This documentary is seriously lacking, even given the nature of the form. Even as a look at just his post-Beatles career, this completely distorts Lennon's life. Granted, you couldn't possibly encompass the full John Lennon story in a couple of hours of footage. Choices must be made. And therein lies the problem.
Some of the choices in this documentary are good. I especially like footage of Lennon dancing home in a white suit with Yoko, apparently after getting married and looking quite stoned. There is some choice footage of Lennon interacting with fans, some of whom are quite bizarre. And there is a very interesting piece of footage showing Lennon singing one of his anti-Paul McCartney songs in a session that he ends abruptly after calling Paul a vile name.
Which brings me to the bad choices. They are choices of omission. What is the one thing a person might want to know about John's life? I think a good question would be, "How did you really feel about Paul McCartney and the breakup of the Beatles." That question, or any like it, is not posed. Lennon is simply shown reading about the Beatles breakup in the newspaper as if he were an absolute bystander to the whole thing. At one point, Lennon is quoted as saying that he and McCartney are "fine," and at another, he is shown swearing at him. That is about the extent of it. Something is amiss. One of the most important partnerships in music history is given glancing treatment. Lennon, at least at one time, had hurt feelings. Why? And why is McCartney glaringly absent?
Well, a fellow by the name of Elliot Mintz is listed prominently in the credits as a "Consultant." He even is interviewed to give his opinions about John (as opposed to interviewing, say, Paul, or even George or Ringo). Who is Elliot Mintz? Well, a close associate of Yoko's. That might explain why footage is selected to make her look like a victim, as with the famous Al Capp "debate" footage in which professional provocateur Capp says what many people of the time thought (negatively) about Yoko, and why McCartney and Lennon's work together is pointedly ignored throughout the film. How you could possibly think you could have a balanced presentation of John Lennon without including his relationship with his boyhood friend and adult writing partner is beyond me. Yoko (Mintz) obviously thought differently. Lennon himself said, in his last interview, that he had had two dominant relationships in his life: Yoko, and Paul. We are shown only one. I wonder why.
Of course, one could be cynical and observe that as Yoko increased her influence, John's interest in mass-appeal non-political music declined and his political agitprop activities soared. And, one could further reason that those two indisputable facts are likely not coincidental. And then, one might conclude that Yoko viewed John's political activism as a reflection of her influence over him, his devotion to her, and thus "their" shared history, while relegating Lennon's work with The Beatles to the dustbin (because it did not include her). And thus, we have the reason underlying this work's orientation, given Mintz's control, on John as political renegade rather than as groundbreaking musician. Imagine that Yoko is showing off her own creation here.
Capp, who admittedly comes across as a sneering blow-hard, touches on a good point, incidentally. What did Lennon mean in "The Ballad of John and Yoko" when he said "they" are "gonna crucify me"? Why would he use that imagery only a few years after the famous "Jesus" comment that caused so much trouble? Lennon just blows Capp off, that one hit a little close to home, I think. Another interviewer practically does a follow-up, likely years later, taking some pointed shots at Lennon as having become little more than a cynical self-promoter with all of his fairly empty and extravagant peace gestures. His non-answer to her is one of the more revealing parts of the documentary. I'm sure it was put in there, though, to elicit a completely different response from the audience ("Look how much a martyr John became because they never understood his important work for peace").
Somewhat perversely, in tune with this work's obvious attempt to canonize Lennon for his political outspokenness while treating his music as little more than his day job, the footage selected indeed does tend to suggest that his primary legacy is as a self-promoter and activist rather than as a musician. Talk about turning reality upside down.... I doubt that is the message that would come across in a more balanced presentation. I do understand, though, why the people who control his estate would portray him that way.
Documentaries are more about the living than the dead. The real summary of Lennon's work has yet to be made and won't happen until everyone with personal agendas departs the scene.
Some of the choices in this documentary are good. I especially like footage of Lennon dancing home in a white suit with Yoko, apparently after getting married and looking quite stoned. There is some choice footage of Lennon interacting with fans, some of whom are quite bizarre. And there is a very interesting piece of footage showing Lennon singing one of his anti-Paul McCartney songs in a session that he ends abruptly after calling Paul a vile name.
Which brings me to the bad choices. They are choices of omission. What is the one thing a person might want to know about John's life? I think a good question would be, "How did you really feel about Paul McCartney and the breakup of the Beatles." That question, or any like it, is not posed. Lennon is simply shown reading about the Beatles breakup in the newspaper as if he were an absolute bystander to the whole thing. At one point, Lennon is quoted as saying that he and McCartney are "fine," and at another, he is shown swearing at him. That is about the extent of it. Something is amiss. One of the most important partnerships in music history is given glancing treatment. Lennon, at least at one time, had hurt feelings. Why? And why is McCartney glaringly absent?
Well, a fellow by the name of Elliot Mintz is listed prominently in the credits as a "Consultant." He even is interviewed to give his opinions about John (as opposed to interviewing, say, Paul, or even George or Ringo). Who is Elliot Mintz? Well, a close associate of Yoko's. That might explain why footage is selected to make her look like a victim, as with the famous Al Capp "debate" footage in which professional provocateur Capp says what many people of the time thought (negatively) about Yoko, and why McCartney and Lennon's work together is pointedly ignored throughout the film. How you could possibly think you could have a balanced presentation of John Lennon without including his relationship with his boyhood friend and adult writing partner is beyond me. Yoko (Mintz) obviously thought differently. Lennon himself said, in his last interview, that he had had two dominant relationships in his life: Yoko, and Paul. We are shown only one. I wonder why.
Of course, one could be cynical and observe that as Yoko increased her influence, John's interest in mass-appeal non-political music declined and his political agitprop activities soared. And, one could further reason that those two indisputable facts are likely not coincidental. And then, one might conclude that Yoko viewed John's political activism as a reflection of her influence over him, his devotion to her, and thus "their" shared history, while relegating Lennon's work with The Beatles to the dustbin (because it did not include her). And thus, we have the reason underlying this work's orientation, given Mintz's control, on John as political renegade rather than as groundbreaking musician. Imagine that Yoko is showing off her own creation here.
Capp, who admittedly comes across as a sneering blow-hard, touches on a good point, incidentally. What did Lennon mean in "The Ballad of John and Yoko" when he said "they" are "gonna crucify me"? Why would he use that imagery only a few years after the famous "Jesus" comment that caused so much trouble? Lennon just blows Capp off, that one hit a little close to home, I think. Another interviewer practically does a follow-up, likely years later, taking some pointed shots at Lennon as having become little more than a cynical self-promoter with all of his fairly empty and extravagant peace gestures. His non-answer to her is one of the more revealing parts of the documentary. I'm sure it was put in there, though, to elicit a completely different response from the audience ("Look how much a martyr John became because they never understood his important work for peace").
Somewhat perversely, in tune with this work's obvious attempt to canonize Lennon for his political outspokenness while treating his music as little more than his day job, the footage selected indeed does tend to suggest that his primary legacy is as a self-promoter and activist rather than as a musician. Talk about turning reality upside down.... I doubt that is the message that would come across in a more balanced presentation. I do understand, though, why the people who control his estate would portray him that way.
Documentaries are more about the living than the dead. The real summary of Lennon's work has yet to be made and won't happen until everyone with personal agendas departs the scene.