Tooj 17 Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Directed by Martin Scorsese, George Harrison – Living in the Material World is a stunning double-feature-length film tribute to one of music’s greatest icons. Scorsese uses never-before-seen footage from George Harrison’s childhood, throughout his years with The Beatles, through the ups and downs of his solo career, and through the joys and pain of his private life, to trace the arc of George’s journey from his birth in 1943 to his passing in 2001. Living in the Material World features private home videos, photos and never before heard tracks to chronicle the incredible story of the extraordinary man. Despite its epic reach, the film is deeply personal. Ringo Starr, Eric Clapton, Paul McCartney, Yoko Ono, Olivia and Dhani Harrison, among many others, talk openly about George’s many gifts and contradictions and reveal the lives they shared together. In every aspect of his professional, personal and spiritual life, until his final hours, George blazed his own path. As his friend John Lennon once said: "George himself is no mystery. But the mystery inside George is immense. It’s watching him uncover it all little by little that’s so damn interesting." Looks pretty good. I've just pre-ordered it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1 Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 (edited) On a slightly related note, I went from a phase of thinking Yoko Ono was hard done by, to concluding that she's a disgrace. She met Paul before she met John and asked him if he would give funds to some arty farty cause. They didn't hit it off in a big way. Then later when asked about meeting Lennon she says, "OH I NEVER HEAR OF NO BEETLE WHEN I MEETS JOHN." Now she's been giving it the whole, "AW I RANT IS PISS AND HAPPILLESS IN WORLD SPLEADING LOVE IN WORLD," schtick for decades, but despite being worth £500 mill or however much Lennon's estate is, she won't give the other half of his family jack shit. Lennon's first wife and child got diddly squat from his estate. He was obviously a knob in that regard as well. Edited September 27, 2011 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 Lennon was clueless till he met her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacinofan 0 Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 How so PL? I thought he became stifled by her to an extent, although pre Ono his life seemed a bit aimless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 On a slightly related note, I went from a phase of thinking Yoko Ono was hard done by, to concluding that she's a disgrace. She met Paul before she met John and asked him if he would give funds to some arty farty cause. They didn't hit it off in a big way. Then later when asked about meeting Lennon she says, "OH I NEVER HEAR OF NO BEETLE WHEN I MEETS JOHN." Now she's been giving it the whole, "AW I RANT IS PISS AND HAPPILLESS IN WORLD SPLEADING LOVE IN WORLD," schtick for decades, but despite being worth £500 mill or however much Lennon's estate is, she won't give the other half of his family jack shit. Lennon's first wife and child got diddly squat from his estate. He was obviously a knob in that regard as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howmanheyman 34434 Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 On a slightly related note, I went from a phase of thinking Yoko Ono was hard done by, to concluding that she's a disgrace. She met Paul before she met John and asked him if he would give funds to some arty farty cause. They didn't hit it off in a big way. Then later when asked about meeting Lennon she says, "OH I NEVER HEAR OF NO BEETLE WHEN I MEETS JOHN." Now she's been giving it the whole, "AW I RANT IS PISS AND HAPPILLESS IN WORLD SPLEADING LOVE IN WORLD," schtick for decades, but despite being worth £500 mill or however much Lennon's estate is, she won't give the other half of his family jack shit. Lennon's first wife and child got diddly squat from his estate. He was obviously a knob in that regard as well. I never knew she was Glaswegian? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayatollah Hermione 14230 Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 On HBO, tonight and tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sniffer 0 Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 Lennon was clueless till he met her. Clueless about what, Parky? I've never worked out what he saw in her. FFS, she's one of the ugliest women on the planet with no talent as an artist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonasjuice 0 Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 And he was a material girl? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Castell 0 Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 Harrison's solo stuff was better than Lennon's, and McCartney's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 15864 Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 http://wherediditallgorightblog.wordpress....e-third-beatle/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 How so PL? I thought he became stifled by her to an extent, although pre Ono his life seemed a bit aimless. She was a proper artist and political with it. The Beatles were just scam artists till John was shown the dark side by Yoko. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 (edited) Lennon was clueless till he met her. Clueless about what, Parky? I've never worked out what he saw in her. FFS, she's one of the ugliest women on the planet with no talent as an artist. She was interested in the avant garde and already inventing flux or whatever it was called as a new art movement. John wasn't even smoking grass till he met her never mind acid. She opened his eyes to what it could be to be an interventionist (all that lying in bed for peace stuff - all her ideas). The Beatles were just shamblers and awful when they played in Hamburg...Later it was all high production (forget the Jews name) who transformed them. That and Yoko's influence. Edited October 6, 2011 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 (edited) I would've thought George Martin and Magic Alex were at least as influential musically as Brian Epstein and Yoko Ono, and probably more so. The Beatles did a lot of their more experimental stuff after Epstein had popped his clogs. Also, their sound had already began to change and had become more influenced by drugs and the counter-culture before Lennon had even met Yoko Ono (see Rubber Soul and Revolver). According to Lennon, Revolver was the acid album. Also, Harrison stated they did acid in 1965. Both the album and that date pre-dates Lennon's first meeting with Yoko Ono. Edited October 6, 2011 by alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj 17 Posted October 6, 2011 Author Share Posted October 6, 2011 Lennon was clueless till he met her. Clueless about what, Parky? I've never worked out what he saw in her. FFS, she's one of the ugliest women on the planet with no talent as an artist. She was interested in the avant garde and already inventing flux or whatever it was called as a new art movement. John wasn't even smoking grass till he met her never mind acid. She opened his eyes to what it could be to be an interventionist (all that lying in bed for peace stuff - all her ideas). The Beatles were just shamblers and awful when they played in Hamburg...Later it was all high production (forget the Jews name) who transformed them. That and Yoko's influence. They all started smoking weed when they first met Dylan, which was way before John had met Yoko. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 Lets not let facts get in the way of a good story though, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 They were little more than the British Monkees. Rolling Stones is where it was at baby. Beatles nostalgia is revisionism in its worst form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammynb 3640 Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 I would've thought George Martin and Magic Alex were at least as influential musically as Brian Epstein and Yoko Ono, and probably more so. The Beatles did a lot of their more experimental stuff after Epstein had popped his clogs. Also, their sound had already began to change and had become more influenced by drugs and the counter-culture before Lennon had even met Yoko Ono (see Rubber Soul and Revolver). According to Lennon, Revolver was the acid album. Also, Harrison stated they did acid in 1965. Both the album and that date pre-dates Lennon's first meeting with Yoko Ono. Alex, you're messing with Parky's tin foil hat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 (edited) I would've thought George Martin and Magic Alex were at least as influential musically as Brian Epstein and Yoko Ono, and probably more so. The Beatles did a lot of their more experimental stuff after Epstein had popped his clogs. Also, their sound had already began to change and had become more influenced by drugs and the counter-culture before Lennon had even met Yoko Ono (see Rubber Soul and Revolver). According to Lennon, Revolver was the acid album. Also, Harrison stated they did acid in 1965. Both the album and that date pre-dates Lennon's first meeting with Yoko Ono. Yeah George Martin was cool. The Beatles much less so. Lennon was so fake it was unreal. Edited October 6, 2011 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 Lets not let facts get in the way of a good story though, eh? The Beatles re-writing their own history (what little interest it holds that is) shocka! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 Lets not let facts get in the way of a good story though, eh? The Beatles re-writing their own history (what little interest it holds that is) shocka! So Lennon lied about and underplayed the influence of the woman he loved and was married to until the day he died eh? She obviously wasn't that big an influence on him then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 They were little more than the British Monkees. Rolling Stones is where it was at baby. Beatles nostalgia is revisionism in its worst form. I like both tbh. The Rolling Stones were absolutely abysmal post-London records though. They should've split up at the end of the 60s too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayatollah Hermione 14230 Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 Parky showing a quite ridiculous level of wummery in this thread. Ticket to Ride is better than anything the Stones ever done. FACTO. From 64/66, Lennon and McCartney were pumping out brilliant songs at a quite ridiculous rate when Yoko Ono was pretending to be an artist somewhere. The only thing Yoko managed to do was make Lennon think it was alright to write every fucking song about himself and his ill-placed narcissism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayatollah Hermione 14230 Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 They were little more than the British Monkees. Rolling Stones is where it was at baby. Beatles nostalgia is revisionism in its worst form. I like both tbh. The Rolling Stones were absolutely abysmal post-London records though. They should've split up at the end of the 60s too. Only worth listening to the Greatest Hits IMO. I think most of their albums are fucking shocking as a whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 Making out Yoko to be the brains behind the later Beatles work is a far more blatant piece of revisionism tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now