Did C50 have any effect on the film Love & Mercy, and vice versa?

[filledeplage]

I'm trying to see how Love & Mercy in its current form would have gotten released if C50 had not imploded the way it did.

How far into development was Love & Mercy at the time of C50?

I'm guessing that current-day Mike isn't going to be thrilled with his final portrayal in the film Love & Mercy, even though IMO it's fair and doesn't seem to perpetuate false information about Mike (though it doesn't exactly play Mike's positive contributions "up", which would probably be what would irritate Mike out the most).

What I'm pondering is, was Mike in any way "in the know" about what the film was going to be about, how he himself would be portrayed in the film, either during or pre C50? And I do wonder if he would have at least tried to influence his portrayal in the film if he had found a way to do so.

Conversely, I wonder if the making of the film could have helped undo C50, if people not named Brian Wilson were going to find their soon-to-be filmed portrayal(s) as a dealbreaker.

Seriously? Did you listen to Melinda on The View discuss the fact that it (the film's concept) had been "in the making" or on the drawing board, for years.

C50 was of no consequence...this was "a slice" of Brian's story. Not his "version."

[HeyJude]

I can't imagine anyone but the most touchy, defensive-of-Mike person ever, to actually feel like Mike was harshly treated in the L&M film.

They went pretty light on Mike in the film. They actually did a pretty good job of fairly conveying his position/point of view. There are times when you can even empathize with him, especially with stuff like the scene where Mike kinda snaps about how long Brian is taking to perfect one little bit (I believe they depict it as the cello session for GV). It almost plays as comedy, but you empathize with Mike.

Unless Mike's "autobiography" is only 30 pages long, his book will undoubtedly have more inflammatory stuff about Brian (and others) than the L&M film has about Mike.

If Mike watched L&M (which I doubt he will, or will admit to anyway), my total guess would be that his biggest gripe would be that he and the rest of the group are minimized. But that's really just a consequence of the focus of the film. It's about Brian, not the BB's. I'm not even sure Al gets a line in the film. I think Bruce gets one. Carl, Dennis, and Mike feature more prominently. But they have limited screen time, and everything pre-Pet Sounds (musically anyway) is barely touched on, which might be something that would irk Mike as well. But the stuff Mike actually says in the film aren't terribly different from what Mike himself says to this day in interviews.

I don't think C50 would impact the film; as others have mentioned, it was in the works prior to C50.

I do think that these side projects like autobiographies would be difficult to put out and promote in the midst of working as a full group. That's one of many reasons I don't hold out a lot of hope for more reunion stuff. Based on recent interviews, I don't think Mike's book is going to be a favorite of Brian or Al, and something like that would be difficult to promote in the midst of a reunion project of any sort.

[Cyncie]

One thing I've been thinking, is that Mike's "Brian did drugs and I didn't" narrative might have to change in the wake of Love and Mercy. It's going to be harder for Mike to simplify the problems in the group to "They did drugs and I didn't" when the movie has so devastatingly portrayed the whole mix of drugs, abuse, mental health issues and band conflict.

[HeyJude]

One thing I've been thinking, is that Mike's "Brian did drugs and I didn't" narrative might have to change in the wake of Love and Mercy. It's going to be harder for Mike to simplify the problems in the group to "They did drugs and I didn't" when the movie has so devastatingly portrayed the whole mix of drugs, abuse, mental health issues and band conflict.

There have been in the past some interesting essays and thoughts people have put forth about the attitude of the others in the group (and friends and family) towards mental illness in the 60’s. There clearly was a lack of understanding and empathy going on back then, so it was easier to chalk *everything* or most everything up to drug use.

The film clearly portrays that mental issues were at play *prior* to any drug use, and that drug use (or at least LSD) simply amplified the issue. Yet, even Brian himself is much more likely in interviews to give answers that interviewers will take as an indication that all or most of the problems were due to drug use. Even some reviews of this very film have *still* ignored the mental issues portrayed in the film prior to drug use, and have implied the film shows how drugs caused all of the problems.

[filledeplage]

I can't imagine anyone but the most touchy, defensive-of-Mike person ever, to actually feel like Mike was harshly treated in the L&M film.

They went pretty light on Mike in the film. They actually did a pretty good job of fairly conveying his position/point of view. There are times when you can even empathize with him, especially with stuff like the scene where Mike kinda snaps about how long Brian is taking to perfect one little bit (I believe they depict it as the cello session for GV). It almost plays as comedy, but you empathize with Mike.

Unless Mike's "autobiography" is only 30 pages long, his book will undoubtedly have more inflammatory stuff about Brian (and others) than the L&M film has about Mike.

If Mike watched L&M (which I doubt he will, or will admit to anyway), my total guess would be that his biggest gripe would be that he and the rest of the group are minimized. But that's really just a consequence of the focus of the film. It's about Brian, not the BB's. I'm not even sure Al gets a line in the film. I think Bruce gets one. Carl, Dennis, and Mike feature more prominently. But they have limited screen time, and everything pre-Pet Sounds (musically anyway) is barely touched on, which might be something that would irk Mike as well. But the stuff Mike actually says in the film aren't terribly different from what Mike himself says to this day in interviews.

I don't think C50 would impact the film; as others have mentioned, it was in the works prior to C50.

I do think that these side projects like autobiographies would be difficult to put out and promote in the midst of working as a full group. That's one of many reasons I don't hold out a lot of hope for more reunion stuff. Based on recent interviews, I don't think Mike's book is going to be a favorite of Brian or Al, and something like that would be difficult to promote in the midst of a reunion project of any sort.

They worked really hard at "objectivity." However difficult.  At some point there may be a comparison between those two films.  They glossed over the SOT "divestment" in Love and Mercy.  They had bigger "fish to fry."  

Murry's character was there and an underpinning, but not as "in your face" as the earlier film.  

And, the "Mike dialogue" is consistent, throughout.  His role is undeniable.  And it appears to be objective.  A "takeaway" for me, is the determination to extricate Brian, from a predator, as between, Gloria and Melinda.  The "will" scenario was very convincing, as well as that "dealership" scene.  The recently linked YouTubes on this board fully  support the concept of that financial and profession exploitation.  

Please don't speculate about that which we haven't read.  The pseudo bio didn't treat the band well. And, now we know why.  Landy was building his own band.  Too bad he didn't share a cell with Manson.  

[Autotune]

Not being bound by C50 or a subsequent reunited format, when can be sure that they released the movie as they wanted it without any conditioning from the outside. If anything, the end of C50 gave this movie project much more freedom.

Again, the jabs at Mike Love in this and other threads are uncalled for. Just as it would be bringing up Brian's miseries in every other thread.

[urbanite]

BW was not in any condition to write or cooperate in the writing of an autobiography so many years ago.  Not surprisingly, his book was a piece of trash.

I am speculating, but to obtain an advance from a book publisher, they want to hear that the salacious stuff is going to be in the book.  With that, and Mike's personality, I expect there to be lots about his trip to India, Brian's drug use, the errors of Dennis' ways and more recent events.  He has every right to chronicle his life as he sees fit, but I think has said enough about the drug and alcohol use by the Wilsons.

[HeyJude]

Please don't speculate about that which we haven't read.  The pseudo bio didn't treat the band well. And, now we know why.  Landy was building his own band.  Too bad he didn't share a cell with Manson.  

Truly with all due respect, I have no problem speculating. That’s a HUGE part of what we do here, and implicit in a discussion of a book that *hasn’t been released yet* is that it’s all speculation.

I don’t want to turn this into a thread about Mike’s upcoming book. But every indication in terms of what Mike talks about in interviews, especially that gawdawful David Beard “interview” (where Mike also specifically mentions he’ll be expanding on his words in said autobiography), smells like the book is going to be controversial and not a laid-back travelogue about all the great vacations Mike took over the years. Again, IMPLICIT in any discussion of a book that hasn’t been released and probably isn’t even finished is that it’s all speculation. If speculation troubles you, feel free to skip over those discussions.

[filledeplage]

Please don't speculate about that which we haven't read.  The pseudo bio didn't treat the band well. And, now we know why.  Landy was building his own band.  Too bad he didn't share a cell with Manson.  

Truly with all due respect, I have no problem speculating. That’s a HUGE part of what we do here, and implicit in a discussion of a book that *hasn’t been released yet* is that it’s all speculation.

I don’t want to turn this into a thread about Mike’s upcoming book. But every indication in terms of what Mike talks about in interviews, especially that gawdawful David Beard “interview” (where Mike also specifically mentions he’ll be expanding on his words in said autobiography), smells like the book is going to be controversial and not a laid-back travelogue about all the great vacations Mike took over the years. Again, IMPLICIT in any discussion of a book that hasn’t been released and probably isn’t even finished is that it’s all speculation. If speculation troubles you, feel free to skip over those discussions.

Truly, with all due return respect, there is enough fact and truth out there, that we don't need to resort to speculation. It isn't what we all do...

The YouTube of Landy, his  henchmen (woman) and the car...that should keep a discussion lively...otherwise one could be writing a "future fantasy or fairy tale..." 

[the professor]

There you go--thanks.

I very much like the depiction of Mike, and I believe he will too. Mike reminds BW that genius can isolate an artist and also have the effect of alienating those around him who care and who love him--and as well who have dedicated their art and vocation to the genius.  This, in the movie, compels BW to re-integrate Mike in that lovely, triumphant scene of GV. BW learned something here dramatically, having been chastened by his cousin. Mike was right in every respect, and the collaborative result was GV, one of the most significant songs in history. If I am Mike, I am liking that scene.  Mike was critical of CE (HAV in the movie) but knew enough about Brian and his music to sing his parts brilliantly. There are 2 kinds of resistance: the "I am not going to be part of this crap" type and the "I have real doubts about this commercially and conceptually and I do not like these scum drug addicts, but we are the BB and these are the songs we are doing so let's do them right" type of resistance. Mike chose the second, which history can judge as the wise move.

The movie did a great job of treating this interpersonal tension and artistic dynamic between them.  I cannot speak for Mike, but I would be very approving if I were he, especially since the movie slams, as he often has, those pretentious scum hangers on (VDP excepted, who is an artist and a gentleman in the film).

I meant that Mike (via his lawyers) stressed that the film be explicitly classified as a biopic of Brian Wilson, so that print materials--and presumably, subsequent reviews--would not mistake the film for a biopic of the Beach Boys.

[HeyJude]

This is a bit of a tangent, but since we’ve delved into the topics of Brian’s 1991 pseudo-autobiography (and prospects for Mike’s upcoming tome), it perhaps is worth noting that there was pretty serious internal fallout within the band after Brian’s 1991 book, even after Brian was extricated from Landy’s control and everybody knew Brian hadn’t even read the thing.

While many issues were at play (songwriting lawsuit, etc.), it’s worth pointing out that even though Landy was gone by early 1992, Brian didn’t really do much (if anything) with the Beach Boys for several more years. I don’t think he appeared once at a concert with them after 1990 until 1995 if I recall correctly. Long story short, I think at least a little part of this was bad feelings from Brian’s book.

The larger issue I’m simply throwing out there is that books from any member may not exactly engender good feelings from others in the band. In other words, I would guess we’re unlikely to see either Brian’s or Mike’s books run concurrently with another reunion project.

[drbeachboy]

BW was not in any condition to write or cooperate in the writing of an autobiography so many years ago.  Not surprisingly, his book was a piece of trash.

I am speculating, but to obtain an advance from a book publisher, they want to hear that the salacious stuff is going to be in the book.  With that, and Mike's personality, I expect there to be lots about his trip to India, Brian's drug use, the errors of Dennis' ways and more recent events.  He has every right to chronicle his life as he sees fit, but I think has said enough about the drug and alcohol use by the Wilsons.

As long as what Mike writes is true, I see nothing wrong with talking about the Wilson's drug use. If the drug abuse had an affect on family and band relations, then he, along with Al & Bruce were all personally affected by it. It is part of all of their life and band experiences. The big question will be whether he takes a more understanding approach (through hindsight) or will be on the attack about the negative influence that it took on their personal and professional lives.

[HeyJude]

The big question will be whether he takes a more understanding approach (through hindsight) or will be on the attack about the negative influence that it took on their personal and professional lives.

I don’t mean this as a smartass rhetorical question: Have we really ever seen the former in any of myriad of interviews in which Mike has spoken about drug abuse within the band? I ask this question seriously. I'd love to see an example of this.

[drbeachboy]

The big question will be whether he takes a more understanding approach (through hindsight) or will be on the attack about the negative influence that it took on their personal and professional lives.

I don’t mean this as a smartass rhetorical question: Have we really ever seen the former in any of myriad of interviews in which Mike has spoken about drug abuse within the band? I ask this question seriously. I'd love to see an example of this.

He has been kind to Carl and to some extent Brian due to the mental illness aspect. Hell, even lately when he speaks of Dennis he has been a bit softer. So yeah, he may take his punches here and there at specific moments, but I can see him taking a lighter stand.

[HeyJude]

The big question will be whether he takes a more understanding approach (through hindsight) or will be on the attack about the negative influence that it took on their personal and professional lives.

I don’t mean this as a smartass rhetorical question: Have we really ever seen the former in any of myriad of interviews in which Mike has spoken about drug abuse within the band? I ask this question seriously. I'd love to see an example of this.

He has been kind to Carl and to some extent Brian due to the mental illness aspect. Hell, even lately when he speaks of Dennis he has been a bit softer. So yeah, he may take his punches here and there at specific moments, but I can see him taking a lighter stand.

I guess what I see, and what is highly subjective, is a lack of restraint in broaching the subject. I think there is a time and a place and a context for conveying how damaging drugs and alcohol can be to so many lives. Mike’s words prefacing the “California Saga” performance in 2012 really drove this point home. I can only imagine how much Mike has had to see this stuff tear people’s lives apart.

That being said, he often harps on the topic specifically about the Wilson brothers (often specifically pointing out that he, Bruce, and Al did not partake; one of the few instances during the 2000’s Mike would even mention Al’s name in interviews), and I think he has often beat the topic to death. Like a parent who reminds you of mistakes you made decades ago even after the issue is long dead. Seriously, Carl and Dennis are gone and Brian is clean. But he will still go to that topic in countless interviews. I think it’s the same thing as how he will *still* bring up the songwriting lawsuit, even though that’s been a dead issue for over 20 years, and Mike WON the suit. But he’s still disenfranchised about it.

Again, all of these topics need to be addressed, especially in a life-spanning book. But I think some of these things are fallback, negative topics to touch on, and talking about negative things about others is a classic method of deflecting. This was seen with remarkable clarity in a recent interview where Mike was asked if he had any regrets about himself, and he mentioned *other* people’s drug use.

[Sheriff John Stone]

Please don't speculate about that which we haven't read.  The pseudo bio didn't treat the band well. And, now we know why.  Landy was building his own band.  Too bad he didn't share a cell with Manson.  

Truly with all due respect, I have no problem speculating. That’s a HUGE part of what we do here, and implicit in a discussion of a book that *hasn’t been released yet* is that it’s all speculation.

I don’t want to turn this into a thread about Mike’s upcoming book.

Oh, I think you would love to turn this into a thread about Mike's upcoming book. But, there's plenty of time - and hundreds of pages - for that. In the meantime, speculate away!

However, I am reminded how we were scolded and reprimanded for speculating about NPP based on a nine second snippet of a song, or for speculating about Brian's upcoming tour based on one of his "meat and potatoes"   shows, or for speculating about the movie based on some stills, trailers, or interviews from the participants, and for speculating about Larry Fine's upcoming biography which hasn't been written yet.

But that's Brian Wilson, and you want to speculate about Mike Love, so that's OK. There's one standard for Brian Wilson, and another standard...for everybody else.

[ontor pertawst]

Well, yeah. People have different opinions than you and disagree. Are you feeling stifled and Pindered? Awww. Perhaps one day Mike Love will be as likeable as Brian Wilson and more people will want to defend his baffling behavior and mean-spirited statements. I doubt it tho.

[Cam Mott]

Nobody talks more about Brian's drug use with more regret than Brian.

[rab2591]

Nobody talks more about Brian's drug use with more regret than Brian.

Probably because it's his life and when asked about his own regrets he doesn't yammer on about other people's mistakes.

[HeyJude]

Please don't speculate about that which we haven't read.  The pseudo bio didn't treat the band well. And, now we know why.  Landy was building his own band.  Too bad he didn't share a cell with Manson.  

Truly with all due respect, I have no problem speculating. That’s a HUGE part of what we do here, and implicit in a discussion of a book that *hasn’t been released yet* is that it’s all speculation.

I don’t want to turn this into a thread about Mike’s upcoming book.

Oh, I think you would love to turn this into a thread about Mike's upcoming book. But, there's plenty of time - and hundreds of pages - for that. In the meantime, speculate away!

However, I am reminded how we were scolded and reprimanded for speculating about NPP based on a nine second snippet of a song, or for speculating about Brian's upcoming tour based on one of his "meat and potatoes"   shows, or for speculating about the movie based on some stills, trailers, or interviews from the participants, and for speculating about Larry Fine's upcoming biography which hasn't been written yet.

But that's Brian Wilson, and you want to speculate about Mike Love, so that's OK. There's one standard for Brian Wilson, and another standard...for everybody else.

Please feel free to read any or all of my history of posts on NPP. I defended those who gave the album negative reviews, and those who claimed they heard autotune. Read my review of the album on my blog; it’s far from a glowing review.

I thought (and posted as such) that a few defensive folks were being way too harsh on those who were posting thoughtful, non-trollish criticisms of NPP. I had numerous go-arounds on the autotune topic, I thought and still feel it’s on the album.

Not every person who criticizes Mike lacks the ability to criticize Brian.

[HeyJude]

Nobody talks more about Brian's drug use with more regret than Brian.

Probably because it's his life and when asked about his own regrets he doesn't yammer on about other people's mistakes.

Exactly. Look at interviews over the last few years. How often has Brian said anything that even indirectly reflects negatively on Mike?

The entire band collectively has horrible management, but I’ll say that whether it’s by his own choices or due to good management/PR folks, Brian has largely taken the high road post-C50 when it comes to talking about Mike. Similarly, the “Love & Mercy” film was not a score-settling affair either.

I guess we’ll see how much of the high road Mike takes with his book. I’m sure we’ll have the same circular debates here, because some folks read these inflammatory Mike interviews and see nothing wrong, even with that Beard “interview.”

Two of the longest published monologues from Mike in the last few years, things that might give us an indication of how an autobiography might read, have been his 2012 LA Times letter and his monologue (aka “interview”) with David Beard several months ago. Neither of those read like thoughtful, sympathetic pieces. They read like ultra-defensive justifications. Mike’s capable of writing very thoughtful pieces; we’ve seen it. I wish I saw more that when the topic turns to the Beach Boys and goes beyond the boilerplate topics the local newspaper guy asks Mike in every interview about being the “soundtrack to our lives.”

[drbeachboy]

OK, and we start with the community member bashing. This place cannot help itself. We are nasty-ass people.

[Cam Mott]

OK, and we start with the community member bashing. This place cannot help itself. We are nasty-ass people.

Fun!

[Cam Mott]

Nobody talks more about Brian's drug use with more regret than Brian.

Probably because it's his life and when asked about his own regrets he doesn't yammer on about other people's mistakes.

Exactly. Look at interviews over the last few years. How often has Brian said anything that even indirectly reflects negatively on Mike?

The entire band collectively has horrible management, but I’ll say that whether it’s by his own choices or due to good management/PR folks, Brian has largely taken the high road post-C50 when it comes to talking about Mike. Similarly, the “Love & Mercy” film was not a score-settling affair either.

I guess we’ll see how much of the high road Mike takes with his book. I’m sure we’ll have the same circular debates here, because some folks read these inflammatory Mike interviews and see nothing wrong, even with that Beard “interview.”

Two of the longest published monologues from Mike in the last few years, things that might give us an indication of how an autobiography might read, have been his 2012 LA Times letter and his monologue (aka “interview”) with David Beard several months ago. Neither of those read like thoughtful, sympathetic pieces. They read like ultra-defensive justifications. Mike’s capable of writing very thoughtful pieces; we’ve seen it. I wish I saw more that when the topic turns to the Beach Boys and goes beyond the boilerplate topics the local newspaper guy asks Mike in every interview about being the “soundtrack to our lives.”

Maybe it's because we see the most interviews with Mike and they both are often answering some question about regrets or band issue and both of them see this as the thing that had the most impact on their lives and families and careers? Brian, to his credit, owns it and if it was something Mike had done or had; the tables would possibly be turned.

[CenturyDeprived]

Nobody talks more about Brian's drug use with more regret than Brian.

Nor should anybody even come within many miles of doing so.