MovieChat Forums > Across the Universe (2007) Discussion > Beatles fans should be ashamed

Beatles fans should be ashamed


The standard line on this movie seems to be that if you're a fan of the music you'll love this movie, but I have to say that nothing could be further from the truth. What offends me most is that this movie could be put forth as a worthy addition to the Beatles' cultural legacy. To be honest, I saw nothing of the spirit of the Beatles in this movie--none of the intelligence, wit, childlike wonder, or trenchant humor that made the Beatles so appealing in the first place. The renditions of Beatles' songs bring nothing new to the table, and retain none of the spirit of the originals. Sure the songs themselves are great, but a cover needs to be particularly inspired in arrangement or performance to ever really rival a Beatles original. And none of these versions were particularly inspired. Much of the time, in fact, they were downright embarassing. If you love the songs so much go and listen to one of their 14 albums. Or go watch Help!, A Hard Day's Night, Let It Be, etc.

As anyone who takes them seriously as a band knows, songwriting was only half the genius of the Beatles. The other half was how they played together as musicians, and their boundless creativity and curiosity in the studio. Taking away the latter elements and replacing them with lackluster performances does a disservice to the music and is an insult to anyone who holds these songs in high regard.

And don't even get me started on the characters or the "story," both of which lacked any semblance of consistency as they were only there to set up the musical sequences, and as such, were completely devoid of appeal or any possibility of emotional investment. You could tell me you liked the song versions and I actually might believe you, but if you say you cared about the characters or the story, you're lying through your teeth.

reply

The only response I can really make to this is that I went into ATU with the knowledge that these renditions of the Beatles' music were going to vastly pale in comparison to the originals. Considering the all-around renown and implied expectation of greatness that comes with the source material, and taking the above consideration into account, I would say the actors did a fairly decent job with the music.

While they didn't do as terrific a job bringing the turmoil of a bygone age to this one, I was kept well enough enthralled by the imagery used during the musical sequences. One of the things that distracted me from the so-so musical performances were the grandiose reinterpreting of the songs that I had never thought of before. The best example of this, I think, is the "I Want You (She's So Heavy)" sequence. I never would have thought of that as a military recruitment song...and who knows what the lads of Liverpool were thinking when they wrote it? At least for me, it all boggles the mind. I think this reimagining was where Taymor was going with the musical sequences, which is why it lacks a good amount of the elements you listed.

I can see why you'd have a problem with that (i.e if you're going to use someone's music, do them respect of using it as they would), but personally, what the creators of Across the Universe have done with my favorite songs of all time has gotten me thinking about them in whole new ways, enhancing the experience of listening to the originals. And that can't be entirely bad.



I rather liked Baines. We shared the same bootmaker.

reply

"The best example of this, I think, is the "I Want You (She's So Heavy)" sequence. I never would have thought of that as a military recruitment song...and who knows what the lads of Liverpool were thinking when they wrote it?"

The problem is that we do know exactly what John Lennon was thinking when he wrote it, and it wasn't anything to do with US military recruitment.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Sadly it seems that you may have missed the point of this movie!

ATU was a love story set in a time of great turmoil and used the timeless music of the Beatles as a means to tell that story. Was it mean't to be a Beatles revival? Not hardly!

While I didn't like how they staged some of the musical numbers I think this was an entertaining movie that offered an interesting perspective on an ugly time in American history.

It's unfortunate that many of the most myopic Beatles fans look upon this movie as a slap in the face to the group that they've cannonized in their minds.

reply

I am a HUGE Beatles fan and, as such, began viewing this movie with the full intent of blasting it as blasphemous to their music and themselves as a band. After viewing it, I wasn't insulted by it as much as I was disappointed in it. First of all, I'm not opposed to people covering their work. I thoroughly enjoy Joe Cocker's legendary cover of "With a Little Help From My Friends", and even enjoyed the Boys II Men cover of "Yesterday". I was, however, totally unimpressed with not only the actor's in this film's renditions of the songs (with a few exceptions, ie. "Why Don't We Do It in the Road"), but also the context the songs were used in. Some were either completely and totally melodramatic ("I Wanna Hold Your Hand") while others were just lame. Overall, I was just really unimpressed by the movie as a whole. But, my kids loved it, and it opened up their interest in the Beatles quite a bit, so I guess, in the end, it wasn't a total loss.

reply

[deleted]

I agreee with you completely. Obviously not a lot of people were too keen on the way they sang the songs in this film, but it was done intentionally, due to copyright and them getting in trouble. So they had to put their twists in it. Which I in fact enjoyed greatly, this coming from someone who sings.

reply

[deleted]

I agree with you, this movie shames me, it seems that those who are casual Beatles fans or people who don't like the Beatles but like movies or musicals are the ones who truly enjoy this thing.

reply

Across the Universe is the worst Musical i've ever watched - in spite of its wonderful soundtrack.

reply

Who says that if your Beatles fan that you'll hate this movie? I am a HUGE HUGE HUGE Beatles fan and I thought this movie was great. It had a good story, good graphics and stuff like that, and it had Beatles music. Now, I am gonna say that nothing can ever be better than the Beatles but I liked the way the covers were done. I don't know.... I enjoyed the movie.

R.Phoenix J.Lennon B.Renfro H.Ledger
The Beatles = Life


reply

Yep, I agree. I liked the movie, and what surprised me even more was that I sort of liked the song covers. As a general rule, once I hear a song and get used to that song, then I absolutely hate hearing it covered by another artist, or even remixed by the same artist. Yet, somehow the cover songs on ACTU was not only tolerable, but enjoyable.

The only thing I was really disappointed with about the movie was that neither Paul McCartney nor Ringo Starr made any sort of appearance anywhere in the movie. I don't even think they were invited. I read the interview on http://www.ringostarr.com in which Ringo gave his opinion of the movie, and he didn't say anything about being asked to do a brief cameo role. They had plenty of actors in very short scenes, two of them could have--should have--been replaced by Paul and Ringo. It's not like they don't have any acting skills, either, they've been in movies before.

*******************************

"I am the lemon zester of destruction." MST3K episode Prince of Space

reply

[deleted]

Get off the high horse. So you didn't like it. Good for you, it's your prerogative. But don't you dare pontificate and call me a liar because I happen, indeed, to have cared about the characters and the way in which the music was used to tell this story.

"Thank you, thank you--you're most kind. In fact you're every kind."

reply

I'm a huge Beatles fan and loved the movie.

Growing up, The Beatles were playing in the house all the time. It was music my parents and brothers and I could all enjoy. I have several original vinyls, had the laserdisc (remember those?) documentary, am now repurchasing the catalog in the form of the remastered stereo and mono discs, etc. My family are true fans, and the music has been the bedrock of my life's soundtrack.

When things are this dear to us, we have a tendency to make them our own by assuming some kind of guardianship or authority over them; and I'm no exception. I watched the movie when my wife was out, swearing never to admit to anybody that I had. I just knew it was going to be horrible; but I didn't want to judge something without actually seeing/hearing it.

If I never watched the movie again, I would still enjoy the soundtrack. The reinterpretations here were not at all what I expected, and would simply never have occurred to me. But I loved them. They were respectful. Cheeky? Teasing? Self-indulgent even? Sure; but I thought the music consistently treated the source material honorably.

There are purists among us for whom only the original material is acceptable, and for whom any "reinterpretation" is an insult. If you are one of those people, you are certainly entitled to your outlook; but you're not entitled to dictate that I hold the same.

I thought it was great. I thought it was respectful to The Beatles; and for what it's worth, so did Sir Paul.

reply

delcielo,
Thank you. I share your veiws. You said everything that I was thinking, and you said it well.
This is coming from a middle aged lady who also grew up with The Beatles, and in my opinion, they are still the best musical group of all time.

To the OP, all I have to say is that I am not ashamed of having enjoyed this film.

Fasten your seatbelts.... It's going to be a bumpy night!

reply

Sure the Beatles music is definitely a factor that attracted a lot of people, especially my friends and me, but of course there's no way every Beatles fan is going to love this movie. I did, and so did my friends, and my brother, who's not quite as big a Beatles fan, likes it more than he cares to admit. It's not trying to be a movie about The Beatles. The songs aren't even put forth of covers - they're used in a musical, theatrical setting, so they're going to have different presentation and different power. If anyone has seen Moulin Rouge, they know that songs like "Like a Virgin" aren't covers, they're theatrical parts of the story. It's not fair to criticize the music as being a "cover", because that's not what they're doing. They're not even trying to rival the original songs, they're just trying to represent them in the context of a movie-musical. Many people who do love the songs in this movie have listened to the albums and watched the movies, some before the movie and some after.

I'd hardly consider the performances "lackluster". This is a cast with some serious vocal power, and visually, some of these sequences were amazing.

Please don't act like there's no way Beatles fans can like this movie and actually care about the story and characters. People in this thread have already proved that wrong, and Paul McCartney screened it with the director and was singing along under his breath and when she asked him if there was anything he liked, he said, "What's not to like?" And it's a musical. Of course the scenes were meant, in part, to set up the musical sequences. Scenes and songs work together in musicals hand-in-hand to build a story and characters. There's plenty of appeal and emotional investment in this movie, I just don't think you're open to it. Beatles purists need to settle down.

reply

I think you are an idiot

reply