Log In
Register
7.11pm
8 November 2013
Offline
mja6758 said
There are a few fictions based on the life of The Beatles, including one – Into the Sky with Diamonds – written by one of our members here, Ronald P. Grelsamer (who posts as “Into the Sky with Diamonds”). An excellent book, which has just seen its third edition published, it tells the story of The Beatles and NASA’s race to the moon via the fictional friendship (largely carried out by letter) between Beatles’ roadie Mal Evans and a NASA scientist. It’s a fantastic read.I think Sam Taylor-Wood might be a bit bothered by you calling Nowhere Boy fiction. It certainly isn’t intended to be. It is a biopic that- while some of the facts could be argued – attempts to tell as truthfully as possible the story of John’s teenage years, and his relationship with his mother and his aunt, and was based largely on the biography of John’s half-sister, Julia Baird, who was also an adviser on the film.
i meant, that it isn’t a documentary, but with actors, creating characters and feelings and stuff ^^… but you’re maybe right, fiction isn’t the right word for “nowhere boy” either…
7.21pm
8 November 2012
Offline I can’t find it now, but I recall an interview with Paul where he mentions that he took some exception to parts of the script, and Sam herself told him that in the end it was fiction. Or that she took artistic license, I can’t find the exact phrasing.
parlance
7.21pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline
Maybe faction?
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
7.23pm
3 May 2012
Offline Yeah, I saw an interview and she mumbled something about ”artistic license”. Still meant to be based on true events, though.
Moving along in our God given ways, safety is sat by the fire/Sanctuary from these feverish smiles, left with a mark on the door.
(Passover - I. Curtis)
7.27pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline Though I do remember him or her commenting about how he’d pointed out to her that Mimi came out completely wrong in the original script, far too hard, and she changed the script in response to the insight he’d given her.
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
7.30pm
3 May 2012
Offline I think it portrays her as being too soft, from what other stuff I’ve read of her. What do I know, though?
Moving along in our God given ways, safety is sat by the fire/Sanctuary from these feverish smiles, left with a mark on the door.
(Passover - I. Curtis)
8.30pm
Reviewers
29 August 2013
Offline mja6758 said
[SNIP]I think Sam Taylor-Wood might be a bit bothered by you calling Nowhere Boy fiction. It certainly isn’t intended to be. It is a biopic that- while some of the facts could be argued – attempts to tell as truthfully as possible the story of John’s teenage years, and his relationship with his mother and his aunt, and was based largely on the biography of John’s half-sister, Julia Baird, who was also an adviser on the film.
I haven’t seen it and I’d still reckon it is closer to fiction than fact – I have yet to see a biopic which isn’t. The ones I have seen all show a person’s life through a lens distorted by the screenwriter’s and director’s visions. This can be illuminating, but very rarely impartial – and many of them make up or ignore things to try and get some ‘message’ across. In my view they are all ‘based upon a true story’ rather than being a presentation of a true story.
==> trcanberra and hongkonglady - Together even when not (married for those not in the know!) <==
8.41pm
8 November 2012
Offline trcanberra said
I haven’t seen it and I’d still reckon it is closer to fiction than fact – I have yet to see a biopic which isn’t. The ones I have seen all show a person’s life through a lens distorted by the screenwriter’s and director’s visions. This can be illuminating, but very rarely impartial – and many of them make up or ignore things to try and get some ‘message’ across. In my view they are all ‘based upon a true story’ rather than being a presentation of a true story.
I think that’s an apt description.
parlance
9.25pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline parlance said
trcanberra said
I haven’t seen it and I’d still reckon it is closer to fiction than fact – I have yet to see a biopic which isn’t. The ones I have seen all show a person’s life through a lens distorted by the screenwriter’s and director’s visions. This can be illuminating, but very rarely impartial – and many of them make up or ignore things to try and get some ‘message’ across. In my view they are all ‘based upon a true story’ rather than being a presentation of a true story.
I think that’s an apt description.
parlance
But I would say that counts for all biography – be it print or screen. The only point I was making was that Sam Taylor-Wood was trying to make it as truthful to what she saw, just as much Hunter Davis, Philip Norman, Mark Lewisohn, Albert Goldman, etc. etc., gave weight to the bits that told the story they wanted to tell. Variations on a theme.
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
9.59pm
Reviewers
29 August 2013
Offline mja6758 said
parlance said
trcanberra said
I haven’t seen it and I’d still reckon it is closer to fiction than fact – I have yet to see a biopic which isn’t. The ones I have seen all show a person’s life through a lens distorted by the screenwriter’s and director’s visions. This can be illuminating, but very rarely impartial – and many of them make up or ignore things to try and get some ‘message’ across. In my view they are all ‘based upon a true story’ rather than being a presentation of a true story.
I think that’s an apt description.
parlance
But I would say that counts for all biography – be it print or screen. The only point I was making was that Sam Taylor-Wood was trying to make it as truthful to what she saw, just as much Hunter Davis, Philip Norman, Mark Lewisohn, Albert Goldman, etc. etc., gave weight to the bits that told the story they wanted to tell. Variations on a theme.
I’m not sure I agree. With Lewisohn as an example, it is more obvious when he is stating a fact and when he is assembling ideas to support an interpretation. Most of these biopics take a written biography, which may already have interpretations we are not aware of, and then further distort them with even more interpretation. In my mind they are one step further away from the reality, and don’t even attempt to tell us when they are trying to be factual and when they are telling porkies.
The books are generally describing primary or secondary evidence, the films then interpret so they are often three or four generations away from the evidence and are adding their own fictional layer over the top.
==> trcanberra and hongkonglady - Together even when not (married for those not in the know!) <==
10.12pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline Nowhere Boy was based on Julia Baird’s autobiography as I’ve already said. John’s half-sister, and someone who had view of John’s teenage years, and his relationship with his mother, that very few others had, or have written about. Lewisohn has said during interviews for the book that there are elements of the story where he is making judgements about what he thinks fits, and there are bits in the book where he shrugs his shoulders, says these are the versions, and I can’t choose.
Ooo, watching Never Mind the Buzzcocks and The Beatles are on the roof doing Get Back !
Oh! That’s a Beatley moment! Sorry!
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
5.42pm
8 November 2012
Offline Still haven’t found that other post I was referring to early, but Hey Dullblog recently did a review of a 1996 novel, December, by Phil Rickman.
parlance
12.54am
8 November 2012
Offline 
I finally found that Hey Dullblog article, which recommends two novels:
[For great Beatles alternate history, see Mark Shipper’s Paperback Writer or HD’s own Michael Gerber’s Life After Death for Beginners.]
parlance
1.04am
22 December 2013
Offline parlance said
I finally found that Hey Dullblog article, which recommends two novels:[For great Beatles alternate history, see Mark Shipper’s Paperback Writer or HD’s own Michael Gerber’s Life After Death for Beginners.]
parlance
I’d personal recommend ‘Paperback Writer ‘ as well, I read it way back in the early 1980s and it’s quite well done. It hypothesizes what it would be like had The Beatles actually reunited, it almost makes you thankful that it didn’t happen after reading this. One bit that sticks out for me is when they’re all playing in the studio and they’re having trouble coming up with anything:
Paul says, “How about we do an oldie then?”
John remarks, “OK, I believe that George knows the chords to ‘He’s So Fine'”
George quips back, “I’d tell him to go to hell but I know that he’s all ready going there”
Funny stuff aside, the writers seemed to get the characters right in this one, very enjoyable…:-)
7.58pm
6 February 2014
Offline I’d be keen to read more on the relationship between John Lennon and his Aunt Mimi. Particularly after he acquired fame right up to his death.
(Unfortunately, the only true perspective could come from just two people and sadly they are no longer living…)
9.06pm
22 December 2013
Offline Getting Better said
Von Bontee said:That always struck me as strange – that notion of having to choose sides, Stones or Beatles, if that really was the popular perception of the day. But maybe it made sense at the time. (Me, I wouldn’t want to deprive myself of EITHER band, but of course I’d take the Beatles if you held a gun to my head.)
Yes that also is strange to me, personally i`ve only listened to only a few Rolling Stones songs but definitely i would choose The Beatles.
I really can`t understand because it seems like the interactions between the band were friendly and with what i have read they did collaborate(not the full group) but John and Paul gave backing vocals in “We love you” a rolling Stones song and Brian Jones played the Saxophone in “You know my name(look up the number)”
I actually find it kinda “strange” that some of you find this ancient rivalry “strange”, when we have literally ‘John vs. Paul’ flare-ups here on a daily basis! And they were in the same band! Why not the ‘Stones vs. The Beatles’?!
In all seriousness, it’s mostly something that the press cooked up and a lot of it was because of what they were both doing musically which did at times appear to be driving each other on. It was the press, after all, who was asking the questions and I always liked Bill Wyman’s response after he’d assured the interviewer that they “were the best of mates” when he said that “there was room for both bands”, that always stuck with me.
Leave it to John Lennon to throw gasoline onto the fire with his 1970 Rolling Stone Interview though:
Haha, You gotta love his brutal honesty, excellent…:-)
10.27pm
14 December 2009
Offline
Billy Rhythm said
Getting Better said
Von Bontee said:That always struck me as strange – that notion of having to choose sides, Stones or Beatles, if that really was the popular perception of the day. But maybe it made sense at the time. (Me, I wouldn’t want to deprive myself of EITHER band, but of course I’d take the Beatles if you held a gun to my head.)
“
I actually find it kinda “strange” that some of you find this ancient rivalry “strange”, when we have literally ‘John vs. Paul’ flare-ups here on a daily basis! And they were in the same band! Why not the ‘Stones vs. The Beatles’?!
No, what I specifically found strange was the notion of somebody having to choose one or the other, like in an almost peer-pressure sense. Many of us here would refuse to choose between John or Paul, and nobody finds that strange at all, whereas we’re led to believe that “Stones AND Beatles” fanship was far less likely than “Stones OR Beatles” fanship, back in the day. The notion that preferring one automatically meant disliking the other rather than just liking them a little bit less.
Paul: Yeah well… first of all, we’re bringing out a ‘Stamp Out Detroit’ campaign.
10.27pm
3 March 2012
Offline Zig said
- The Beatles – All These Years: Volume Two
- The Beatles – All These Years: Volume Three
- Joe‘s book
I endorse this with the full force of whatever said endorsement is worth.
A square is not a square when the sides are less than four...
10.32pm
3 March 2012
Offline I love a book on their relationships to one another beyond just John/Paul. George/Paul I think is as interesting. Also, Mark Lewisohn did a guest appearance on FAb4Free4All where the topic was specifically all that went down in the year 1974. Anyway, he said he’d love to do a book on that year alone. Yes, please. AFTER volumes 2 and 3 come out, of course.
The following people thank ...ontherun for this post:
Starr Shine?A square is not a square when the sides are less than four...
1.55am
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline Didn’t Mark say in that episode that whilst he’d love to do it he won’t be as Tune In volume 3 will be his last big Beatles book undertaking?
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
3 Guest(s)