Love and Mercy and myth?

[ben plumbrook]

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.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Read the article, no major probs until I got to this (and bear in mind who is posting this):

"... giving us a scene where we see Brian simultaneously admitting to his domineering father that SMiLE had been shelved and learning that he has unjustly sold off the rights to the earlier Beach Boys’ catalog."

Smile shelved - May 1967... the Sea of Tunes catalog sold to Irving/Almo behind Brian's back - November 1969. I understand the compression of time and combining of events for dramatic effect, standard Hollywood tactic, but the inference that Murry selling his songs combined in any way with the abandoning of Smile to propel Brian further into inner space is... questionable, if not actually spurious. I've not seen the movie, so maybe the reviewer is mistaken or himself conflating: I'll see in a few weeks time. Thus far, I've heard almost nothing bad about the movie, and in the main from folk I trust not to feed me bull. Maybe this is the One Moment.

[marcusb]

Read the article, no major probs until I got to this (and bear in mind who is posting this):

"... giving us a scene where we see Brian simultaneously admitting to his domineering father that SMiLE had been shelved and learning that he has unjustly sold off the rights to the earlier Beach Boys’ catalog."

Smile shelved - May 1967... the Sea of Tunes catalog sold to Irving/Almo behind Brian's back - November 1969. I understand the compression of time and combining of events for dramatic effect, standard Hollywood tactic, but the inference that Murry selling his songs combined in any way with the abandoning of Smile to propel Brian further into inner space is... questionable, if not actually spurious. I've not seen the movie, so maybe the reviewer is mistaken or himself conflating: I'll see in a few weeks time. Thus far, I've heard almost nothing bad about the movie, and in the main from folk I trust not to feed me bull. Maybe this is the One Moment.

The movie shows Brian looking through the Smile session tapes as Murry finds him. Brian say's the guys are working on Smile Smile (some people took this to mean that Brian had no involvement with Smiley.. I think it just shows him reflecting on what could have been) and Murry tells him that they basically are at or past their peak and he has sold the songs.

It doesn't bother me that they compressed the timeline on this- there are just too many things to cover in the 2 hours for a film. I think the selling of the songs was just to further show how poorly Murry was treating Brian.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Hm.

Thanks.

Hmmmm.

[ben plumbrook]

Well Andrew I would trust your judgement on it, not to disparage other people's thoughts. It's just that we agree on most things-except the best music format.

[Howie Edelson]

I've seen the movie four times.

I never thought that “Mike’s” initial opposition to Pet Sounds was “dumb and tactless” -- I thought the screenwriter and actor did a fantastic job of articulating what Mike’s issues would've been, and for the most part, I feel that the audience was sympathetic to him. The cello scene got a huge laugh in the one public screening I saw. They laughed because they related to him.

I also didn’t equate the Murry character selling the songs as having anything to do with the collapse of Smile. It was meant to portray the sky falling in on Brian. Must admit, all of that could’ve been done without the inference that Brian was not a part of Smiley Smile, which I absolutely felt sold Brian short. For the same amount of page space they could've written Brian into saying he was "downsizing" the project. etc.

[phirnis]

Haven't seen the movie because I'm not a big fan of the biopic genre in general. Anyway, I think Brian's role as group leader slowly diminishing over the years is one of the most compelling stories in all of pop/rock music. I can picture hard-core fans in the late 60s/early 70s picking up the latest albums and browsing the writing credits for Brian's name, or checking back covers and gatefolds for current photographs of the man. I know it's an expression from the WIBN book but I always loved the notion of his contributions at the time being "postcards to the outside world".

[KDS]

I think at the end of the day, Love and Mercy is still a movie.  

I think most of us know going into it, that there are going to be some things changed to fit the run time.  

Analog, I respect your view point.  But there will never be a music movie that's 100% accurate.  If you generally don't care much for biopics, you might not like L&M, but I will say it's different from the standard biopic that tends to move in a linear way, focusing mostly on the dark stuff (ie. The Doors, Walk the Line, etc).  

But, I think the pros far outweigh the cons.  I think, in general, the movie will be more satisfying for Brian fans who know the story.  For those who don't know the story, and see the movie, it might convince them to dig deeper.  

I do agree with you that I would've liked to get a little more into the 67-73 years other than a mention of Smiley Smile and a snippet of Til I Die.  

[HeyJude]

I’ve seen the film, and I also didn’t see any inference that there was a connection between the demise of “Smile” and Murry selling the song catalog. It struck me purely as a case where they wanted to get the bit about Murry selling the songs into the film, but didn’t want to go past 1967.

Seriously, this film utilizes less time compression and fictionalizing than any “biopic” I can think of. Frankly, even some *documentaries* time compress and skip over stuff more than this film does.

Now, if anything even slightly “off” is going to niggle at you watching this film, then yeah, I guess you  have to stay away. If you’re one of those people who know that Al’s sideburns were a quarter inch longer in 1967, or that the stripe pattern on Brian’s shirt during the control room scenes is going the wrong way, *and* that actually detracts from your enjoyment of the film, then I guess you have to stay away.

I’ve read a few fan reviews that read as if the fan like never otherwise sees films, ever (on another board, I saw a long rant about the process of buying a ticket, finding a seat, etc. I don’t go to the movie theater every week or anything, but sheesh.). You gotta realize: “Love & Mercy” isn’t a BB/Brian fan wetdream opus that also happens to be a film. It’s a FILM, first and foremost, and those who appreciate good acting and good filmmaking will appreciate this thing, and then if they also know BB history but don’t mind if Hal Blaine’s haircut isn’t note-perfect, they’ll enjoy and appreciate it even more.

That Pohlad and Dano and Cusack (and all others involved) pulled this film off despite NOT being a nerd obsessive that posts all day every day on fan forums is nothing short of a small miracle. And frankly, I think they had the perfect perspective. Filmmakers first and foremost, but with a good amount of interest and attention to detail to all things Brian. 

[ontor pertawst]

Wow, ridiculous opinions in the National Review? What a shocker. Almost as surprising as atrocious tabloid gibberish turning up in the Daily Mail, right? Both such respectable, universally beloved outlets of right wing fun. I hope William Kristol or Paul Wolfowitz chime in next with how they think SMiLE collapsed. Maybe get Glenn Beck to do a segment on how Melinda Wilson is threatening our currency and is trying to bring about socialism through... something or other.

It is incredibly amusing hearing such assured commentary from people who haven't seen the film yet. Reminds me of all those religious freaks complaining about "Life of Brian" before it was released... Without having seen it. Good to see another Brian inspire the same sort of dogmatic dicking around. Welease Woderick!



Actually, it's more like my father screaming like a stuck pig over perceived tank or uniform inaccuracies in Schindler's List. NOT THE POINT, POPS!

[Mike's Beard]

No film based on a true story is ever going to be 100% accurate to the letter. There's no point in getting hung up on tiny little details, you'll end up missing the bigger picture.

[Jon Stebbins]

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.

This post strikes me as concern trolling in a polite package. To say you may not see the movie is stunning to me. Anyone who would take the time to participate in a Beach Boys message board forum, but refrain from viewing this film out of "myth" concern is in my opinion missing what is really important. This film is incredibly responsible and thoughtful, and will enhance the ENTIRE legacy of BW and the Beach Boys despite only being able to focus on pieces of the story. I am as detail obsessed, and myth-busting focused as any BB's fan could possibly be. I've spent many years of my life on the front lines of this battle. This film didn't even raise an eyebrow regarding historical inaccuracy or imbalance for me. That was a HUGE surprise. Usually I shut down as soon as i see something that veers into the "wrong" category. But all the important notes were played with a virtuosity that left me truly touched and incredibly satisfied. I am completely blown away that this film found release in this form. Why? Because unlike so many things related to the Beach Boys, it is not shallow, it is not predictable, it is not embarrassing, it is not shoddy, it is not constipated, it is not creatively inept, and it is not dumbed down. Instead this is a raw, edgy, dark, but beautiful and hopeful portrayal of a particularly sensitive vein of their story. We are so very lucky that the right combination of people were allowed to create this film. It could have been awful. Instead it is as deeply moving as the music. Finally...a good thing has hit the mainstream, a deep thing has found an audience. Finally something tasteful and intelligent regarding the Beach Boys is out there. See it, relax on the non-essential stuff, and take in the sad beauty of a truly magnificent work.

[KDS]

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.

This post strikes me as concern trolling in a polite package. To say you may not see the movie is stunning to me. Anyone who would take the time to participate in a Beach Boys message board forum, but refrain from viewing this film out of "myth" concern is in my opinion missing what is really important. This film is incredibly responsible and thoughtful, and will enhance the ENTIRE legacy of BW and the Beach Boys despite only being able to focus on pieces of the story. I am as detail obsessed, and myth-busting focused as any BB's fan could possibly be. I've spent many years of my life on the front lines of this battle. This film didn't even raise an eyebrow regarding historical inaccuracy or imbalance for me. That was a HUGE surprise. Usually I shut down as soon as i see something that veers into the "wrong" category. But all the important notes were played with a virtuosity that left me truly touched and incredibly satisfied. I am completely blown away that this film found release in this form. Why? Because unlike so many things related to the Beach Boys, it is not shallow, it is not predictable, it is not embarrassing, it is not shoddy, it is not constipated, it is not creatively inept, and it is not dumbed down. Instead this is a raw, edgy, dark, but beautiful and hopeful portrayal of a particularly sensitive vein of their story. We are so very lucky that the right combination of people were allowed to create this film. It could have been awful. Instead it is as deeply moving as the music. Finally...a good thing has hit the mainstream, a deep thing has found an audience. Finally something tasteful and intelligent regarding the Beach Boys is out there. See it, relax on the non-essential stuff, and take in the sad beauty of a truly magnificent work.

Thanks for checking in. 

And thanks for Beach Boys FAQ.   I find myself referring to it constantly.  Any plans for a 2nd edition which would include C50, TWGMTR, NPP, and the Love and Mercy movie? 

[sea of tunes]

I can take or leave NATIONAL REVIEW as a publication but that's for another discussion.

The review is actually really well written and thought out.  I love his analogy of a 'the tunnel', it's my favorite description of the story arc that we see in LOVE & MERCY. 

The film consists of Brian played by Dano entering “the tunnel,” and of him played by Cusack being enabled to take the decisive steps out of it.

I've seen LOVE & MERCY four times and admire it very much.  It is basically everything I had hoped it would be and in many ways, much more.  The artistry Bill Pohlad displays solidifies my opinion that he was most definitely the right person to direct this movie.  After many years in the industry and having worked with such visionary filmmakers like Ang Lee and Terrence Malick, those influence are keenly used in telling this story.

The filmmakers could have taken any number of angles to tell the Brian Wilson story.  And indeed according to the director, producer and even Brian & Melinda there were many iterations of the script (over a period of 19 years) before the vision shown in LOVE & MERCY finally came in to view.  This two prong approach, stripping away as much unnecessary information as possible and just telling the story of Brian Wilson at age 24 and then again at about age 44 was a very inspired and original choice. 

[guitarfool2002]

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.

[bossaroo]

I'm surprised at how much universal praise this film is receiving on this board. I was truly disappointed. Not by silly details like Al's height or Brian's shirts, but by the overall portrayal of Brian as more of an idiot savant than a true genius. Much screen time is devoted to the complexity and duration of the Pet Sounds sessions, but by the time we get to SMiLE --aside from Surf's Up-- all we see is Brian running around the studio like a lunatic during Mrs. O'Leary's Cow and refusing to record in another studio after gauging the "vibes" of the room for 3 hours. The Hawaiian chant in Do You Like Worms is used to show his decline as a songwriter and the scene in the pool with the whole band and Van Dyke made me cringe. Even the Good Vibrations scene in the sandbox makes it seem like all Brian did was play a boogie-woogie riff on the piano and Mike was the one who heard its potential. It was also a big mistake to let Dano do any singing in my opinion, and his piano playing was very tentative during the God Only Knows scene.

I wanted so much to love this movie and after reading all the glowing reviews I was sure I would. My girlfriend couldn't make it on the night it was released and I couldn't wait, so I went thinking I'd be taking her to see it again. By the end of the film I was glad she didn't come, as I was actually embarrassed by much of it. Mainly the portrayal of Brian as I said, but also some of the dialogue and the feeling that I was watching a made-for-TV docudrama at times.

I realize I'm in the minority here, and I'm glad Brian's story is being told. I just wish they had told it a bit more accurately and done away with some of the "crazy Brian" myths rather than reinforcing them. I'm honestly surprised that Brian and Melinda approved of the script as is.


there... I said it.  

[drbeachboy]

I'm surprised at how much universal praise this film is receiving on this board. I was truly disappointed. Not by silly details like Al's height or Brian's shirts, but by the overall portrayal of Brian as more of an idiot savant than a true genius. Much screen time is devoted to the complexity and duration of the Pet Sounds sessions, but by the time we get to SMiLE --aside from Surf's Up-- all we see is Brian running around the studio like a lunatic during Mrs. O'Leary's Cow and refusing to record in another studio after gauging the "vibes" of the room for 3 hours. The Hawaiian chant in Do You Like Worms is used to show his decline as a songwriter and the scene in the pool with the whole band and Van Dyke made me cringe. Even the Good Vibrations scene in the sandbox makes it seem like all Brian did was play a boogie-woogie riff on the piano and Mike was the one who heard its potential. It was also a big mistake to let Dano do any singing in my opinion, and his piano playing was very tentative during the God Only Knows scene.

I wanted so much to love this movie and after reading all the glowing reviews I was sure I would. My girlfriend couldn't make it on the night it was released and I couldn't wait, so I went thinking I'd be taking her to see it again. By the end of the film I was glad she didn't come, as I was actually embarrassed by much of it. Mainly the portrayal of Brian as I said, but also some of the dialogue and the feeling that I was watching a made-for-TV docudrama at times.

I realize I'm in the minority here, and I'm glad Brian's story is being told. I just wish they had told it a bit more accurately and done away with some of the "crazy Brian" myths rather than reinforcing them. I'm honestly surprised that Brian and Melinda approved of the script as is.


there... I said it. 

Had it occurred to you that maybe Brian was more like that than you cared to admit? Some scenes were uncomfortable for me too, but having read all the stories over the years, I was not surprised by any of it. So many people in Brian's world at that time were concerned for him in different ways. Something changed. You see it just in the way he was in the studio during Pet Sounds and how he ran the Smile sessions. I doubt that they would have Brian doing all these Q & A sessions or having he & Melinda doing interviews if his portrayal was way off the mark. I think it was more honest than we as fans care to admit.

[guitarfool2002]

I'm surprised at how much universal praise this film is receiving on this board. I was truly disappointed. Not by silly details like Al's height or Brian's shirts, but by the overall portrayal of Brian as more of an idiot savant than a true genius. Much screen time is devoted to the complexity and duration of the Pet Sounds sessions, but by the time we get to SMiLE --aside from Surf's Up-- all we see is Brian running around the studio like a lunatic during Mrs. O'Leary's Cow and refusing to record in another studio after gauging the "vibes" of the room for 3 hours. The Hawaiian chant in Do You Like Worms is used to show his decline as a songwriter and the scene in the pool with the whole band and Van Dyke made me cringe. Even the Good Vibrations scene in the sandbox makes it seem like all Brian did was play a boogie-woogie riff on the piano and Mike was the one who heard its potential. It was also a big mistake to let Dano do any singing in my opinion, and his piano playing was very tentative during the God Only Knows scene.

I wanted so much to love this movie and after reading all the glowing reviews I was sure I would. My girlfriend couldn't make it on the night it was released and I couldn't wait, so I went thinking I'd be taking her to see it again. By the end of the film I was glad she didn't come, as I was actually embarrassed by much of it. Mainly the portrayal of Brian as I said, but also some of the dialogue and the feeling that I was watching a made-for-TV docudrama at times.

I realize I'm in the minority here, and I'm glad Brian's story is being told. I just wish they had told it a bit more accurately and done away with some of the "crazy Brian" myths rather than reinforcing them. I'm honestly surprised that Brian and Melinda approved of the script as is.


there... I said it.  

That's an honest review by someone who actually saw the film before reviewing it, nothing wrong with that. You saw it, it disappointed you, that's your take, no worries.

But you should have posted it in the actual reviews thread here on the board rather than this one, I'd say. That's where people who saw the film have been posting their likes and dislikes.

[southbay]

I wish our honored guests would let us know who they are...

[Paul J B]

There are no major myths that this film continues to perpetuate as far as I'm concerned. Yes, time lines are compressed and things did not happen exactly as was shown on film, but the essence of Brian's story was accurate.

One thing in particular is starting to grate on me. The people that seem to be especially hung up with the film making it "seem" like after Smile failed Brian was done are interpreting it that way because they know about Wild Honey, Sunflower ect. By not telling us he didn't totally stop working after Smile was shelved does not mean the film is saying he did. Brian's stopped being THE MAN after Smile was shelved. That is a fact that anyone claiming to be a Beach Boys fan knows it. He did not go for perfection anymore even when he did record after Smile collapsed. All of the albums following Smile became more and more about the Beach Boys and less and less about Brian when up until Smile it was the other way around. Good albums yes. Denny and Carl really started to shine. But where was Brian. He's not even pictured on the 20/20 record. Because Brian was still capable of making great stuff and did contrubute to the late 60's early 70's stuff does not mean he was not changed after Smile failed. He was. Anyone that can't see that baffles me.

Furthermore. This movie is about how a musical powerhouse with tons of success could end up being brainwashed and living in the shadow of a wacked out "shrink" and afraid to make his own decisions. That is not myth it was reality and I think the film got it right.

[bossaroo]

I'm surprised at how much universal praise this film is receiving on this board. I was truly disappointed. Not by silly details like Al's height or Brian's shirts, but by the overall portrayal of Brian as more of an idiot savant than a true genius. Much screen time is devoted to the complexity and duration of the Pet Sounds sessions, but by the time we get to SMiLE --aside from Surf's Up-- all we see is Brian running around the studio like a lunatic during Mrs. O'Leary's Cow and refusing to record in another studio after gauging the "vibes" of the room for 3 hours. The Hawaiian chant in Do You Like Worms is used to show his decline as a songwriter and the scene in the pool with the whole band and Van Dyke made me cringe. Even the Good Vibrations scene in the sandbox makes it seem like all Brian did was play a boogie-woogie riff on the piano and Mike was the one who heard its potential. It was also a big mistake to let Dano do any singing in my opinion, and his piano playing was very tentative during the God Only Knows scene.

I wanted so much to love this movie and after reading all the glowing reviews I was sure I would. My girlfriend couldn't make it on the night it was released and I couldn't wait, so I went thinking I'd be taking her to see it again. By the end of the film I was glad she didn't come, as I was actually embarrassed by much of it. Mainly the portrayal of Brian as I said, but also some of the dialogue and the feeling that I was watching a made-for-TV docudrama at times.

I realize I'm in the minority here, and I'm glad Brian's story is being told. I just wish they had told it a bit more accurately and done away with some of the "crazy Brian" myths rather than reinforcing them. I'm honestly surprised that Brian and Melinda approved of the script as is.


there... I said it. 

Had it occurred to you that maybe Brian was more like that than you cared to admit? Some scenes were uncomfortable for me too, but having read all the stories over the years, I was not surprised by any of it. So many people in Brian's world at that time were concerned for him in different ways. Something changed. You see it just in the way he was in the studio during Pet Sounds and how he ran the Smile sessions. I doubt that they would have Brian doing all these Q & A sessions or having he & Melinda doing interviews if his portrayal was way off the mark. I think it was more honest than we as fans care to admit.

sure Brian lost his sh*t a bit. I know all about it. he was paranoid and delusional. but it all happens so fast in the movie without much explanation. I think the amphetamine use had a lot to do with Brian's paranoia and losing a grip on reality, but that is rarely if ever mentioned anywhere... and not at all in the film. and the fact is he made some of the most breathtaking music of his career during the SMiLE sessions and we don't get to hear any of it. the whole SMiLE period in this film is basically just Brian losing his mind.

and as for the notion that Brian is just a conduit for beautiful music, a crazy idiot savant, I am extremely offended by it.

[CosmicDancer]

I wish our honored guests would let us know who they are...

I think I have a handle for who most are, but who is analog?

[sea of tunes]

I posted this the other day in one of the review threads.  I kind of feel like it's applicable here.  Sorry for the re-post I just didn't want to re-type my exact thoughts:

------

One of the things I knew would elicit raised eyebrows is the fact that the film focuses primarily on periods 1965-1967 and 1985-1987.  By choosing to do this, LOVE & MERCY allows for a more intimate character study and portrait than if it had tried to hit all the highs & lows.  To say nothing of the fact that it would take many hours to tell a more complete story.  

Obviously, it is my opinion that LOVE & MERCY is on a whole other level artistically from any tv movie or mini-series done about Brian (and the Beach Boys) before.  I would have been happy with a 3 hour version of this film but that's not very commercial.  The original draft for LOVE & MERCY, according to Oren Moverman, did include a whole section for 1970s Brian.  And likely would have gone more in depth about  "the bed years" and how Landy came into the picture in the first place.

I think what LOVE & MERCY is trying to give you though is snapshots from the other portions of Brian's life, outside of those years that are primary focus.  We see, over the opening credits, about 4-5 minutes worth of 1963-1964 high points.  The success and ascent of stardom is implied  and then we are effectively dropped into the life of Brian Wilson in 1965 (roughly).  I feel like I'm repeating myself but doing this is really an inspired method of storytelling, in my opinion. So much of the peak creativity, with Brian being in complete control of all things having to do with the band, come from those years that are dramatized in the Paul Dano portion of the film.  We don't need to know why Murry was fired; it's fairly evident from the scene where Brian plays "God Only Knows" for Murry that he was likely dismissed due to his overbearing and negative vibes.

Furthermore, regarding the period following SMiLE being left to the imagination; it is implied that Brian went from having complete control of the band (which he did) to ceding control after the failure of SMiLE to materialize (which he did).  The Beach Boys of course built a studio at the Bel Air house and recorded SMILEY SMILE, WILD HONEY, FRIENDS, 20/20, etc.  I don't think I'm telling tales here that Brian's involvement has always been said to have been spotty on those. Based on the documentaries I've seen, it's always said that 'Brian would occasionally come out of his room and contribute'.  Did he write some songs for those albums, yes.  But unlike prior to SMiLE, the "band" was allowed (or forced, depending on your point of view) to have a much more prominent role.  Do we really need to see that part of the story in a film about Brian Wilson?

There are two shots, lasting no more than 4-5 seconds a piece), of 1970s Brian in bed.  Face obscured by robe and girth.  One early in the film, really the 2nd shot of the film and then another much later.  I'm not 100% certain but I think the film is told from all different angles.  Obviously the 1980s scenes are told from Melinda's POV.  But I think the 1960s are told from Brian's POV.  1970s Brian is laying in bed remembering, or it is implied that he is.  Thinking back on it, I believe all of the Paul Dano scenes are basically book ended with the two shots I'm referring to.  I think those images, even without a dearth of background on the context, convey a real heaviness and emptiness of what was once a very vibrant and creative mind.  We don't need to see anymore, I know I didn't.  Did Brian get out of bed in the mid 1970s and make one of my favorite Beach Boys albums (LOVE YOU) yes, but in toto he was a shell of man he was from 1963-1967.  

And within the confines of a 2 hour film I think LOVE & MERCY conveys all of this masterfully.

[Sjöman]

I wish our honored guests would let us know who they are...

I think I have a handle for who most are, but who is analog?

Clicking on his username and then on the "Show last posts" link should help you figure it out.

[pixletwin]

I wish our honored guests would let us know who they are...

I think I have a handle for who most are, but who is analog?

Clicking on his username and then on the "Show last posts" link should help you figure it out.

Ah yes. I always wondered what happened to him.