The Beatles: Get Back (2021)

[Willets Point]

It always amazes me that the band churned out two albums plus of material for 8 years, plus constant touring for 5 of those years, plus making two movies, plus just everything that goes with being the most famous people on Earth. They definitely would've benefitted from a year-long sabbatical starting around 1968/1969 with plans to "get back" together afterwards.

[smg58]

I've finally started watching, basically going day by day as I have time. A few observations to start:



I had no idea "Gimme Some Truth" went back this far. But I think it reflects the conflict that John was starting to have, where the kind of songs he wanted to write wouldn't have worked as Beatles songs (even though it appears that Paul gave him some help with this one).



The most memorable scene in the Let It Be movie for me was when Paul took John aside (I'm going to guess a day or two farther than I've gotten so far in Get Back) to discuss George, suggesting that they needed to push him like they did at Hamburg (apparently Paul saw some equivalence between the Beatles' situations in Hamburg and in early 1969). John doesn't talk, but the look on his face says everything. He gives the exact same look when Paul and George are bickering over the arrangement of his song "Don't Let Me Down."



Ringo walked out during the White Album sessions because he felt like he was being ignored. The situation hadn't changed much.



The comic relief is actually supplied by Yoko, who is quietly engaged in one random activity after another while the action goes on around her. John needing her to be next to him may well have been an issue, but there were much, much bigger issues going on.

[smg58]

I really enjoyed "Maxwell's Silver Hammer." It was the most complete arrangement up to that point, at least that we see. It makes me wonder how they decided which songs would be part of the final project, and which would be held on to for a later album (and, ironically, released sooner).



Mal Evans gets a lot of random air time in Beatles films and videos (and at least one solo video as well

). I'm not sure if the anvil tops "White Cliffs of Dover?" from Help!, but it comes close.



I'm guessing that it wasn't a coincidence that Linda came in the day after the "waltz." Speaking of which, as harmless as it was, John should have noticed that George was looking for reasons to be put off.



Peter Jackson gets big time points for the way he shifts between Dennis O'Dell (who just passed a couple of days ago) going over stage details with John and Michael Lindsay-Hogg begging Ringo to go along with his vision, while Paul can be heard creating "Let It Be" in the background.

[smg58]

Cutting to the credits of part 1 with a solo demo of "Isn't It A Pity" was another great touch.

[Edgy MD]

=smg58 post_id=83949 time=1641229666 user_id=62]The most memorable scene in the Let It Be movie for me was when Paul took John aside (I'm going to guess a day or two farther than I've gotten so far in Get Back) to discuss George, suggesting that they needed to push him like they did at Hamburg (apparently Paul saw some equivalence between the Beatles' situations in Hamburg and in early 1969).

[smg58]

Edgy MD wrote: The most memorable scene in the Let It Be movie for me was when Paul took John aside (I'm going to guess a day or two farther than I've gotten so far in Get Back) to discuss George, suggesting that they needed to push him like they did at Hamburg (apparently Paul saw some equivalence between the Beatles' situations in Hamburg and in early 1969). Wait until you get to the secretly audiotaped conversation they have about him.

The argument between George and John which preceded George's walkout wasn't recorded (I'm assuming we'd have heard it if it was), which leads me to think that Lindsay-Hogg realized he missed something important.



From what is known about that argument, George pulled John aside because he felt John wasn't standing up for him. So we have the irony of George becoming increasingly resentful of the kid brother treatment he's getting from Paul, yet still expecting John to fight his battles for him. (A recorded conversation between John, Paul, and George in September 1969 was recently uncovered. John, who had also successfully lobbied for "Something" to be an A-side, suggests that the three of them should each get four songs on the next album, and Paul vetoes the suggestion rather curtly.)



As for John, he was very seriously depressed and, for lack of a more polite way of putting it, appeared to be taking the wrong medication for it. The depression got noticeably worse when George left, but he was a different person when they resumed at Apple. He wasn't the last person to arrive either of the first two days at Apple, after always being the last one there at Twickenham.



Peter Jackson should have acknowledged that the argument happened at the point in the film when it happened, because the incident dominated the conversation on the first day of filming back at Apple after it was blown out of proportion in a newspaper article. This leads to two questions:



1. Who was the douchebag in the room who fed half-truths to the tabloid press?



2. How much of the established narrative of what went on that month (and the breakup in general, along with who caused it) came from the tabloid press?



I've come to the conclusion that Michael Lindsay-Hogg represents everybody who has ever felt that they were entitled to more from the Beatles than they got.



I've also concluded that the Beatles broke up because they were four fallible human beings living in a world where they were expected to be more than that.

[Edgy MD]

That's mostly fair.



I was referring to the secretly recorded conversation between John and Paul, in which John, after having a more productive conversation at George's house, brings George's terms to Paul, but is more interested in trying to get across how George is feeling. It isn't particularly clear from the outside, but because these guys seem to mostly understand each other's ambiguous language, Paul seems to get it.



The four-songs-per-album thing, with two more for Ringo, would have been great, but it would have had to have been a soft rule, rather than a hard one, or else inspired initiatives like the Abbey Road medley would have been undercut by the focus on equity.



But the trust wasn't there.

[Edgy MD]

I've never been much of a mimic, but I'm starting to realize that I can spend the whole day talking like Michael Lindsay-Hogg.

[smg58]

With or without the cigar?