Love and Mercy and myth?

[Please delete my account]

Wow, anyone that thinks Mike is crapping on the film needs to reread what he posted. He simply says he has reservations about going to see it (mainly because he is a stickler for a 100% correct limeline).

That's true.

[Mike's Beard]

Wow, anyone that thinks Mike is crapping on the film needs to reread what he posted. He simply says he has reservations about going to see it (mainly because he is a stickler for a 100% correct limeline).

That's true.

Not that I'd let that stop me from seeing the movie. It's clear that it's NOT a Beach Boys movie, it's a Brian Wilson movie focusing on two distinct separate periods of his life. His involvement on say, Carl & The Passions is not important here.
NOW, if a well publicised, criticially praised full on bio of the group was ever made and the word was that the Smiley to Endless Summer period was presented as 'nothing much happened here', then I'd be concerned.

[Cam Mott]

Mike made it clear he hadn't seen the film and wasn't talking out of school (it was kind of the whole point).

[Alan Smith]

At what point does the fact that the person writing this commentary has not watched the movie start sinking in? I have many doubts about buying certain new albums or seeing movies myself, but if I were to write a public commentary having not seen or listened to what I'm commenting about but going on heresay from other fans and reviews, I'd be rightfully called out for completely missing the point and any cache I had built up as someone whose opinion is read by others would be destroyed.

Let me point out one historical inaccuracy too, from the initial post. For the record, it's readily available to find. This stuff about Murry Wilson, specifically Good Vibrations: As that song was climbing the charts if not when it had already hit #1 in some markets, Murry Wilson was going around on a whisper campaign to Brian's associates and even family members bad-mouthing it. That the song was a "horrible mistake", and that they had to get back to doing what they were doing in order to hold onto their audience. It's similar to what gets said in several scenes in the film. So whatever got out in the mainstream press about Murry's opinions just isn't supported by those who actually spoke to him in 1966 and 1967. Fact.

And another one. Consider seeing the movie before making statements about how any of the characters are portrayed. Jon Stebbins already said it so well, but this film is beyond a standard biopic and encompasses a lot of artistic and creative elements of filmmaking in general that allow it to transcend the standard music biopic. People who have only a casual interest in the subject matter but appreciate the art of filmmaking would find a lot to enjoy in this, as well as some truly stunning scenes that stand as works of art beyond the subject matter itself. Same thing for the soundtrack and sound editing, it's worth seeing and hearing even if you're not a diehard fan. At least watch it before casting doubts on it based on what others have said. And consider the sources.

...snore...

[Cam Mott]

Mike (Eder) only commented on Murry and GOK, is there something which shows he was inaccurate about Murry and GOK?

[marcusb]

Mike (Eder) only commented on Murry and GOK, is there something which shows he was inaccurate about Murry and GOK?

Regardless if the scene was 100% accurate, it conveyed the pressure Murry could put on Brian. They're telling a story. It isn't a documentary.

[Cam Mott]

Mike (Eder) only commented on Murry and GOK, is there something which shows he was inaccurate about Murry and GOK?

Regardless if the scene was 100% accurate, it conveyed the pressure Murry could put on Brian. They're telling a story. It isn't a documentary.

I haven't seen the movie yet. Trying to coordinate calendars with my wife, a daughter, and her musician boyfriend to see it together. The issue has become Mike's accuracy, so I'm only commenting on that. Looking forward to seeing it.

[pixletwin]

I have read this whole thread... not sure why.. but I did. 

[drbeachboy]

I have read this whole thread... not sure why.. but I did. 

Poor guy!

[HeyJude]

Bleh. I’m not saying it’s not impossible to express misgivings about a movie before seeing it. But seriously, if you’re a huge fan of Brian and the BB’s, how hard is it to just go see this film and THEN discuss it and avoid speaking from ignorance? Really, how hard is it to go to a cheap, $6 matinee showing of this thing? Even if the thing sucked worse than “Summer Dreams”, it’s worth it to pay $6 to hear some isolated “Good Vibrations” vocals for the first time, if you’re just all about the music and nothing else.

I’d have to call BS on anyone who thinks Mike is vilified in this film. It’s no coincidence that most of the people I’ve seen who have this misgiving have NOT seen the film. If anything, the film makes the viewer more empathetic towards Mike than I ever would have imagined.

I would suggest seeing the film and paying the $6-12, or wait for the Blu-ray/DVD before writing *multi-paragraph* essays on it. I’m not saying anyone can’t do that, but I would only offer that if you *do* write a multi-paragraph piece on the film having not seen it, you will appear to be speaking from gross ignorance by a lot of people.

It’s one thing to express misgivings *before* the film comes out. Then it’s all speculation and the only type of discussion fans can have, and I’ve often pointed out that I think that’s fine more times than not. I do it. I’ve often expressed misgivings based on past precedent for Mike Love’s upcoming book, for instance. But once the book is released, I’m not going to write a huge essay on why the thing *probably* sucks without having read ANY of it.
 
It’s actually kind of funny that this small handful of fans who are doing the “I haven’t seen the movie, but here’s why it probably sucks…..” thing are coming across as not terribly dissimilar to several Mike Love interviews over the years professing to not have heard BWPS or NPP or seen L&M, but then going on to offer *potential* criticisms.  

[Douchepool]

Wow, anyone that thinks Mike is crapping on the film needs to reread what he posted. He simply says he has reservations about going to see it (mainly because he is a stickler for a 100% correct limeline).

+1

I'm old school and believe this kind of backroom stuff should be done off-board. Stuff transparency - it just hamstrings effective board management. Ban or demote Eder quietly and let everyone move on. No word, no explanations, unless they're in confidential PMs. Then we can all move on. Probably.

Banning someone for having an opinion is setting a very dangerous precedent on this board. Can you blame the mods for responding publicly when they're being taken to task by people who ALSO don't know the whole story? People still wouldn't give a damn about Mike's opinion if he wasn't conferred with a silly title. His carnal sin was having the "wrong" opinion, and member protocol here is to dog pile on those deviant bastards until they either leave or they get banned.

Which brings me to...

And we've yet again run off one of the good guys of the board out meaningless, stupid bullshit. Yay.

+INFUCKINGFINITY

[Autotune]

Wait wait. There is or used to be a Mike Eder thread in the "Ask the Honored Guests" section. So, it was a public thing that Eder had been made an Honored Guest. A number of people posted. It surprised me at the time to read that, but nevertheless... It's funny that he comes back with a monicker though. I'm a nobody in the fan community, but a public and "googleable" person and thus choose to post under a stupid name. But this Eder case was bizarre. As for the content of his OP, no big deal I think.

As for the Honored Guest status, it seemed too much: Eder had never been a source of information here, and kept going back tirelessly to his "pre-1973, post-1973" criteria, which seemed like fanboy talk an not an the expression of a serious author... On the other hand, he was thoughtful and respectful, and had a certain ability for synthesis, so maybe he comes out with a nicely-written book on the BBs. But there wasn't and isn't any insider or informative content in his posts that merits such status, IMO.

[Jon Stebbins]

FYI I had no idea who "analog" was when I wrote my initial response to the thread topic. Didn't matter. I wrote what i honestly felt after reading his post. But after reading the resulting twists the thread has taken I gotta say that if you are a known entity, Honored guest, moderator or part of the regular rotation of smiley posters, you have to have fairly thick skin to participate in a high-profile way. It comes with the territory. I think stating you are leaving the board only adds to the drama instead of defusing it. If you really feel violated, then take a break, quietly, you might want to come back, and it gets weird if you say you're leaving, you come back, and say you're leaving again ...and again. God knows I've been crushed on the board more than a few times, and in the moment would have loved to use my fists instead of my words to respond...but I come back because the smartest Beach Boys fans are here. This is where the opinion is shaped, and where new things are revealed. Its a good board because it's free flowing and alive with well informed opinions. No one is above the fray.

[filledeplage]

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/419838/print
Read this review posted by JCM in the Love and Mercy review thread and it set off some alarm bells for me.

Obviously this fellow knows the myths. The Beach Boys had ultimately little to do with the collapse of Smile. They certainly didn't force Brian to make Smiley Smiley either. In 1967 Brian was the boss, not Mike, not Carl, Brian. This movie could have set people like this critic straight, sad to hear it didn't.

Frankly the review makes me not want to see the film. I have been going back and forth about seeing this movie, and while I'm reading a lot of raves here, I don't know if six months from now it would be the same. All "new" albums or films have an excitment about them that die down after time has passed.

Full disclousre-bio pics bother me. I am very pedantic on Beach Boys history, and I'm wondering about this one. 1966-67 is half the focus and despite SO much being done on the period to the point of real overkill, I'm still waiting for it to be done correctly. Sounds like it's the myth again and not the truth.

From reading this thread and the attached links it sounds like (YAWN) Mike is the villain who wants to stop the progress.

Murry not liking God Only Knows is ridiculous as well. In 1966 it was more lifestyle than music that split him and Brian. If you get ahold of the few interviews he gave with Rolling Stone or NME the guy LOVED Pet Sounds and Good Vibrations. He hurt Brian many times, but he respected when the Beach Boys matured musically. 

Finally Brian didn't suddenly disappear after Smile. I guess it's such a good story that, photographs, films, recordings etc. nothing will break that myth. It's just sad and it makes light of what did happen to Brian over a longer period. I think the truth of him slowly going down is a much more poignant and moving story, but nobody seems to know it except those who really dig.

The Landy part may actually get me to watch. I'm not as invested in those years creatively so I don't get as hung up on that end of it. Melinda Wilson has got a bad rap from several insiders and Ray Lawlor (I hope I spellled your name right) set the record straight per what seems to be told in the movie. I have no doubt he is telling the truth, I simply hope that other things have been quietly said over the last 20 years is not true.

Again myths are hard to break, sounds like some were deeply moved by this film, but maybe I like Brian in a different way than most here. The story is interesting, but I would only be mildly interested if not for the music. I get upset because I love that 1967-72 music just as much as the 1961-66 and the artist(s) (if not always the person/people) who made it. Hey I don't know the people, I wish them well, but I don't know them. I just like seeing history told right. Though the recent books are finally getting it down with the correct perspective, in the world of filmdom the real Brian Wilson of Smiley Smile to Holland never existed. Or will I be pleasently surprised. Thoughts not on the film itself, but the content.

Autotune -  from what I've been able to glean from the interviews with director, and where I disagree a bit with the article, is that it seemed to deliberately limit the scope of topics.  It didn't delve into the "strife" as between required contractual LP's and the sale of SOT.  That was a good thing, I think, to keep  the film, narrow in scope.  I have kids in their 20's and cannot imagine them doing battle with a force such as this record company.  And that could be a story in and of itself.  That segment is absent and it could have been a distraction, in a way, from the story they were trying to tell.  Maybe, had it been alluded to, in some fashion, such as a phone call from the record company, looking for tapes or tracks or deadline reminders, it might have satisfied this reviewer.  Maybe not...

What I really did like is for the lifer fans, such as myself, was the sequence and set of Pet Sounds.  It allowed the fan to "own" that whole sessions thing out of sheer "familiarity" with the banter and authentity of the set and the scene in black and white for the promo.  I found those scenes just fantastic and a gift to the fans.

And I'm interested in the European perspective, when the film is released, as they (French, in particular) tend to do more psychological film topic reviews than the U.S. One of my favorite networks TV5 Monde-FR2 do a lot of BB's music in their broadcasts...it won't be long til we know what they are thinking of this film.

This review asked questions relating to "blame" and I'm not sure that was the goal of this film; as it is the two eras using two actors to attempt "depth rather than breadth." And where the film succeeds. It handled a couple of topics very well, and the score is magnificent.  Of course, it is, it is BB music!

It is a lot to process in a short time.  I think next time I'll see it will be on DVD, where I can pause it, and digest it a bit at a time...it is very intense.  

As with any author/honored guest, I respect your perspective, but the real honor in having a forum such as this is that people of "generally" similar interests can be in one place to discuss that which is so dear to us...la musique!  

[filledeplage]

double post...mea culpa
Bad iPad!

[southbay]

I'm old school and believe this kind of backroom stuff should be done off-board. Stuff transparency - it just hamstrings effective board management. Ban or demote Eder quietly and let everyone move on. No word, no explanations, unless they're in confidential PMs. Then we can all move on. Probably.

As mentioned previously, Mike's a good friend of mine. He likely won't be coming back, though, for the same reasons why I daily have to ask myself why I even bother here in the first place.

Is this really what we do here? My God, we are such assholes to each other. I mean, sometimes this board makes me weep for humanity.

Calm down, Billy. Nobody hates the guy or is chasing him off. Nobody has banned him. Jon said it perfectly above, he creates his own drama.To me the point is we have two Moderators on here who both admitted they had zero to do with giving him his "status". Therefore it was one guy, who himself had his Mod position taken away. It just seems there should be a systematic process of some sort for giving out honored guest status, like maybe at least a majority of the Mods agree on it? And perhaps the posters on here should be aware of who the honored guests are without having to do some sort of search on their pseudonym? Just weird.

[Douchepool]

I did not make Mike an Honored Guest; I supported the decision at the time. My position was also not "taken away;" I resigned.

[guitarfool2002]

edit

[Jay]

Does it really matter who did or didn't give Mike a title? The point is that a bunch of jerks ganged up on somebody(without knowing his identity, mind) out of a snobby assumption that anybody with the words "Honoured Guest" must "out" themselves so as not to seem any more important than us mere fans. All that matters is yet another fellow beach boys fan and friend has been driven away, feeling unwanted and unwelcome. Jesus fucking Christ. Is this really the board we want?!?

[RangeRoverA1]

FYI I had no idea who "analog" was when I wrote my initial response to the thread topic. Didn't matter. I wrote what i honestly felt after reading his post. But after reading the resulting twists the thread has taken I gotta say that if you are a known entity, Honored guest, moderator or part of the regular rotation of smiley posters, you have to have fairly thick skin to participate in a high-profile way. It comes with the territory. I think stating you are leaving the board only adds to the drama instead of defusing it. If you really feel violated, then take a break, quietly, you might want to come back, and it gets weird if you say you're leaving, you come back, and say you're leaving again ...and again. God knows I've been crushed on the board more than a few times, and in the moment would have loved to use my fists instead of my words to respond...but I come back because the smartest Beach Boys fans are here. This is where the opinion is shaped, and where new things are revealed. Its a good board because it's free flowing and alive with well informed opinions. No one is above the fray.

On the money. The highlighted bit is what I also said before. The whole board might turn their backs on you - so what? No one should make you want to go, still stay regardless. Don't like the negativity posted about Mike (edit: Beach Boy Mike, that is)? Draw attention to other sort of threads; thankfully, there lots of choice what to view. But if you leave - at least be consistent; why return if you're so distressed & keep whining about how "it used to be such a great board with great posters", as if now & then is totes different community & the place is completely replaced by new members, no old-timers left.

Re: banning people for opinions, no such pattern I noticed. Or else the board would be empty everyday. And earlier GF pointed out to bossaroo that his opinion counts despite not-so-flattering, because he had seen the film. So let's not create stuff.

You all know that you're wrong, those who sympathize with certain posters' reasoning - just don't want to admit. I read smb. say "being offended is a choice". Yet they change their gospel & all this defending. Well-well.

[guitarfool2002]

I think the issue of the honored guest status comes down to what happened to others and what also happened to me. I logged on, saw a post from a screen name I had never seen before, and I had no idea who it was - Yet this unknown screen name had honored guest status. I guess the suggestion is for honored guests to do as all of them basically do already with no issues previous to this (I think...), they post using their actual name. If the screen name hadn't been unknown to 99.9% of board members in this case, and had a real name been used, it wouldn't have been the issue it became.

[marcusb]

Mike (Eder) only commented on Murry and GOK, is there something which shows he was inaccurate about Murry and GOK?

Regardless if the scene was 100% accurate, it conveyed the pressure Murry could put on Brian. They're telling a story. It isn't a documentary.

I haven't seen the movie yet. Trying to coordinate calendars with my wife, a daughter, and her musician boyfriend to see it together. The issue has become Mike's accuracy, so I'm only commenting on that. Looking forward to seeing it.

I'm just trying to provide some perspective as someone who has seen the film. I don't care about all the drama around the original post, I'm just sharing my opinion that while the film isn't 100% factual in the placement of certain events, it is still true to the Brian Wilson/BB story overall.

[The Shift]

Eder hasn't left the board. His account's still active and he's talking to thin air about it on Facebook.

Apols to those who took my comment as heartless, I regret coming across like that if I did so. Cripes I can be an over-sensitive soul somedays and other days I dish out too much.

Would love to see a return to calm debate and informative posts though, instead of foul beatings and deliberate stirrings.

Bit of humour always used to break the tension here, that and a discussion about ales. I had a terrific pint of Copper Dragon's Black Gold the other night, a light bottled stout with a light fizz. Never had a refreshing stout before - only 4% abv too. Delicious with a buffet of onion bhajis, samosa, spring rolls and the like, and unlike Guinness didn't leave one feeling at all bloated. I'd have another but it's becoming scarce as the brewery's going through a refinancing process that involves a name change - or is it the launch of a sister brewery? Some regard it as a means of evading excise duties but I don't know. It'd just be a shame if the beer was the victim cos it's all about the beer at the end of the day. Anyway, I'd tell you all about it but I can't be inclinded the way things are here…

[Jay]

I think the issue of the honored guest status comes down to what happened to others and what also happened to me. I logged on, saw a post from a screen name I had never seen before, and I had no idea who it was - Yet this unknown screen name had honored guest status. I guess the suggestion is for honored guests to do as all of them basically do already with no issues previous to this (I think...), they post using their actual name. If the screen name hadn't been unknown to 99.9% of board members in this case, and had a real name been used, it wouldn't have been the issue it became.

If people had minded their own business about who did or didn't have a "title", then this wouldn't have become the issue it became. There have been times that I have seen a "Honoured Guest" here without knowing who it was, and been curios. But I just assume there is a reason for it. We are all human beings. We are all Beach Boys fans. Why do we have to be snobbish and act like there is an enemy intruding in on our little space, just because we don't know exactly who somebody is? If you are curios, politely ask somebody in a private message. If you dont want to ask well,...just mind your own damn business and go about your day. I still don't know who Debbie Keil is. But it really doesn't matter. I don't need to know who she is. She's a fellow Beach Boys fan, and that's good enough for me.

[Douchepool]

If people had minded their own business about who did or didn't have a "title", then this wouldn't have become the issue it became. There have been times that I have seen a "Honoured Guest" here without knowing who it was, and been curios. But I just assume there is a reason for it. We are all human beings. We are all Beach Boys fans. Why do we have to be snobbish and act like there is an enemy intruding in on our little space, just because we don't know exactly who somebody is? If you are curios, politely ask somebody in a private message. If you dont want to ask well,...just mind your own damn business and go about your day. I still don't know who Debbie Keil is. But it really doesn't matter. I don't need to know who she is. She's a fellow Beach Boys fan, and that's good enough for me.

+1