Above and below, Aaron Johnson as John Lennon in 'Nowhere Boy'
(Weinstein Corp.)
As seems to be case with any film based on a real-life story, "Nowhere Boy," the newly released story of the early life of John Lennon, has been the subject of a pro-con debate as to whether it's an accurate portrayal of him.
Most movies take at least a little artistic license in telling its story. But "Nowhere Boy" has sharply divided the two camps.
The film is based on books by Julia Baird, John's half-sister. She has written several books, including "The Private John Lennon: The Untold Story from His Sister" and "Imagine This: Growing Up with My Brother John Lennon.
Baird herself isn't reportedly happy with the film, according to a Lennon cousin quoted by Times Online. “I know that Julia is not pleased to have her memoir distorted like this. She feels that this isn’t a film of her book," Lennon's cousin, Stanley Parkes, said in Times Online. One of the debate points concerns the film's depiction of the young Lennon's relationship with his mother and his Aunt Mimi.
In comments quoted in the Daily Mail, Paul McCartney has reportedly been at least mildly critical of the portrayal of Aunt Mimi and asked it be changed. " ‘I said “Sam, this isn’t true.” Aunt Mimi was not cruel. She was mock strict. But she was a good heart who loved John madly," he was quoted by the paper. As a result of his comments, the script was revised, but McCartney reportedly turned down an offer to see the film, the paper said.
On the other hand, Yoko Ono, Sean and Julian Lennon all gave tacit approval to it by allowing the filmmakers to use an alternate version of John Lennon's song, "Mother," on the soundtrack, the paper said.
"What these filmmakers and writers forget is that this is our family, this isn’t just show business. We are real people and it hurts to have this kind of mud slung at us," Parkes says about what he considers distortions in the film.
As an example, he told Times Online his portrayal in the film is inaccurate. “I believe in the film I’m shown as speaking in broad Scouse,” he told the paper. “Now that is another mistake, as my parents had the Liverpudlian accents beaten out of us. We spoke in refined Lancastrian voices. Only John had a broad Liverpool accent.”
At least a few Beatles fans also agree that the movie is wrong, according to an article on Click Liverpool.com. So far, though, most reviews of the film have been positive.
Beatle-related movies are often immersed in controversy. "Backbeat," the story of the Beatles' days in Hamburg, caused a stir over its portrayal of Stu Sutcliffe. And "Two of Us" and "The Hours and Times" raised questions whether the events in those films happened at all.
In the end, controversy isn't unexpected. Real life stories made into films provoke debate, especially among those close to the stories. The final question, though, is whether the movie treats its subjects with respect and tries to stick to the facts.
Given what we've heard so far about it, we're looking forward to seeing it when it opens in the States in the spring. No one certainly thinks it's the definitive story. It is, however, an artistic look at a little known period in John Lennon's life. As with any film, it should be taken for what it is. That doesn't mean it can't be enjoyed.
John Lennon is a legend in his own right. And it's better that his story be told by people who care rather than by those with an agenda. We've had more of that than we need of that already.
- Subscribe to us: Have our Beatles Examiner columns sent to your inbox. Click SUBSCRIBE TO EMAIL on the button above this column. It's free.
- Bookmark us: http://www.examiner.com/x-2082-Beatles-Examiner
- Make us your home page.
- New! Add our Beatles Examiner headlines to your site with this widget box.
- Add us as a Favorite Examiner (see above)
- Check out our Vintage Rock 'n' Roll or TV on DVD Examiner columns.
- A great online Beatles store.
- Write to us: beatlesexaminer@gmail.com
- Become an Examiner (for referral, use #2082)
- Follow us on Twitter and Facebook.
Comments
A. John has brown eyes, not blue.
B. He didn't wear the round, gold National Health glasses as a teenager as depicted in the film.
C. Mimi loved John more than herself. She was strict and judgmental about his friends and love of rock and roll, but was never truly cruel to him. She gave everything she had to him.
I'll see it, but I'm already a bit scared...
As long as the creator[s] doesn't claim that this movie is completely factual, I don't mind. A film based on a real person doesn't necessarily have to be totally authentic and true-to-life to be good; take Amadeus for example.
I think it is nice that Paul defended Aunt Mimi even though she treated him rather second class by having him only come in to the house by the backdoor and also calling him John's "Little friend". Did Julian Lennon or Sean for that matter really give approval for the use of any song? That is controlled by Yoko, isn't it?
I think Two of Us was always marketed as a movie about something that "might have been". It was never marketed as being about something that actually happened.
I am sure as time passes people will actually think that movie is fact.
I can understand Stanley Parkes' consternation over the accents
but most non-Brits will take no notice or meaning on this point.
(but why not get it right?)This raises an interesting point
that could have been explored in the film did John insist on speaking differently from his family or did he speak differently
in different company..
a general comment on biographies
All bios film or print take liberties and in any case no two people who actually lived through it will remember things quite the same each had a unique perspective.
Aren't all bio-pics fiction anyway? But most people don't take that into consideration. Mutiny on the Bounty (the Gable/Laughton version) is a good film, but it's pretty much fiction. That said, I didn't care for Backbeat as I felt they vulgarized the characters too much (as Philip Norman agreed in one of his books). Oddly, I actually like Birth of the Beatles, even though I know it's not exactly a "true" depiction. But to me there's something sweet and sad about it.
But playing devil's advocate; I don't quite get the implied contradiction of "And it's better that his story be told by people who care rather than by those with an agenda." What makes you think people "who care" don't have an agenda? Of course they do. In fact, they might have more of one.
But I'm sure I'll see the film.
Excellent points, Gillian.
PATTIE - I'll give you your A and B, but when speaking of C, you take the tone of someone who was actually there and lived around and knew John and Mimi. It's really hard for me to take when fans assume the air of someone who was there, rather than some one who's read a ton of Beatle books, many of which are widely questioned for their accuracy. So many other books then cut-and-paste errors repeatedly over the years. Paul was there, so even though his memory can sometimes seem to be spotty, he WAS there. If they changed the Mimi character for Paul, did they not change it enough? He doesn't seem enthusiastic about the film still.
MARIE -- Yoko legally split John's solo work songwriters' royalties with Julian and Sean several years ago. Hence the 3 of them donated the use of 'Give Peace A Chance' temporarily for a charity a couple of months ago. I'm sure this will completely change your view of Yoko now that you know this - NOT.
Working Class Nero - I guess I am missing the point of your snarky comment about what I said about the song use permission. I didn't say anything wrong about Yoko. According to Julian he sold any rights he had to any of his father's songs a few years back. That would mean he has nothing to say about their use I would think. I would guess that Yoko has the controlling interest. It's funny that you accuse Pattie of claiming to know things like an insider when it seems to be that is what you are doing. I just posed a question. Yoko must feel safe knowing you are her defender - even when she didn't need one.
I met Julia Baird and I read "Imagine This." If she is not totally happy with the movie I'm not surprised because in the book (and in person) she was very harshly critical of Aunt Mimi, who never accepted Julia and her sister as members of the family. She was also raised by her mother, so the depiction of Julia as an unsuitable mother because of her "inappropriate" behavior around John would be quite offensive to her. When Julia was killed John lost his mother but his half-sisters lost their mother, their home, and their whole lives together. I'm glad that Paul stood up for Aunt Mimi, and he also knew John's mother, so it kind of doesn't surprise me that he doesn't want to see the movie now.
I have been looking forward to seeing the movie, and I'm not bothered that Aaron Johnson doesn't look exactly like John because I understand that his performance is great.
MARIE -- Please define "snarky" for me.
Me, I'm taking a pass on this film. It just seems like the latest and greatest attempt to put Dr. O'Boogie up on some insane pedestal. What's there to learn? That one of my favourite musicians was as much damaged-goods as the rest of us? For my money, bio-pics should either be done in conjunction with the artist (ie, the warts-and-all "Ray") or long, long after his/her demise (ie, "Amadeus").
Well I saw the movie nd I think it was a good movie maybe some parts aren´t true but we don´t have to forget that a movie is sometimes a dramatization
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!