Love and Mercy - News and Reviews - First clip is out.

[buddhahat]

Sometimes I realise that, if the actor portraying Dennis walked into a hotel foyer scene with his green-painted dick hanging out of his trousers, folk here would be offended by the fact that it was an inauthentic shade of green.

And I have to agree that that kind of realism is important…

 

The funny thing is, I was rolling my eyes at the discussion about the historical inaccuracy of the woody in the Surfin' Safari shoot like "Guys, it's just a movie. It's called artistic license" and then with this hair thing I realise that I'm 1000 times more anally retentive than any of you.

It comes to something when smiley smilers start backing away from you because you're too pedantic.  

C'mon AGD - surely you care about the hairstyle?!!

[guitarfool2002]

To my eyes from that actor's photo they captured VDP's look perhaps as close as they could nearly 50 years removed, and again just my opinion based on the photo Andy posted and the three I posted of the real Van Dyke from that era, the haircut looks very close too. Note the guy with the gray jacket standing next to VDP is a young Lenny Waronker.

Speaking of portrayals, if central casting ever needs to find a 1966-era Mike Love character for a project, this author has the look, right down to the cap:


http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php?PHPSESSID=745194a011833829ca5452dc2130c94a&topic=14176.0

Whether the guy can act or not is another story.  

[Amy B.]

When this movie is released I might just have to stay away from this board. Every little detail is going to be nitpicked, right down to how the guy playing VDP has his hair combed in scene 13. Daniel Day-Lewis didn't really look like Lincoln either, but it was a good portrayal (with the benefit of a lack of film footage, in that case!)  John Cusack doesn't really look like Brian and Elizabeth Banks looks nothing like Melinda, aside from blonde hair. But I'd rather have the actors be able to bring the essence of the person they're playing.

Most viewers will not know what color t-shirt Brian was wearing when he recorded Heroes and Villains. They won't care that Brian has blue eyes and Cusack has brown (same with Robert Downey Jr. playing Chaplin). I hope we're all able to evaluate the movie for something greater than the nitpicky details.

Editing to add that my whole post came off as more cranky than it was supposed to. I know people will nitpick. It's not that big of a deal. It's just a bit annoying sometimes when you just want to enjoy the music, or the movie.

[beacharg]

When this movie is released I might just have to stay away from this board. Every little detail is going to be nitpicked, right down to how the guy playing VDP has his hair combed in scene 13. Daniel Day-Lewis didn't really look like Lincoln either, but it was a good portrayal (with the benefit of a lack of film footage, in that case!)  John Cusack doesn't really look like Brian and Elizabeth Banks looks nothing like Melinda, aside from blonde hair. But I'd rather have the actors be able to bring the essence of the person they're playing.

Most viewers will not know what color t-shirt Brian was wearing when he recorded Heroes and Villains. They won't care that Brian has blue eyes and Cusack has brown (same with Robert Downey Jr. playing Chaplin). I hope we're all able to evaluate the movie for something greater than the nitpicky details.

Editing to add that my whole post came off as more cranky than it was supposed to. I know people will nitpick. It's not that big of a deal. It's just a bit annoying sometimes when you just want to enjoy the music, or the movie.

Well said

[Doo Dah]

Don't know if this has been posted, but a glowing review in Sunday's Washington Post. After a litany of stand-outs, it's profiled at the end of the piece.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/at-film-festival-bill-murray-makes-a-splash-but-brian-wilson-biopic-steals-the-show/2014/09/10/f1e4a52e-3878-11e4-8601-97ba88884ffd_story.html

Melinda Ledbetter Wilson is another fighter in “Love & Mercy,” Bill Pohlad’s extraordinary, even visionary chronicle of the musician Brian Wilson. Pohlad, who has financed and produced films by Sean Penn and Terrence Malick, focuses on the years when Wilson was producing the Beach Boys’ seminal album “Pet Sounds,” jumping ahead to when he first met his second wife — played by Elizabeth Banks — in the 198os. That was also the era during which Wilson battled mental illness and came under the dubious care of psychiatrist Eugene Landy, played in the film by Paul Giamatti.

Paul Dano delivers an astonishing performance as the younger version of Wilson, with John Cusack playing him in later years, a gambit that pays off handsomely in a production that reflects Wilson’s blazing imagination with its own ingenious structure, visual approach, sound design and poetic sensibility. (The film was written by Oren Moverman, who also wrote the oblique Bob Dylan biopic “I’m Not There.”) Among the many smart, sophisticated, deeply moving films that have become TIFF reliables, “Love & Mercy” — which just sold to Lionsgate on Wednesday — was an unexpected, undisputed triumph.

[rab2591]

Ok, ok I sound mental. I don't usually get hung up on these things but that haircut looks too X Factor to me. I agree it's a great piece of casting as the actor is the spit of a young VDP. So it's a shame that the haircut - presumably the easiest bit of period detailing to get right - is so not 60s looking. 

I actually think these historically inaccurate stylings are deliberate. To make the characters more relatable to a modern audience maybe and I can cope with things that are deliberate rather than lazy. I know I still sound mental, obsessing over this haircut, but there you go. Very much still looking forward to the film though.

This isn't even a still from the movie. This photo could've been taken before a scene was shot (before the hairdresser did his/her job).

Regardless, I think his hair looks fine. Judging from the stills, the makers of the film were anything but lazy when it comes to accuracy (apart from the lack of a certain yellow truck that certain people here freaked-the-f*** out about). I think we were absolutely blessed to get such detail-oriented filmmakers to be apart of this project.

When this movie is released I might just have to stay away from this board.

Agreed - that 10 second iphone-recorded beach shot turned into probably 10 pages of ridiculous nitpicking. I can't imagine what this place will be like when the actual movie is released

[Ebb and Flow]

Ok, ok I sound mental. I don't usually get hung up on these things but that haircut looks too X Factor to me. I agree it's a great piece of casting as the actor is the spit of a young VDP. So it's a shame that the haircut - presumably the easiest bit of period detailing to get right - is so not 60s looking. 

I actually think these historically inaccurate stylings are deliberate. To make the characters more relatable to a modern audience maybe and I can cope with things that are deliberate rather than lazy. I know I still sound mental, obsessing over this haircut, but there you go. Very much still looking forward to the film though.

This isn't even a still from the movie. This photo could've been taken before a scene was shot (before the hairdresser did his/her job).

Regardless, I think his hair looks fine. Judging from the stills, the makers of the film were anything but lazy when it comes to accuracy (apart from the lack of a certain yellow truck that certain people here freaked-the-f*** out about). I think we were absolutely blessed to get such detail-oriented filmmakers to be apart of this project.

I was actually the one who first brought it up, and I'm pretty sure nobody here "freaked-f*** out about it".  It's an inaccuracy in a Hollywood production, and it was one of the only things that was actually leaked from the shoot.  I'm curious to see how it looks in the final film, but I still think it's kind of strange on their part to (deliberately?) change an aspect of the iconography from their first album cover, when it wouldn't have been that difficult to get it right.  If you want to call that "ridiculous nitpicking", or "freaking-the-f*** out" I guess that's your call.

Agreed - that 10 second iphone-recorded beach shot turned into probably 10 pages of ridiculous nitpicking. I can't imagine what this place will be like when the actual movie is released

What does the fact that there was a video recorded on an iphone have to do with anything?  There were also stills of them posing on the same car shot with a DSLR.  Whatever device a photo is captured on, it doesn't change the fact that the woodie used in the film to represent the Surfin' Safari covershoot isn't the same as the original cover.

I am looking forward to the film BTW.  Just wish people here could be more open-minded about any criticism levied at the film.  If the worst we can say about it is that they messed up a few of the details, it shouldn't be too bad of a movie.

[SMiLE Brian]

It's all good natured nit picking here!

[SMiLE Brian]

The real question is if VDP watches bieber videos on YouTube like he did with skrillex? How about bieber sings parks?

[buddhahat]

Hey guys I was being kind of tongue in cheek about the hair. I mean it bothers me, but I know it's ridiculous that it bothers me.

Generally I think people are being pretty forgiving about the artistic licenses apparently taken. We all understand its a movie and not a documentary.

Personally I cannot wait to see this film and it seems most, maybe all, here feel the same way!

[rab2591]

@ Ebb and Flow

I get fed up with these criticisms because they are downright pointless at the moment. Take VDPs hair: as I said above, no one has any idea if the hairdressers had done their job yet. You complained that the guys weren't posing on the woodie correctly - when you have no idea if the cameras were rolling or not. You claim "it wouldn't have been that difficult to get it right" (regarding the woodie) yet you have no idea what the budget, availability, timing was like for this project.

I guess my point is: wait to watch the actual film before judging any possible inaccuracies. Someone said this movie looked like a "cheesy TV movie" based on a few pics and a short video clip....and now this movie is getting some serious high praise.

As for the iphone comment: there was someone complaining about the hair or makeup of the actors in that particular video. What we see through an iPhone or SLR lens is different than what we'll be seeing on the big screen. So judging hair based off an iphone clip or an SLR shot (during which time we don't know if the hair and makeup people did their jobs yet), is pointless, imo.

[donald]

That car on the cover isn't a woodie.   and I always looked at that cover as a prop shot,palm fronds tossed all over........
I'm a vintage car guy and even I don't care about THAT detail.  the point is that it was them posing with an old car/truck for a publicity/cover shoot.  let's not forget that only Dennis was a surfer............
so if the film depicts them posing on the beach with a palm frond encrusted car, that's accurate enough for me.
If they can depict the characters with authenticity and capture the essence of the scenes depicted, I'll overlook the minor set inaccuracies.

[shadownoze]

If you want to call that "ridiculous nitpicking", or "freaking-the-f*** out" I guess that's your call.

My call? Okay, that's ridiculous nitpicking.

[guitarfool2002]

keep in mind, I asked pages ago, in fact I think it was the night of the premiere, whether anyone who may have been there to see the film could describe that scene as it appeared in the final cut of the film. Model A, later model woodie wagon, something totally different, was the beach scene even *in* the final cut, etc.

And up to now, no one has chimed in. So I for one *still* do not know how that car-beach scene we were all talking about after the on-set images came out was even used in the finished movie.

[sea of tunes]

This question is to schiaffino or anyone else that has seen the film or would know.  I realize this is about as off the wall a request as you'll get but, here goes...

I'm trying to assemble a soundtrack of music from the film to listen to in the car on my commute to work and back.  Was hoping if you might recall a good many of the songs that were used for the films soundtrack, aside from original score of course.

If you don't recall that's fine..  was too curious not to at least ask.

[Larry Franz]

I asked pages ago ... whether anyone who may have been there to see the film could describe that scene as it appeared in the final cut of the film. Model A, later model woodie wagon, something totally different, was the beach scene even *in* the final cut, etc.

I wish I'd seen the movie so could answer your question, but the review in Variety provided a clue:

Following a very brief, unfussy montage of the Beach Boys’ rise to ‘60s pop superpowers, we see Dano’s Wilson ... suffer a panic attack on a flight. Deciding to bow out of the group’s upcoming Japanese tour, he sets up shop in a recording studio ... with ambitions to record nothing less than “the greatest album ever made.”

   http://variety.com/2014/film/reviews/toronto-film-review-love-mercy-1201301472/

Assuming that the beach scene is in the movie, which it most likely is, it goes by quickly. Another reviewer complained that they didn't spend enough time on the Beach Boys rise to popularity (but that would have been a different movie).

[Rocky Raccoon]

As far as Oscars go, I'd say the best chance they have (not that I don't think they have any other chances at this point) is if they commission Brian to write an original song and tack it on to the end credits.  It would be cool to see Brian himself win an Oscar.  His acceptance speech: "This is a great honor, I've loved the movies ever since I saw Norbit."

[wantsomecorn]

I could see Dano being nominated for Best Supporting Actor based on the reviews he's been getting.

If they haven't done an original song for this movie, then its a shame, because a Brian-penned song winning an Oscar next year would be a shoe-in.

[Pretty Funky]

Anyone else find it strange that Paul Giamatti didn't attend the film festival?  Or at least wasn't in any of the group pictures?

I think of all the actors, he is the most in demand so may have been on location. He was filming the new Spiderman movie so that may be the reason.

http://cdn.fansided.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/315/files/2014/08/Paul-Giamatti-850x560.jpg

[Micha]

Historical accuracy is for documentaries, not for movies. My favorite German movie is about the 1930s singing group "Comedian Harmonists". The songs are not featured in the sequence they were recorded, and there is a love triangle created - between two band members and a woman one of the two later married - which is historically incorrect, and some other liberties taken too. It's still a great movie.

If the Brian movie is a good movie and true to the spirit of the music and Brian's personality, I forgive all inaccuracies it may contain. Especially haircuts.

[Ebb and Flow]

@ Ebb and Flow

I get fed up with these criticisms because they are downright pointless at the moment. Take VDPs hair: as I said above, no one has any idea if the hairdressers had done their job yet. You complained that the guys weren't posing on the woodie correctly - when you have no idea if the cameras were rolling or not. You claim "it wouldn't have been that difficult to get it right" (regarding the woodie) yet you have no idea what the budget, availability, timing was like for this project.

I really doubt it was a question of budget.  I can't imagine a yellow model A ford truck being any more or less expensive to rent for a day than the woodie they ended up using, though I'm not an expert in such things.  It's really a question of whether they cared enough to match the vehicle on the cover or not, which they clearly didn't.  I also think they might have thought a stereotypical woodie station wagon matched the Beach Boys early image more than reality.  And yes, I'm going to assume cameras were rolling when a bunch of dudes are posing for the cameras in costume.  Why wouldn't I?  It's not even really possible to pose the same way on that vehicle, which they probably found out on set.

I still think there's a difference between something like somebody's haircut and a scene that is specifically referencing a piece of visual iconography like an album cover.  Imagine a Beatles movie where they replicated the Rubber Soul photoshoot and they were all posed differently or any aspect of it was off.  Do you think that would fly?  Maybe The Beach Boys aren't deemed important enough to warrant that sort of attention to detail?

Again, I don't think the inaccuracies will have any bearing on the overall quality of the film, but I also don't think it's something that should be brushed aside as just something movies do.  Usually when movies are tasked to recreate certain moments that are based on a photograph or something iconographic they stick to the details.

I guess we can go back to discussing how a movie very few of us have seen is going to be nominated for best picture.

[ToneBender631]

@ Ebb and Flow

I get fed up with these criticisms because they are downright pointless at the moment. Take VDPs hair: as I said above, no one has any idea if the hairdressers had done their job yet. You complained that the guys weren't posing on the woodie correctly - when you have no idea if the cameras were rolling or not. You claim "it wouldn't have been that difficult to get it right" (regarding the woodie) yet you have no idea what the budget, availability, timing was like for this project.

I really doubt it was a question of budget.  I can't imagine a yellow model A ford truck being any more or less expensive to rent for a day than the woodie they ended up using, though I'm not an expert in such things.  It's really a question of whether they cared enough to match the vehicle on the cover or not, which they clearly didn't.  I also think they might have thought a stereotypical woodie station wagon matched the Beach Boys early image more than reality.  And yes, I'm going to assume cameras were rolling when a bunch of dudes are posing for the cameras in costume.  Why wouldn't I?  It's not even really possible to pose the same way on that vehicle, which they probably found out on set.

I still think there's a difference between something like somebody's haircut and a scene that is specifically referencing a piece of visual iconography like an album cover.  Imagine a Beatles movie where they replicated the Rubber Soul photoshoot and they were all posed differently or any aspect of it was off.  Do you think that would fly?  Maybe The Beach Boys aren't deemed important enough to warrant that sort of attention to detail?

Again, I don't think the inaccuracies will have any bearing on the overall quality of the film, but I also don't think it's something that should be brushed aside as just something movies do.  Usually when movies are tasked to recreate certain moments that are based on a photograph or something iconographic they stick to the details.

I guess we can go back to discussing how a movie very few of us have seen is going to be nominated for best picture.

While Model A's are relatively available, especially given that they're 85 years old at this point, that doesn't mean that they were able to easily locate a truck in the window they were working with, let alone with the ok from the owner to paint and mock it up as needed for "authenticity" purposes.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Imagine a Beatles movie where they replicated the Rubber Soul photoshoot and they were all posed differently or any aspect of it was off.  Do you think that would fly? 

Or imagine a movie where it shows that John sang Long Tall Sally rather than Paul...oh wait, that actually happened and it flew quite easily.

[Ebb and Flow]

Imagine a Beatles movie where they replicated the Rubber Soul photoshoot and they were all posed differently or any aspect of it was off.  Do you think that would fly? 

Or imagine a movie where it shows that John sang Long Tall Sally rather than Paul...oh wait, that actually happened and it flew quite easily.

It didn't fly with everyone:

"One of my annoyances about the film Backbeat is that they've actually taken my rock 'n' rollness off me. They give John the song "Long Tall Sally" to sing and he never sang it in his life. But now it's set in cement. It's like the Buddy Holly and Glenn Miller stories. The Buddy Holly Story does not even mention Norman Petty, and The Glenn Miller Story is a sugarcoated version of his life. Now Backbeat has done the same thing to the story of the Beatles."
-Paul McCartney

[buddhahat]

This thread raises interesting questions about historical accuracy and when it should/shouldn't give way to other aesthetic choices in the movie.

Woody vs Actual Ford truck
Personally I can understand why they'd opt for a woody over the slightly more obscure Ford pickup from the actual shoot. The woody is typically associated with surfing and so it is a very effective signifier of 'surfing in the 60s'. The yellow pickup is a little more niche and, although it would make sense to Beach Boys nuts from a historical perspective, it might confuse the average viewer raising unhelpful questions such as "Why are they all sat in a delivery truck?" etc. OK so maybe nobody's that stupid but within the time constraints of a movie quick, visual communication is key and so historical accuracy in this case was apparently sacrificed for a simple signifier of 60s surfing lifestyle i.e. The Woody. I'd argue the woody works as a broader symbol of 50s/60s America, family, homeliness anyway so it has added value above and beyond the Ford Pickup.

John Cusack vs Actor who more closely resembles BW
Again other factors may take precedence over facial similarity to the subject, not least Cusack's box office bankability and status as respected 'indie' actor (remember, he was in that other cool music movie, High Fidelity). I don't think likeness is such an issue in casting an older BW either. If this was a biopic about Paul McCartney (whose face everybody is familiar with) the actor would definitely need to resemble the subject. However, in this case, your average viewer probably isn't even remotely aware of what Brian Wilson looked like in his hey day, let alone the 80s, so the producers have more leeway there.

Max Schneider's boy band hair vs VDP's actual 60s hair
I guess for me I feel it's more important to get these little details historically accurate. Whereas the woody and casting of John Cusack serve higher purposes (as signifier of 60s surfing/eisenhower America and heavyweight 'indie' actor respectively), the appearance of a boy-band style swoosh-cut on VDP serves no greater purpose other than to make the guy look cool to viewers of X Factor. As Rab2951 points out, maybe the photo was taken before the stylist got to give him the once-over. I hope that's the case. Either way it's no big deal and would certainly not detract from the movie too much. But I felt the need to justify my anal retentiveness on this issue. I will leave it at that!