anyone benefit from knowing his name?

 

But the deed is done -- he's already a "somebody" whether we like it or not. His deed is done, and his name is known, and no amount of polite refusal to utter it will make his name "un-known." I actually kind of agree that Paul didn't need to print it in his DVD booklet, but to never say it or type it in a message board post? I don't see how this has any effect on the cosmos. I respect that some might still actually be upset reading his name .... but it has been over 27 years.