I am betting that it was because it wasn't written specifically for the film.

Oscar rules state that any piece of music is ruled ineligible if it receives commercial release prior to use in the film; hence why Jonny Greenwood's masterful score for "There Will Be Blood" was given the shaft back in '08...

Alright then...guess somebody's gotta do it:

 Webber's first decade is full of magnificent pop treasures; Jesus Christ Superstar has some tasty, dirty riffs--sung by Ian Gillian of Deep Purple, no less.  

It's only when he began writing rather watered down pseudo-Romantic Euro-pop, in a desperate attempt to gain critical credibility (and even MORE money) that he shows his limits as a composer.

But, jeez, through and until "Evita"...  Colm friggin' Wilkinson--the original Jean Valjean, brings in the funk at 2:30 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFYgRIGHg6Q.

L&M WAS shut-out of the Screen Actors Guild Awards this morning, on both a collective "Best Ensemble Cast" level, and in terms of its individual performances. This isn't a great sign as the SAGs are generally seen as a predictor of the Oscars for all acting categories. As I said on page 3, Lionsgate does not seem invested in putting the campaign money required to schmooze with the voting bodies.

The Golden Globes should be easy, though that's not saying much since the Hollywood Foreign Press Association's questionable choices in the past five years are the result of a group who are both easily impressed, and some would suggest, easily bought off...

[three full months away from awards season]

Sadly, we have to look at the reality of how Lionsgate marketed and chose to release this movie. The choice of June date Stateside, in spite of its obvious connection to what the public thinks of when they hear "the Beach Boys", really points to Lionsgate's strategy.

1. Pick a prestigious biographical movie that's told in a rather unorthodox, somewhat challenging manner (compared to something like "Walk the Line")
2. Put up a respectable, but not effusive marketing strategy.
3. Dump it in the middle of a season devoted almost solely to children and teens.

"Why?" you may well ask. Simple: the studio that's making crazy amounts of money on "The Hunger Games" can afford to put a minimal amount of effort into promoting a film that would have struggled  to be made anywhere. I hear the rising indignation, but let's be ruthlessly real, here: it's a rather troubling story about mental illness, centered around a man who is more famous to the vast majority of the public as a member of what amounts to a 60s nostalgia act, if they know the members' names at all.  

Under the admittedly harsh light of day, the facts are these: it grossed 28 mill worldwide; 16 million stateside. Respectable--but Hollywood accounting factors in print and advertising costs in such a way that at the end of the year, "Love & Mercy" will be written off as a financial loss. (It's really no big though when you have Jennifer Lawrence steamrolling every other movie in existence come November.)

What does this have to do with its awards chances? Nothing--and everything. I love that Dano's on a bit of a roll, but these smaller kinds of awards require almost no real external promotion from the studio. Yes, there is something almost craven (but clever as hell) in that a studio like Lionsgate treats this movie as an afterthought, but is still perfectly able to pat themselves on the back as Dano wins these middle-tier awards; but then again, that's partially why they made it--they can take all of the credit, and none of the blame, because they set it up for a soft landing.

As for the larger awards, it stands to reason that given how Lionsgate basically threw the picture with serious awards chops into theaters three full months away from awards season, we already have a pretty decent indication of how much they care.

Dano's phenomenal (saw it three times in theaters, own the DVD), and were there justice in this world, he would undoubtedly be nominated for an Oscar (a fan of Brian aside, this performance allowed Dano to synthesize the cuddly and unnerving personalities he has often used, into a beautiful whole), but forget justice--money talks.

Lionsgate will mount a respectable campaign at most, without bothering to spend the money necessary to push the film to the forefront of voters' minds. Happy for Dano though, that he is being recognized by the critics groups; it's more about merit than popularity there.

Brian's first LSD experience happens after pet sounds, before summer days

This. I adore this movie; saw it three times in theaters, own it on DVD. Almost every other piece of compressing events made sense to me in the context of cinema, but I found this very odd, indeed... Is the film trying to absolve PS in a way, as though it were an album that was created without any sort of "consciousness expansion"? (What makes it odder is that we do see Brian and Mike's first major conflict viz. the lyrics to "Ego", before he's dropped acid. Granted, the character of Brian could have worked with Tony Asher on a song about ego dissolution without the benefit of experiencing it himself, but it is strange that they left it in.)

Also, it sort of switches the emphasis a bit. Apart from a few joint tokes during listening to the mix of "Here Today", moving his first major trip to after "PS" almost makes "SMiLE" seem like the work of a great mind that pushed it too far.

That has to be one of my few criticisms of the film: that in getting the film to a manageable two hours, "SMiLE" really only gets the "Good Vibrations" sessions, an admittedly beautiful recreation of the Bernstein "Surf's Up", before just dropping your average audience member into the "Fire" sessions. There are certainly ways in which to read "SMiLE" as a sonic portrait of a mind wavering between light and darkness, but I think the film spends a bit too much time on Brian's unraveling during the course of the sessions, without really giving the work its full due.

Then again, while I can criticize the scene of Brian "feeling out the vibes" during the "SMiLE" session as being a little sluggish, Pohlad does make it a very heartbreaking contrast between Brian as the man in charge; so I suppose it's a toss-up.

I love the soundtrack, but I am really irritated that they don't have the music from when he is in the pool.  I could listen to hours of smile music mixed around like that.

Ditto. I find it curious that with the exception of GV, there's no other piece of "SMiLE-era" music on the release...

I was also frustrated that two of my absolute favorite pieces of Ross' score (Brian envisioning the vocals for GOK on the hood of the car; the first obvious auditory hallucination with "I Live for the Sun") were not included.

My question is, were there conditions from BRI or Capitol that only certain things could be used on a soundtrack release?

"I think (legalization) is good if people do it in moderation. If you get hooked on it and it becomes too much of a habit, I don't think it's a cool idea, though."

Very cool. I share the same view on it. I'm surprised Brian isn't against it tho, considering how (understandably) anti-drug he is now. I respect him for removing his own history from the equation and being open-minded about it though.

I mean, I don't want to appear to equivocate, but were the hallucinations magnified by weed or primarily by LSD? Maybe he has less negative feelings for what marijuana did for him...

On my way back down from a business trip to South Carolina... Here's hoping I can beat the traffic; will have "Our Prayer" on heavy rotation in my brain.

Thread bump. 

I am a clairvoyant 

I actually tweeted at him about this, which is kind of dumb I realize, but he was clearly trying to mock Brian in some way. Between this, his agreeing with Loren Daro and his "victim of Brian Wilson's buffoonery" comment, I really don't like the vibes Van Dyke Parks is putting out there about Brian. It all comes off as very bitter and mean-spirited.

One of the reasons I always love VDP--in addition to his literary nature--was that he seemed at least above the sort grapes grudge-holding that seems to infect rock 'n' roll is general (and the BBs in particular); when he tried to correct Mike Love's revisionism on the SMiLE Sessions, he at least formed an argument that wasn't bilious.

I must say, this hat doesn't look very good on him...

When Brian said the words "Leonard Bernstein," my head exploded a bit.

Brian mentioned Lenny? Nice!  

Got my tickets for next Friday's Atlanta show at the Fox; wonderful venue--just saw Dylan there in April.

2nd time seeing Brian; 1st show was the Beck tour. Looking forward to a more standard set (though a surprise "Pet Sounds" show wouldn't hurt!)

To be blunt, it helped that Landy died in 2006. Once you've shuffled off this mortal coil, no need to worry about life rights.

Now, there is always the possibility that the living family of a deceased person could sue for defamation (as in, curiously, the case of the Arabian sheikh Auda Abu Tayi's family suing the producers of "Lawrence of Arabia"); but in the case of Landy, regardless of what you thought of the tone of the portrayal (a bit too hammy for my taste, but a small quibble), the filmmakers were careful to research the basic facts.

Evan Landy may think his father wasn't a monster, but he'd probably have a very hard time with convincing a judge that: Brian was not severely and improperly overmedicated, and that Landy did not make himself the benefactor of BW's will.

Point: if it's not libelous, there's no case.

Amazing that a man who practices Transcendental Meditation can so stunningly lack in self-awareness.

And if his opinions are this tone deaf having never seen the film, God help us all when he does.

I'm calling it: the only thing I feel Mike Love has ever given the world is the hook to "Good Vibrations"; I could even take Asher's lyrics, but then I remembered Love's chorus is wonderful.

Other than that--ye gods and little fishes, the man's just not worth the aggravation.

Will be interesting to see if Mike specifically addresses his portrayal in Love & Mercy in his autobio. I think the film did make an effort to not just blindly make Mike seem completely one-sided, and it did throw a few bones of empathy his way, despite still showing him to be somewhat of a thorn in Brian's side during the time period which the film covered.

I, for one, cannot not see Love & Mercy having been released in the theaters in its current form unless a level of estrangement between Mike and Brian was part of the real-life equation, as it in fact appears to sadly be. I cannot see them working together in a reunited band with the film coming out as it did in its current form, since Mike would probably have thrown a fit, or tried to throw his political weight around in order to force the film to be more fair in his eyes.

In all honesty, and all jokes aside, I do wonder what that fairness level would actually be, as determined by Mike. Yes, the horrid TV films with his (or were they his?) viewpoints came out years ago... but if Brian and Melinda were going to spearhead the making of a biopic about Brian Wilson, and it was going to focus only on the few select time periods in his life that L&M actually did (in order to have an actual narrative flow, and to work as a film)... presuming as I am that Mike may be irked by the final product... what would Mike have wanted the actual film to portray?

I guess some scenes of Mike adding relatable lyrics to Good Vibrations, and showing how that was an important part of the process, and perhaps a few less of the scenes of creative friction between Mike and Brian. I wonder if Mike was able to have any leverage, if he'd have let *any* creative friction type material make it into the final product, or if such scenes would only had to have been framed within the context of ridding the BB world of leaches and druggies. And maybe a scene of how extremely pissed at Landy Mike was during the 80s. I suppose one could say that we have our answer to what Mike's preferred filmed vision would be with the previous TV films, but it's interesting to ponder if C50 had not imploded, if there could have been a compromise reached for L&M to still be a rad film (focusing on the minimal amount of eras that this film did) and still satisfy Mike's desire for a BW biopic film that Mike would legitimately feel is fair to him.

I wonder how much more "fair" to Mike the film could have been... As it is, the character Mike Love is sympathetic insofar as we can understand that he takes pride in the band's work and longs for their previous standard of success; he's not the belittling jerk of some lore ("Who's gonna hear this sh*t...?"); he's a pop star who wants to stay that way. As defined by the film who can blame him?

Now, as for how much friction SHOULD have been shown, that's debatable. As a rather firm Brianista, I do think the pushback was intrinsic to the output; what else is IJWMFTT if not a lament for feeling sad and out of place? Now I'm not hardcore into the bios, but it doesn't seem a stretch that these feelings of alienation that Mike and Brian struggled with, found their way into the music.

And I'd find it hard to believe that Brian's subsequent descent into further substance abuse and general depression wasn't at least in small part a reaction to the lack of moral support by part of the band for "SMiLE". Yes, Mike may have sung all the parts, but that doesn't mean he liked it.

Ultimately, if this friction played a decisive part in BW's life then any honest film has no choice but to be fair, and demonstrate why Mike took his stance (which L&M does) and how that position felt to Brian (which it also does).

The problem for Mike Love, is that he's officially on record as being on the wrong side of the tide of history when it comes to "PS" and increasingly, "SMiLE". I get that it burns him that Brian is now enshrined as the greatest American post-war composer since Gershwin and the most important facet of the BBs--it would probably piss me off too; but if he tries to  fight the historical record as not being "fair" then he's just digging a hole for himself. A little acceptance goes a long way; maybe people like me would stop giving him grief if he just admitted he couldn't see what Brian was doing at the time.

American family is Mike's story.

Essentially, yes. When Uncle Jesse is in the producer's seat, that's what you get. Well, maybe Mike could get a Mike-centric theatrical biopic made, called "Whennn". It could happen... right?

The biggest obstacle I think (beyond it being about Mike Love): who the heck would believe a film where the protagonist never takes off his hat for two hours?

 

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.

["Beach Boys film"]

I'm somewhat qualified to answer. I started researching and outlining my own screenplay of the BW/Landy story in October of 2012--about two weeks later, the casting notices for Dano and Cusack were out. When a friend sent me the script for Love & Mercy, the shooting draft was dated June of 2012. It's likely Mike knew the movie was coming, and very probable he knew what tack the film would take with regards to his role during the "Pet Sounds"/"SMiLE" period; so, I suppose the question COULD be reversed-did the shooting draft have an affect on C50? Possibly fun speculation, but who really knows?

Incidentally, have it on good authority from an acquaintance heavily involved in the production (don't feel like giving more away) that among the letters from BW/BB associates, Mike Love's major complaint was that the film be specifically advertised as a Brian Wilson film, and not a "Beach Boys film".

When I laughed at this, my friend just said they were mainly from Mike's lawyers, so it wasn't too bad.

[The opening is incredible, I can't think of many other music-related films that would open on a black screen, with a sound collage playing for two straight minutes]

The opening is incredible, I can't think of many other music-related films that would open on a black screen, with a sound collage playing for two straight minutes; it's a startling, unnerving and deeply evocative way to get us inside the brain of an artist.

Not at all a music film, but could that be another homage to 2001? As that film opens with like 3-4 minutes of music to a black screen. I'm a huge fan of 2001 and I love that they did at least one homage to that film. Can't wait to see this later today!

Well, "2001's" opening is more standard practice of long-form films of that era which had overtures over black sometimes ("Lawrence of Arabia" is another example). The scene in "L&M" didn't strike me as an overture, primarily because there is a short scene of Brian smoking a cigarette in the studio discussing the sounds he's hearing.

Still, I think you'll appreciate the overt "2001" reference when you see it.

I figure it deserves its own thread, now that the time has come...

I knew I was going to enjoy "Love & Mercy", but I didn't quite know just how much. Paul Dano was amazing, as expected (I want an extended three hour recreation of the "Pet Sounds" sessions), but John Cusack really impressed me with the way he inhabited the spaces of Brian Wilson's speech patterns.

One of the other things that really stood out to me was the way Bill Pohlad used silence as a kind of negative space to contrast with the music.

The opening is incredible, I can't think of many other music-related films that would open on a black screen, with a sound collage playing for two straight minutes; it's a startling, unnerving and deeply evocative way to get us inside the brain of an artist. I think of the whole movie kind of as a natural half-way point between your standard artist biopic like "Ray" and your more off-the-wall experiment like "I'm Not There". (Plus, wait for the brilliant "2001" reference; it was both clever and deeply touching.)

I saw the first teaser back in February, and have played "Pet Sounds" and "SMiLE" probably over 400x. I almost expected that it was in preparation for the movie, and then I'd be able to move on.

Uh, about that...

[We were in the dressing room at this fundraiser in New York, and Don Henley and Timothy Schmidt from The Eagles walked in. And Timothy was very nice, but Don was just kind of aloof and walking around the room. And finally, after a few minutes of chatting, Don pulls out a copy of Pet Sounds on CD that he wants Brian to sign.So Brian grabs it and he signs, "To Don, thanks for all the great music." And he's handing it back to Don, but before Don can take it, he grabs it back and he crosses out "great" and puts "good music." [Laughs.] And the thing is, there's no irony there. He's not being funny. He's really thinking, "I wrote 'great,' but I don't think it's great. But it's good. It's good music." And he handed it back to Don, and it was perfect.]

We were in the dressing room at this fundraiser in New York, and Don Henley and Timothy Schmidt from The Eagles walked in. And Timothy was very nice, but Don was just kind of aloof and walking around the room. And finally, after a few minutes of chatting, Don pulls out a copy of Pet Sounds on CD that he wants Brian to sign.

So Brian grabs it and he signs, "To Don, thanks for all the great music." And he's handing it back to Don, but before Don can take it, he grabs it back and he crosses out "great" and puts "good music." [Laughs.] And the thing is, there's no irony there. He's not being funny. He's really thinking, "I wrote 'great,' but I don't think it's great. But it's good. It's good music." And he handed it back to Don, and it was perfect.

Just when I thought it wasn't possible to love Brian Wilson anymore than I already did...

"I coined the term 'acid alliteration.' That's what I called it. It's absolutely true that I have an issue with doing lyrics that are so obscure and oblique that they can't be relatable to by most people. I mean they can be appreciated, and I do appreciate the art form itself. But I like art that relates to people to the point where a song has a chance to go to number one. So I am guilty of liking songs that are artistic as well as popular."
- Mike Love, 10/2009

I know I could be opening up a whole new can of worms, but something about Mike's populist "Will the people get it?" defense has always felt weak to me.

By December of 1966 (the infamous "What do the words mean, Van?" blowup), not only had Lennon given us the first glimpse of the Beatles' foray into psychedelia with "Tomorrow Never Knows" off "Revolver" (what's more "acid alliterative" than ripping off Timothy Leary?); Bob Dylan had vanished in a puff of smoke after giving us an Electric Trilogy that spanned eighteen months from March of '65 to July of 66-- beginning with the speaker "mixing up the medicine", and ended with a twelve minute ode to a woman's "geranium kiss". Rightly, "Bringing it All Back Home", "Highway 61 Revisited" and "Blonde on Blonde" are now considered classics, but it should be noted, they made Dylan a phenomenally rich superstar.

So, I find Mike's rationalization a little curious, and pretty absurd. For a man interested in commercialism, was he just totally ignoring what was going on in other people's music, or was he really that panicked over not losing the existing fanbase at the time?

And has any interview ever tried to challenge him on his objections, vis-a-vis what was clearly working at the time?

Regarding TLOS I read a quote (on a Spanish newspaper) that he was expecting it to be a collaboration between friends but it ended up being something entirely different (i.e. not having access to Brian).

This whole "not having access to Brian thing"; does it weird anybody else out that the first thing it brings to mind is the schemes of Landy? It leaves a bit of a bad taste in my mouth...

VDP had a very commendable reason for not writing an essay for the TSS box. I cant say what it is, because I was asked not to by the person who told me. Just know that there was no personal pettiness involved with that particular aspect of this whole mess. I have no idea why theyre on the outs now, but I think it's a terrible shame.

Does it have anything to do with objections raised by Mr. Positivity? Blink once for yes, twice for no.  

But, in all seriousness, it is a terrible shame.

No one knows for sure. Or rather, those who do know for sure haven't said or aren't willing to say.

One of his pre-requisites to rejoining the BWPS project was having his publishing rights restored to some songs his name had been taken off of through the years.

In other words, credits and fair compensation mean a lot to him (as they would to most of us, I imagine). One might assume that something broke down along those lines.

I just finished reading Priore's book, and I understood the implication of the passage to mean that his credits to "Wind Chimes" and "Wonderful" were going to be restored to him after he discussed it with Melinda and Brian. He did continue with the project, and attended the shows, after all.

Damn shame, if he was stiffed further

On an old thread related to VDP, I saw references to Parks being upset with regards to TLOS. What exactly is the story there? Also, I wondered why there no contribution from him in TSS booklet. And, in recent interviews, his willingness to talk about Brian and Smile ranges from quiet reticence to barely-veiled frustration, though he never really goes into specifics.

It saddens me to think that two people who have, more often than not, been on the same creative wavelength are at odds; the story of their reunion on BWPS represents what I think is a nice contrast to all the miscommunication and bitterness that's evidence in all other things BBs.

So, what gives?