Thursday, September 15, 2016

JUST VIEWED THE WORLD PREMIERE OF EIGHT DAYS A WEEK

JUST VIEWED THE WORLD PREMIERE OF EIGHT DAYS A WEEK

I had to be there. The world premiere night (in the USA) of the new Ron Howard documentary EIGHT DAYS A WEEK.

Well, we Beatles fans loved it, the Fabs on the big screen with great sound and as a bonus thrown in after the credits, the restored and remastered BEATLES LIVE AT SHEA STADIUM, one of my favorite live concerts.

I can't give you a blow by blow review in detail, but I can give you some impressions.

Firstly, this is a Ron Howard movie. You know, he was Opie in the old Andy Griffith show and grew up to be a well bankrolled Hollywood movie director with his own production company and so forth. He did the Apollo 13 movie that cemented in everyone's mind that yes, we did go to the moon and everything NASA put out was true.

Here he is again, adding wholehearted credibility to the Beatles Anthology book and videos, the Hunter Davies 'official' biography, the bloated and seemingly endless Mark Lewisohn material, the simpletonish recent Sir Paul and Ringo interviews and so forth and so on.

The only trouble is, and there is no way to smooth over this, deep into the film when Howard cuts to the Sgt. Pepper sessions, the band looks like different people.

So, to sum up my first impressions... great compilation of the real Beatles with their energy, creativity, phenomenal impact, adolescent girls have multiple orgasms in their minds. if not their bodies, just at the sight, the experience of seeing The Beatles live in concert, excellent remastered sound, and at least an hour or two of great material left out, dropped on the cutting room floor, and does it sway my opinion vis a vis PID, no, not at all.

It is humorous to those of us who have looked into PID to see Ron Howard jump cut into the studio where the Sgt. Pepper Beatles are recording and I am so sorry, but it looks like the faces of different guys, not The Beatles. Even Ron Howard, American as apple pie (would therefore never lie to us) cannot smooth over the fact that something very strange happened in the autumn of 1966 and the winter of '66 - '67.

O.K., so we went to the moon. Apollo 13 was real. Sir Paul is the real Paul. Sure, O.K., got it, thank you Ron Howard for supplying us with yet more propaganda, Why would Apple pick Ron Howard of all directors to do this film? Maybe because, since he is Opie, he would never lie. The son of Andy Taylor would never lie. He lovingly portrays the narrative set forth in the Anthology book, which is that nothing strange happened to The Beatles on their way into the history books.

Why was this film made at all? What was the purpose of it? Well, if you are Sir Paul and you want the world to believe you are the original Paul, then this film serves your purpose very well.

The movie is very enjoyable. Just take it with a grain of salt. It does not, in any way, address the problems we know as... Paul is dead and was replaced.

____________________________

Addendum by Tina
Thank you to Mark Devlin for passing this information on:

Faul, Ringo and Ron Howard did this interview for BBC6 music recently, where Ron Howard admits to 're-editing' old footage to make it more 'interesting.'

 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p047v0fn

15 comments:

  1. Nice to get your views and opinions on the film Tina, but can you address whether it seemed to you that the original images and film footage of the original James Paul McCartney are altered or edited to resemble Sir Paul in this documentary? (much the way they have been in stock photos online and in the DVD version of Help!)
    I gather that the answer to this question is "no" based upon your observation that the dramatic contrast between them pre and post '67 is glaringly apparent.
    As for the recent 'interviews' of Ringo and Faul, it sure seems to me that Ringo speaks as someone who did indeed witness those experiences firsthand, IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you for your post! I, too, JUST now finished watching the debut and IMMEDIATELY checked "Plastic Macca" to see what was being said. Knowing that this was made by Apple/Ron Howard, I knew there would't be much truth, but I did find ONE GLIMMER of truth: regarding the potential segregation of the Jacksonville concert, Larry Kane asked what The Beatles thought and Kane said PAUL was the first to speak against it and then Kane said "you could see Brian Epstein in the corner grimacing and shaking his head." Perhaps this was because Paul (real Paul, of course) was going off-script and decided to address and speak about real issues.

    A second note, I found it interesting that Fake/Sir Paul said of the "Sgt. Pepper" album that it was HIS IDEA that the band play other people/become other people" as a method of coping with the touring chaos.

    Third note, Fake/Sir Paul says that the original "Yesterday and Today" album cover (the infamous 'butcher cover') was "the photographer's idea."

    Fake/Sir Paul sounds Scottish to me, and NOT Liverpudlian. Any thoughts? I just don't hear any Merseyside to him at all.

    Finally, thank you to Tina and "Plastic Macca" for bringing real truth about PID. Bless you, and keep up your amazing work and remember, REAL TRUTH always wins in the end. Love to you.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It seems incomprehensible Ron Howard wouldn't clearly see beyond doubt JPM was replaced with an impostor. The Hollywood<-->CIA connection is strong; very possible Howard pushes propaganda for CIA disinformation programs,


    Howard was working on a drug movie called "Mena" not sure what happened. Is the plan to include the CIA Barry Seal- CIA Bill Clinton connection, doubtful.

    http://www.thehollywoodnews.com/2014/02/11/ron-howard-takes-drug-cartel-film-mena/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ron Howard is way smarter than to bring up Clinton dirty laundry and no doubt wants to stay alive.
      I felt the same way you do about Ron being smart enough to know St. Faul is not Paul.
      I do not believe I will see it for that reason.

      Delete
  4. I feel aggravated watching Faul act like he is the real thing. I think its entirely possible that this was made for propaganda reasons, to put the PID to sleep. This imposter annoys me. I saw the Beatles in concert in 1964 and 1965. This "fake" is just not the same and could never convince me he is real. But people don't notice the details, and believe what they are told. It takes waking up to know that deception is put out there all the time by the press, Hollywood and officialdom.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's just so obviously two different people -- and especially right after the "Bungalow Bill" trip to the plastic surg- oops, I mean, Africa -- I don't understand how people can't see the truth. May the scales fall from their eyes one day or may Faul's monumental ego necessitate his taking "credit" at the very end, whichever comes first. Most are sleeping sheeple, and he was with us for so short a time that this "Paul" is all they remember. But the difference in his personality/soul is evident.

      Delete
  5. I was lucky enough to be near a theatre that was playing this limited run documentary and plan to see it at least one more time before it leaves. While I agree it's uber-annoying to see that inposter Faul pretending to be Paul and even claiming the memories of the touring years as his own (please), it was worth enduring a few minutes of his odious, arrogant, lying self -- and even a few interviews with Whoopee Goldberg -- in order to bask in the angelic vision of Paul himself on the giant screen. What a treat! One thing I noticed, though, was that Paul was the type to sweat profusely while performing onstage; some do, and others don't. John did, to a lesser extent, but neither George nor Ringo did to a noticeable degree. Just a few minutes into the Shea Stadium footage, rivulets of sweat are trickling down his face and onto his collar, and his jacket is even flecked with droplets. I'm curious (since I refuse to watch or listen to Faul myself) if, during his long run with Wings and now the endless, due to his deal with the devil, solo career, anyone's noticed if Faul is a heavy sweater, too. If they perspire differently, that would be an interesting contrast pre- and post- 1966. Anyone?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not sure if he is a heavy sweater, but, I heard he did a 3 hour concert without taking one sip of water, Not sure if this helps or not.

      Delete
  6. Also, I don't know if this site has mentioned the hair whorl/growth pattern? Complete opposite from 1966 to 1967, as well as the difference in natural part, texture, etc. That's present at birth and never changes. So glad I found you! Thanks, and keep going...

    ReplyDelete
  7. I just watched this at home through HULU. I didn't know that HULU produced this movie until I was getting advertisements for it though them. (By the way, HULU is offering free trial subscription so you can watch the movie for free if you don't want to see it on the big screen.) Anyway, I didn't pay close attention to it I must admit and will watch it again. Sir Paul interviews were annoying and cringey. The film obviously tries to reinforce the official narrative about how touring became a horrible experience. It looks like the film has been "Faulsified" making Paul look more like Faul and vice versa. I really noticed how Faul's speaking voice sounded much different than JPM's. Has there ever been voice print analyses done?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dr. Henry Truby did voiceprints on "Yesterday," "Penny Lane," and "Hey Jude." He said they were 3 different voices. So, I think it was Paul on "Yesterday," then 2 different voice doubles on the other 2 songs.

      Delete
  8. "Faul"sified; haha!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Amazon delivered the DVD of Eight Days a Week this morning. I've had a chance to watch disk one (the movie). Whilst it's always great to see or hear The Beatles, I'm sorry to say I learned nothing new. I supposed I could be forgiven for asking why Apple felt the need to make this film. I had to laugh at all the interviews where Sir Paul recalled the madness of the years 1963 - 1966. Either he was very well rehearsed - or else made it up as he went along! I agree with Tina that the most interesting part was the stills of The Beatles recording Sgt Pepper's. It's amazing how longer hair and a moustache changed the appearance of of the Fab Four - especially Paul. Can't wait to watch disk two (special features) this evening.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, and quite a funny story if I do say so myself, he told David Letterman that he thinks the Beatles were together for SIX MONTHS before coming to America and, even more funny, that he did "Yesterday" on the first Ed Sullivan Show appearance, a song that was not even written yet. This info comes from a Lady Ruth article called "The 40 Lies of Faul", it's on Facebook and her website if you want to see for yourself.

      Delete
  10. Bought the companion vinyl earlier this month. And watched the movie on Hulu when it came out! Can't wait to get my hands on the DVD. It's so rare to find anything that concentrates on the early years (everyone seems to just concentrate on the later years...and with good reason, as this site shows),so seeing the four original young Beatles together was a trip. Just wish they'd release more early stuff.

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for your comments. They will appear once they have been approved.