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

[HeyJude]

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.

Not if you ask Paul McCartney!   Seriously, it is interesting that while McCartney doesn't regularly comment in detail on movies based on the Beatles or biographies, etc., he has on several occasions specifically mentioned finding it odd that they had Lennon singing that song in "Backbeat" when he *never* sang the song with the Beatles.

While McCartney has always had a complex about a romanticized/martyred Lennon, I think in this case it was a valid complaint, even if McCartney was making it more out of defensiveness than historical accuracy. There are things in such movies that clearly would be nitpicking (wrong model or make of a vintage car), but having Lennon sing a song that, especially in more recent times reading Lewisohn's biography on the group, was clearly an integral part of the Beatles' early years and their fanbase and McCartney's development as a vocalist, is a pretty lame movie as a filmmaker.

A closer comparison would be if a Beach Boys movie depicted Brian singing the lead on "Surfin'" or Mike writing "Surfer Girl."

[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.

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

Sure, McCartney didn't like it (no surprise there - has there ever been a representation of the Beatles that he enjoyed? The man had problems with The Rutles) but it happened nevertheless.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

While McCartney has always had a complex about a romanticized/martyred Lennon, I think in this case it was a valid complaint, even if McCartney was making it more out of defensiveness than historical accuracy. There are things in such movies that clearly would be nitpicking (wrong model or make of a vintage car), but having Lennon sing a song that, especially in more recent times reading Lewisohn's biography on the group, was clearly an integral part of the Beatles' early years and their fanbase and McCartney's development as a vocalist, is a pretty lame movie as a filmmaker.

A closer comparison would be if a Beach Boys movie depicted Brian singing the lead on "Surfin'" or Mike writing "Surfer Girl."

OK - but my point is not that it is acceptable or unacceptable in Backbeat or to compare errors on some kind of scale. The poster above suggested that they would never get a fact wrong in a Beatles biopic since people would care a lot more to get things right for The Beatles than they would for the forever-slighted Beach Boys, when in reality there are glaring errors in Beatles biopics.

[rab2591]

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.

One man funded this whole film (so I'm fairly certain that budget was an issue for this project). One reviewer said that they were amazed that the set design was so accurate considering this film's budget was likely peanuts. Every little nickel and dime adds up (perhaps they wanted to put more money into the Columbia Studios scenes than the short intro snippet for the Surfin Safari photo shoot)...so assuming that it wasn't a question of budget is rather unfair to the filmmakers. Also, it could've been a matter of timing "yes we found a Model A Ford truck but it won't be available during the time we film that scene." - timing is everything when it comes to filming these Hollywood movies.

A million different scenarios could've happened surrounding this truck - thus I think it's incredibly unfair to say that the filmmakers "clearly didn't" care enough.

[MarcellaHasDirtyFeet]

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!

RE: hairstyle


Ok-- But let's say the filmmakers intended to depict VDP as "hip and cool." While we might be familiar with what hip and cool in 1966 looked like, does it really translate the same to a modern movie audience? Or would a VDP character actually look a bit square if he was dressed/styled in a super accurate way? What if the little swoosh in VDP's hair is a choice by the filmmakers to help signify to the audience that this guy knows what's up?

[Paul J B]

What film exactly has been made that has every detail correct? Theses expectations/hang ups some of you folks have is a way over the top. At the c50 in Milwaukee 2 years ago it was short of a sellout, yet still a huge crowd of thousands and I assure you probably 3 people in that crowd would have any idea what car was used in a photo shoot 50 years ago. Likewise, only a few people would have any real insight as to who VDP was/is and no one would have a clue or care about his hair.

James Cameron was a lunatic filming Titanic, spending millions of dollars trying to get every detail correct (details almost no one would have ever noticed) and he lucked out because people liked the characters and it became a huge hit. No one cared what pattern was on the flatware.

Walk The Line was a success and Joaquin Phoenix barely resembled Johnny Cash and Reese Witherspoon as June was even more of a stretch. Their acting was what really mattered and they both did a decent job. It sounds like both Dano and Cusasck do a great ACTING job in this movie.

Remember Braveheart? Do you think William Wallace even remotely looked like Mel Gibson. I'm sure the guy was a hairy smelly beast no babe like Sophie Marceau would have touched with a ten foot pole. That film was also full of historical inaccuracies but it was still a success, and entertaining, and succeeded in educating many people that a guy most of them had never heard of was a true historicasl figure in 13th century Scotland.

This film about Brian is NOT a documentary. It is entertainment no matter how serious some of us take Brian and the Boys.

[rab2591]

Agreed, Paul J B.

Also, I just want to clarify how difficult shooting these films are. The amount of planning, scheduling, number-crunching is insane when it comes to these projects. Every little thing has to come together at exactly the right time. There are people in small production offices on the phones all day trying to get every prop they'll need for a specific shoot on a specific day. "Will Dano be available that day?" "Yes, and we're filming scenes 8, 10, 15, and 32, but we can't film scene 8 because such-and-such prop won't be available then" etc etc. They have to plan out every scene, secure every prop, call agents, set up scheduling, follow the budget to a T.

These people are professionals, but sometimes they can't make things work perfectly, so they sometimes have to improvise. It'll happen in every major motion picture. Biopics will be scanned with a magnifying glass by fans, every scene scrutinized (I'll probably end up having a few complaints of my own). But during this scrutiny, we should all step back and appreciate the complexity of making such a film. I think everyone here can agree that we have been blessed to get a filmmaker who put his heart and soul (and money) into this film. And based on the praise, I think a lot of people will walk away from this film with a higher appreciation of Beach Boys music.

[guitarfool2002]

Revisiting the SS cover shoot topic again?   

[Amy B.]

Even the Beach Boys haven't always been accurate. For example, an album cover with one of the band members missing? Brian photographed notating music at the piano?

[Larry Franz]

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.

That question doesn't merit much discussion, but relying on the testimony of others (including film critics) is one way we find out about stuff. In this case, in fact, I'd say it's much more likely that other people's testimony will be a more reliable guide to assessing this movie's eventual popularity (including among Oscar voters) than actually seeing the movie ourselves, given our extraordinary, even peculiar, interest in the topic.

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.

Again, we wouldn't be the best judge of that. I thought "This Isn't Love" should have been nominated, but that Flintstones movie wasn't exactly a "prestige" project. (Plus the guys playing Fred and Barney didn't look like them at all. )

[rab2591]

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.

I wonder if LionsGate will look into this. Whatever was shown at the Toronto Film Festival isn't necessarily what LionsGate will release (some editing may occur)....they could still add in an original from Brian's new album, if they get permission, and if it fits the directors vision.

[guitarfool2002]

I want to take this slightly off-topic and mention some points that were also brought up in the "pictures from Love & Mercy" thread earlier this year.

Do an image search for photos of surfers, surfing, etc from the early 60's, especially those shot on and around the various beaches and surf spots, and notice what kind of cars the dedicated surfers were driving to the beach. You'll see mostly station wagons, vans, plenty of "woody" wagons, converted panel trucks, etc. They were cars which you could either put the boards in the back or strap them to the roof, and the surfers got them because they were practical for what they needed them to do, i.e. getting the boards to the beach of choice. And they were at that time relatively cheap to buy used, and if you needed more room in the back you could simply take out the seats and have even more storage for you and your boards.

EDIT: Look up the photographer LeRoy Grannis for some amazing vintage surf/beach shots like these:





Hot rods and customs on the other hand were for a totally different purpose, whether it be for pure speed for racing, or for "showing" and cruising in a really hot ride. Notice many of the hot rods of the era, including those shown on several Beach Boys images and even album covers, had a lot of detail and focus on the engine, and often had the hood or hood panels removed to expose the engine and the various customizations done to the engine. This would include chroming the block, customized intakes/carburetors for more power, etc. All the technical/mechanical details that make a hot rod look, well, like a hot rod! But beyond looks each element and detail of those cars had a mechanical purpose too, and most of it was for increased speed and performance.

The point to consider is that when a "scene" is going to be marketed to the general public, many of whom wouldn't know an intake manifold from a Hurst shifter and likewise knew little about surfing besides someone riding a board in the ocean, they will go for style and "pop" over realism.

So often the more stylized imagery was chosen over the realistic images related to those scenes, including hot rodding and surfing in the early 60's. When the Beach Boys played Ed Sullivan in '64, they dressed the set with stereotypical hot rods/customs, with all the trimmings including the chromed-out engine block, the big intakes sticking out, etc:



Clearly connecting the band to the hot rod culture, but as far as surfers and surfing, I'm betting no one who spent all that time and money to customize and build a hot rod for speed or even for show would drive that kind of car onto the beach any more than necessary if at all...due to the simple science of what sand can do to those moving engine parts not to mention the salt water and air.  

That Model A truck on the cover of Surfin Safari - A neat visual for sure, an eye-catcher for sure, the yellow color jumped off the photo as did the various palm branches and other trimmings. But were there many actual surfers who regularly surfed in 1961-62 choosing a Model A produce wagon as their vehicle of choice to get them and their boards to and from the beach?

Take a look at vintage photos taken at surfing spots and various beaches known for surfing in the early 60's and there is the answer. The more common choice was the station wagon or some variation of a wagon or a van/panel truck. It's all in the vintage photos, and it can be cool just to look at how things were in and around what became a "scene".

But when that is marketed, I'd say even as far back as that SS cover shoot, they went with a stylized visual over the reality of what you'd usually find surfers driving to the beaches. Which is par for the course, just like the Sullivan show dressed the set for the Beach Boys with very stylized custom hot rods.

One last example on this off-topic kick, this album cover from '64. The car on the left is the more common choice for surfers, the classic 'woody" wagon. The car on the right with the exposed engine is the classic hot rod/custom from that era. So they were going for a strong visual covering both the hot rod and the surf cultures to connect with the music, and in this case there is a separation where the hot rodders would not drive the surfers' type of cars, and vice versa, yet they both came together in the music celebrating both "scenes":



I'd suggest if Capitol had used a "woody" wagon for that SS cover shoot over 50 years ago, it would have been more authentic and "real" to the scene (if we're going for realism), but they went with a more striking visual with that yellow Model A produce truck even though it would not have been as practical or as common to those who actually surfed.

Just FYI, nothing really relative to debating the movie stills...

[John Manning]

 Think the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the movie makers have taken the opportunity to correct a 52-year-old historic inaccuracy, by substituting a not-fit-for-purpose yellow automobile with a more authentic woodie. Perhaps this was Brian's own suggestion to the producer, that that was the vehicle he'd have chosen back in the day, if only Mike had remembered to top up the tank.

We should have a poll: how many Smilers are going to stay home in protest and refuse to go see this movie because the VDP character has parted his hair wrong?

Not me!

[Amy B.]

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.

I wonder if LionsGate will look into this. Whatever was shown at the Toronto Film Festival isn't necessarily what LionsGate will release (some editing may occur)....they could still add in an original from Brian's new album, if they get permission, and if it fits the directors vision.

A new Brian song, playing over the closing credits.   

[Ebb and Flow]

While McCartney has always had a complex about a romanticized/martyred Lennon, I think in this case it was a valid complaint, even if McCartney was making it more out of defensiveness than historical accuracy. There are things in such movies that clearly would be nitpicking (wrong model or make of a vintage car), but having Lennon sing a song that, especially in more recent times reading Lewisohn's biography on the group, was clearly an integral part of the Beatles' early years and their fanbase and McCartney's development as a vocalist, is a pretty lame movie as a filmmaker.

A closer comparison would be if a Beach Boys movie depicted Brian singing the lead on "Surfin'" or Mike writing "Surfer Girl."

OK - but my point is not that it is acceptable or unacceptable in Backbeat or to compare errors on some kind of scale. The poster above suggested that they would never get a fact wrong in a Beatles biopic since people would care a lot more to get things right for The Beatles than they would for the forever-slighted Beach Boys, when in reality there are glaring errors in Beatles biopics.

"Backbeat" was not officially endorsed by the living Beatles or EMI in any way.  They didn't even have the rights to use any Beatles songs and depicted the only era of the group where it would be possible to use only cover songs.  I think comparing the accuracy of that film to "Love And Mercy" is suspect.

I really think a Beatles biopic with the full weight of EMI, Ringo/Paul behind it would probably strive for little details and minutiae like this to be correct, especially when referencing iconic album covers and filmed/photographed appearances.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

"Backbeat" was not officially endorsed by the living Beatles or EMI in any way.  They didn't even have the rights to use any Beatles songs and depicted the only era of the group where it would be possible to use only cover songs.  I think comparing the accuracy of that film to "Love And Mercy" is suspect.

I'm really not sure what your point is, then. I thought you were suggesting that a Beatles biopic wouldn't contain errors but now you're suggesting that's not the case?

It's not as if Love & Mercy was a movie sanctioned by Brian Wilson or BriMel or whatever. And the fact is, I'd be surprised if there would ever be a biopic that had "the full weight of EMI, Ringo/Paul" behind it, since The Beatles are so protective of their brand.

What you seem to be saying is that no Beatles movie would ever contain errors, except for the ones that do but thankfully they don't count.

[Pretty Funky]

I don't know what went on behind the scenes of 'Backbeat' but it is a good case why it is in the interest of the artist to be involved. If McCartney was approached but declined any involvement it is a bit rich to be critical after the fact. If a movie is going to be made regardless, they may as well have some say IMO whether they agree or not with the concept.

L&M seems to be endorsed by camp Wilson and their input may have raised the game of all involved.  

[pixletwin]

Backbeat wasn't about The Beatles. It was about the John Lennon's, Stu Sutcliffe and Astrid Kerscher love triangle. Who was singing what was tertiary to that. Paul was barely even a supporting character in that film.

[Pretty Funky]

That may be correct but to many L&M will be a Beach Boy movie rather than Brian Wilson.

[rab2591]

That may be correct but to many L&M will be a Beach Boy movie rather than Brian Wilson.

"Brian Wilson is the Beach Boys." 

[Pretty Funky]

True!

Nowhere Boy was a better Lennon film while on the subject of Beatles bio's IMO.

[guitarfool2002]

With "Backbeat" even the promotions were focused in on the John-Stu-Astrid relationship, I used to have the movie poster hanging in my place.    So it's true they weren't trying to bill it as a dedicated Beatles film, but more of a focus on those three individuals within the Beatles story from that time. Obviously it's tough to focus in on a few pieces when the "whole" involves anything as big as the Beatles, but ultimately it was the Beatles characters as supporting roles. I thought the film was decent! I liked the soundtrack, still do.

With that in mind, I don't know how "Love And Mercy" could be considered a Beach Boys film when the focus is clearly on what happened with Brian and Landy, and like Backbeat the fact that Brian was in the Beach Boys would play a supporting role to the focus of the story, which was Brian, Landy, and Melinda and how it all played out. Some have commented on why the roles of Carl, Dennis, etc were not more defined in the story, and it seems to be a case of telling this particular story would put them into more of a supporting role because the focus was not too heavy on their roles in the story being told, just like Paul or George when "Backbeat" told its story.

Interesting side-note about Paul and Hamburg, there was recently a bit of a dust-up after some letters sent home by Stu Sutcliffe from Hamburg on one of the earlier Beatles' residencies there were released, and they told a version of the Hamburg legend that suggested Paul was on the outs with the other band members, and suggested the tensions were becoming something of an outcasting situation, beyond what everyone had already read about the tensions between Paul and Stu. I haven't kept up with the follow-ups or what if anything was done, but apparently those letters or the author who published them in his book caused something of a row with Paul.

[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!

RE: hairstyle


Ok-- But let's say the filmmakers intended to depict VDP as "hip and cool." While we might be familiar with what hip and cool in 1966 looked like, does it really translate the same to a modern movie audience? Or would a VDP character actually look a bit square if he was dressed/styled in a super accurate way? What if the little swoosh in VDP's hair is a choice by the filmmakers to help signify to the audience that this guy knows what's up?

Very good point. I'm sold!

[Chocolate Shake Man]

With "Backbeat" even the promotions were focused in on the John-Stu-Astrid relationship, I used to have the movie poster hanging in my place.    So it's true they weren't trying to bill it as a dedicated Beatles film, but more of a focus on those three individuals within the Beatles story from that time. Obviously it's tough to focus in on a few pieces when the "whole" involves anything as big as the Beatles, but ultimately it was the Beatles characters as supporting roles. I thought the film was decent! I liked the soundtrack, still do.

I agree. Not a bad movie.

Interesting side-note about Paul and Hamburg, there was recently a bit of a dust-up after some letters sent home by Stu Sutcliffe from Hamburg on one of the earlier Beatles' residencies there were released, and they told a version of the Hamburg legend that suggested Paul was on the outs with the other band members, and suggested the tensions were becoming something of an outcasting situation, beyond what everyone had already read about the tensions between Paul and Stu. I haven't kept up with the follow-ups or what if anything was done, but apparently those letters or the author who published them in his book caused something of a row with Paul.

I'm not sure but the recent Mark Lewisohn book has a fair amount about that. It was one of the most revelatory moments in the book. Stu wrote about how everyone in the band was hating Paul during the first Hamburg trip. Paul seemed to be mostly sulking because he didn't get the good room, didn't like Stu, and didn't get on with their new German friends.

[pixletwin]

That may be correct but to many L&M will be a Beach Boy movie rather than Brian Wilson.

That may be. But I don't see how the ignorance of the hypothetical "they" really comes into play here, especially once we assume they have actually seen the movie.