Mike Love on Love & Mercy: ‘Poor Brian, He’s Had a Rough, Rough Time’

[JakeH]

Regarding various contrarian views about the movie:
Doesn't the movie in fact dedicate screen time to the "pro-Landy" viewpoint? We get (1) a scene in which Paul G., as Landy, says something to the effect of "Brian was 300 pounds, and I saved his life." They may not have used the term, "saved," but that's the viewpoint. (2) A scene at the restaurant in which Cusack-Brian says something like, "I made a mess of my life, drinking and drugging, and I was a bad father." Brian's character doesn't say "Mike made a mess of my life," or "my dad made a mess of my life." He puts the blame on himself.

Perhaps people like Landy's son and his sympathizers wanted scenes in which we see Brian in the foul state he was in. It was the filmmakers' choice (with the assent or encouragement of "BriMel") not to include this stuff. Hypothetically, a Brian Wilson movie could have been made that bludgeons the audience with human misery, but that wasn't going to work either artistically or commercially. This is a PG-13 movie; a lot of grim stuff couldn't therefore be presented, including anything even approaching accuracy in the depiction of Brian's childhood.   

[HeyJude]

I'll say it again: Mike battled Landy publically back in the day when it needed to be done. That his opinions in an interview 25 years after the fact don't match our wording or our concept doesn't mean he has to be written off as a jerk. And may I remind you the crap that he, along with Brian's family including his mother had to endure back then.

A book that appeared under Brian's name treated Carl as an alcoholic and blamed him for Dennis' death (i.e. delaying treatment with Dr. Landy); it went as far as removing praising of Carl in the segments it plagiarized from other writings; and Mike is portrayed as a giant-turd-shitting bully. Those people had to endure some utter crap themselves, and while Brian was the real victim of the situation, those things are hard to overlook, specially under the light of Brian's tight-lipped silence the last couple of decades as a previous poster mentions.

A 1991 People mag article may illustrate some of the points here.

Lovely thoughts from Brian to his mother:
"The fact that my mother is involved against me in this conservatorship suit really scrambles my brain... I hate to say this, but I don't think she loves me." And does he love her? "Somewhat," he replies.


Mike's take on Landy, which is not that differet from his statements in the 2015 interview:
Mike Love agrees—to a point. "Gene might have saved his life," he says, "but he went from psychologist to life manager, and that's way beyond the bounds of standard ethical procedures." Particularly rankling to Love are the facts that Landy has become involved in guiding Brian's musical career and that Brian will not write or record with the Beach Boys. "Gene doesn't want us around Brian, because were he to record with us again and be successful with the Beach Boys, it would prove that he doesn't need Landy anymore," says Love. "Brian has been with him since 1983 and hasn't had any success, while we've enjoyed one of our biggest records [the vapid 1988 hit "Kokomo"] since then." Love, who very much wants to collaborate with Brian again for a much-needed Beach Boy renaissance, adds, "The thing about Landy is that he has all the ambition of a rock musician but none of the talent."


And Landy's opinion on Mike. I'm sure many here will sympathize with the lyricist of Smart Girls:
"Mike wants commercialism, and Brian wants art," says Landy. "Mike would write a song about the Vietcong if he thought it would sell. Mike still wants sand, surf, sun and screwing in his songs. Brian grew out of that phase in 1966 with Pet Sounds."

I think it would help your case to avoid using continual references to the 1991 book and other things that occured while under the care of Landy.

The fact that one of the *few* things that almost everybody here can agree on is that the Landy situation was horrendous and abusive and coercive and criminal kind of undercuts the continual use of Brian's "actions" while under the eye of Landy as examples of Brian being as much of a d**k as Mike comes across in some interviews.

That Mike quote above also isn't, in my opinion, the best quote to use if one is trying to contend that Mike was most concerned about what was happening to Brian medically/mentally. Granted, it's the author of the article's characterization and emphasis, but it implies that Mike is more concerned with Landy stealing Brian away from the Beach Boys than he is concerned with how f-ed up Brian is due to Landy's abuse.

[SMiLE Brian]

Landy and Mike are cut from the same cloth in regards to using BW for their own ends.

[HeyJude]

Regarding various contrarian views about the movie:
Doesn't the movie in fact dedicate screen time to the "pro-Landy" viewpoint? We get (1) a scene in which Paul G., as Landy, says something to the effect of "Brian was 300 pounds, and I saved his life." They may not have used the term, "saved," but that's the viewpoint. (2) A scene at the restaurant in which Cusack-Brian says something like, "I made a mess of my life, drinking and drugging, and I was a bad father." Brian's character doesn't say "Mike made a mess of my life," or "my dad made a mess of my life." He puts the blame on himself.

Perhaps people like Landy's son and his sympathizers wanted scenes in which we see Brian in the foul state he was in. It was the filmmakers' choice (with the assent or encouragement of "BriMel") not to include this stuff. Hypothetically, a Brian Wilson movie could have been made that bludgeons the audience with human misery, but that wasn't going to work either artistically or commercially. This is a PG-13 movie; a lot of grim stuff couldn't therefore be presented, including anything even approaching accuracy in the depiction of Brian's childhood.   

Every viewpoint doesn't always deserve or warrant equal time and consideration. It's a false equivalency. Even if they were making a documentary rather than a drama, it doesn't mean they'd have to give a huge amount of time over to the one good thing Landy did. The "Endless Harmony" documentary, while brief, handled this situation as diplomatically and fairly as such a documentary possibly could. Brian got better initially, and then everything else was a nightmare. When you do factor in that L&M is a film and is the vision of the director more than anybody else, then it makes even less sense to dwell on something that will disproportinately make the antagonist more sympathetic.

[Cam Mott]

That Mike quote above also isn't, in my opinion, the best quote to use if one is trying to contend that Mike was most concerned about what was happening to Brian medically/mentally. Granted, it's the author of the article's characterization and emphasis, but it implies that Mike is more concerned with Landy stealing Brian away from the Beach Boys than he is concerned with how f-ed up Brian is due to Landy's abuse.

I disagree, Mike is showing that not only was Landy an unethical "psychologist" and "life manager" but he was also a crap creative/business partner deceiving Brian.

[CenturyDeprived]

That Mike quote above also isn't, in my opinion, the best quote to use if one is trying to contend that Mike was most concerned about what was happening to Brian medically/mentally. Granted, it's the author of the article's characterization and emphasis, but it implies that Mike is more concerned with Landy stealing Brian away from the Beach Boys than he is concerned with how f-ed up Brian is due to Landy's abuse.

I disagree, Mike is showing that not only was Landy an unethical "psychologist" and "life manager" but he was also a crap creative/business partner deceiving Brian.

Still defending the usage of "probably", Cam? You're ok with the implication that there's still the possibility for a little bit of doubt that Landy's abusive actions were quantifiable as "going too far"?

That maybe, just maybe, Landy didn't go too far? Is that what you are saying?
 

[HeyJude]

That Mike quote above also isn't, in my opinion, the best quote to use if one is trying to contend that Mike was most concerned about what was happening to Brian medically/mentally. Granted, it's the author of the article's characterization and emphasis, but it implies that Mike is more concerned with Landy stealing Brian away from the Beach Boys than he is concerned with how f-ed up Brian is due to Landy's abuse.

I disagree, Mike is showing that not only was Landy an unethical "psychologist" and "life manager" but he was also a crap creative/business partner deceiving Brian.

Of course. Nobody said otherwise. It’s right there in the interview excerpt (not sure where that older interview comes from). What the author of that interview/article implies through emphasis (“particularly rankling”) is that Mike is most troubled by the business stuff and Brian being kept away from the group, rather than being most troubled by what Landy was doing to Brian medically/mentally. As I said, it’s only that author’s emphasis, and I specifically only mentioned that this was not a good example to use if one is trying to advocate that Mike’s main or only concern in terms of Landy was Brian rather than how Landy impacted Mike’s relationship with Brian.

It unquestionably was all bad. That Brian was kept away from the BB’s was certainly a piece of evidence in the picture. But I also think Mike may have always had trouble ever admitting, certainly in the last 30-35 years, that Brian at any point has not *wanted* to work with Mike or the BB’s.

As I’ve previously mentioned, it was a good three or so years *after* Landy was gone before Brian did anything approaching substantial work with the Beach Boys.

[KDS]

Landy and Mike are cut from the same cloth in regards to using BW for their own ends.

I think we'll all agree that Mike isn't exactly the best cousin or business associate.  But to my knowledge, Mike has never done anything as malicious as Landy that caused physical harm to Brian.  

[SMiLE Brian]

True, I meant that both wanted to use BW for their own ends of being a equal songwriter partner.

[Jim V.]

Mike was asked to respond to a quoted characterization of an Associated Press review of the movie L&M.  So Mike is responding to that reviewer's characterization as not true. He has already explained he hasn't seen the movie yet but he is "anxious to see it to see what the whole story is".

Even though Mike has said he hasn't seen the movie the interviewer follows up with another claim about the movie's portrayal of Landy and asks him if Mike has a comment about the portrayal the interviewer read about in the movie Mike hasn't seen. So the interviewer is asking a question about stuff he read about the movie and Mike responds with something he read about the movie. He doesn't say Evan's "dissertation" is true or untrue or good or bad just an interesting read of "a whole different story that came out on Love and Mercy".

I think Mike made his feelings plain about Landy back at the time so it's a little puzzling to me that some are now taking the implication that Mike is defending Eugene Landy's unethical, immoral and illegal behaviors. Mike wasn't in the therapy with Brian and Landy of course so he answered "probably" about the therapy, not shocking.  The things he did know about he answered "hell yeah" and "yes", also not shocking. Mike and Brian share the opinion that even with all the crap, Landy may have also saved Brian's life. Shocking maybe but their opinion.

I have to say, Cameron Mott is probably the worst poster in the history of this forum.

[marcusb]

What if Brian responded to further reunion questions this way: "Reunite? Maybe. I want to. Mike's a great guy and I miss writing and singing with him. But he's not really into commitment, you know? He's been married five times."

And not even just once.. what if there was a variation of this theme throughout every interview for years. I'm guessing it'd get old to a LOT of people.

[KDS]

True, I meant that both wanted to use BW for their own ends of being a equal songwriter partner.

Gotcha. 

[MyDrKnowsItKeepsMeCalm]

I wonder how it is Mike even read Evan Landy's comments and knew them well enough to discuss them? They're only a week old, in a UK publication and they don't seem like the kind of thing you'd randomly stumble upon.

[Autotune]

What if Brian responded to further reunion questions this way: "Reunite? Maybe. I want to. Mike's a great guy and I miss writing and singing with him. But he's not really into commitment, you know? He's been married five times."

And not even just once.. what if there was a variation of this theme throughout every interview for years. I'm guessing it'd get old to a LOT of people.

It would be just as untimely and out of place as mentioning Brian's actions that led to his divorce in every thread that deals with love, mercy, healing and such.

[OGoldin]

I wonder how it is Mike even read Evan Landy's comments and knew them well enough to discuss them? They're only a week old, in a UK publication and they don't seem like the kind of thing you'd randomly stumble upon.

We know that Mike sometimes looks at this board.  Perhaps he even frequents it.

Which is why when we post about him we shouldn't say anything we wouldn't say to his face.  Well maybe that's a little extreme.  But still, expressions of "he just doesn't get it" should be tempered with gratitude and an attitude of peace.

[ForHerCryingSoul]

Which is why when we post about him we shouldn't say anything we wouldn't say to his face.  Well maybe that's a little extreme.  But still, expressions of "he just doesn't get it" should be tempered with gratitude and an attitude of peace.

That's it!  The world needs Mike Love Not War!   

[Mendota Heights]

Is it not sad Mike Love shows more affection to Wrinkles than to Brian, his own relative who made Mike the millionaire he is today?

[HeyJude]

I wonder how it is Mike even read Evan Landy's comments and knew them well enough to discuss them? They're only a week old, in a UK publication and they don't seem like the kind of thing you'd randomly stumble upon.

We know that Mike sometimes looks at this board.  Perhaps he even frequents it.

Which is why when we post about him we shouldn't say anything we wouldn't say to his face.  Well maybe that's a little extreme.  But still, expressions of "he just doesn't get it" should be tempered with gratitude and an attitude of peace.

I get the sense that some of the stuff Mike says about Brian in interviews is different from what he would say to Brian's face.

That isn't to say many if not most people aren't like that.

But if Mike truly went back and read and weighed the opinions of fans on this board over the years, he’d see that most of the “negative” stuff about him went away during 2012. There’s a reason for that. A bit of humility, compromise, “the whole is greater than the sum of the parts” thing, all of that, melted away a lot of the grudges and negativity (both warranted and unwarranted) from some of the most cynical, crusty fans imaginable.

[HeyJude]

I wonder how it is Mike even read Evan Landy's comments and knew them well enough to discuss them? They're only a week old, in a UK publication and they don't seem like the kind of thing you'd randomly stumble upon.

That’s an interesting question. I think it potentially speaks to what Mike is reading, and/or what is being sent to him, and/or what type of information he seeks out and cites.

It’s not some big conspiracy theory that Mike read an interview/article online. But citing that particular article smells to me like the same sort of scenario that led to him referring to “autotune” in that Beard “interview” several months back. I think that sort of stuff, stuff that reflects negatively on Brian, is either being sought out or being referred to Mike by someone.

[Mendota Heights]

I have to say, Cameron Mott is probably the worst poster in the history of this forum.

I fully agree. If people laugh at your posts you are doing something wrong and you might wanna rethink your strategy a bit. You know in advance what the posts will say because they are always the same:

- Where you there?
- Do you have a source?
- Someone else did something similar at some point
- It's someone else's fault (like the interviewer's)
- Mike actually meant something else

99.5 % of the posters here are taking aback by Mike's Landy comments. About 4 posters aren't and guess what - no one's surprised about that.

[Douchepool]

I have to say, Cameron Mott is probably the worst poster in the history of this forum.

*koff*nobody*koff*

[puni puni]

He was the best

[mikeddonn]

They are not hurting for bookings as far as I can see. And, Mike heaps praise upon Brian which you will never see, because you choose not to see them.   Your CD player is not a live performance.  And refusing to see this great band, perform the music you say you love, hurts no one but you.
[/quote]

I think he mentions Brian to add legitimacy to the show, not out of any great love or gratitude to Brian.  The same as he likes to mention his 'friend' George Harrison.  He thinks it makes him 'cooler' in the eyes of others.  Just like he name dropped Brando in the latest interview.  Insecurity for some reason, feeling the need to wear a hat with 'The Beach Boys' on it so that people know who he is. Look at the recent GMTV appearance in the UK.  Would a casual fan know who the Beach Boys were unless the 3 of them had matching hats on?  

How come he doesn't mention the Beatles doing drugs in interviews.  Why does he constantly mention it when talking about Brian.  Brian did nothing that loads of other musicians at the time did, yet he won't let it lie.

Mike just doesn't 'get it'.  He's just not famous enough or cool enough unless he's wearing a hat or mentioning Brian or name dropping the Beatles and the breakfast table in India. Blah, blah, blah.  I reckon most people on here would like to have a reason to like Mike but he makes it tough!

His recent comments also reek of McCartney calling Lennon's death, "a drag"!

[Mike's Beard]

What if Brian responded to further reunion questions this way: "Reunite? Maybe. I want to. Mike's a great guy and I miss writing and singing with him. But he's not really into commitment, you know? He's been married five times."

And not even just once.. what if there was a variation of this theme throughout every interview for years. I'm guessing it'd get old to a LOT of people.

Mike's numerous divorces never had an impact on the band creatively or commercially. It would be irrelevant for them to be brought up constantly. Like it or not, Brian's drug and mental health problems are a big part of the Beach Boys story and while there are times when it's not necessary for Mike to bring them up, there are other times when it's unavoidable not to touch upon them.

[ForHerCryingSoul]

His recent comments also reek of McCartney calling Lennon's death, "a drag"!

Now I would stop right here.  You have misinterpreted a flimsy newspaper article...  The man himself said so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lopW9DJ-sc