Why does every film about Lennon have to end the same way? - The U.S. vs. John Lennon (2006) Discussion

[–] freddie_is_cute 18 years ago

Well, that IS what happened... Don't blame the filmmakers, blame a certain individual from Hawaii.

---
Roger Keith "Syd" Barrett, 1946-2006. Shine on.

reply

[–] RandyL712 18 years ago

I agree with the original poster - we all know John died. This wasn't a biography, it was about a certain period in John's life. I thought it was out of place and unecessary.

reply

[–] bob-fritz 18 years ago

*****WARNING: SPOILERS*****
When they started going into the part about John's death, I asked why, myself. It didn't seem relevant to his trouble with the government. But it did prove a point, because they showed all the people singing "Give Peace a Chance" at the vigil. The point was that John's voice has endured, while the hack politicians who tried to bring him down have been forgotten.

reply

[–] BDevilsMb 17 years ago

heh I like how you warn us of spoilers while we are discussing the fact that we known Lennon died and don't need to see it in every flick...

"Inconceivable!"

reply

[–] bob-fritz 17 years ago

I was referring to the way his death was handled in the film, with the people singing at the vigil. Maybe that's not really a spoiler, but I err on the side of caution.

reply

[–] humbertothomas95 15 years ago

Well, I think that's how his life ended in real life, though his memory lives on (that sounded really corny, didn't it?).

---------------------
My perfect threesome, me, Angelina Jolie, and Dominique Francon.

reply

[–] causeiwantto2001 17 years ago

I think the movie was about the movement, and voice John and Yoko brought to the cause, but I think it is important for us to have the "bang bang bang" ending.
We can say we get!!! we get it!!, but truth is I dont think we do.
John had a voice people listened to, and now he's gone, but the ban bang bang is the most powerful reason to pick up the torch, and go forward.
To many people say ' oh that was great, and they made good sense, and John was a power of example, and we will never forget his work, but when the credits start rolling at the end, we leave the energy created, and the openmindedness
beside our popcorn and $11 pop.
We all know that if we private citizens did half the crap the Gov. did we would be given life in prison, or the death penalty.
John knew this, and he picked it up, and ran with it.
Why cant we do what he already started? The diference between John Lennon, and you and I is the actions we take,or dont take.
John's leg work ended with the " we get it bang, bang"
If we get it, then we need to get up, and make the bang bang a transition, not a final chapter.
John was more patriotic then George Bush. Why? Bush has forced a pointless war in Iraq, and John's methode was love, and human compassion.
John bombed our skulls, and planted the seed of open mindedness, but he can't force us off our ass. If we want the ending changed, then we must change it.

reply

[–] zimbo_the_donkey_boy 16 years ago

I thought the same thing, as I was watching it. I had thought that here was one film which wouldn't simply be leading up to his murder but I was wrong. On top of that, each one of them and each one of you is actually rewarding Mark Chapman, if the stories about his particular derangement were right. Fortunately THIS film at least didn't feature HIM but it did feature his act -- as if Chapman capped off Lennon's life. No, I disagree with all of you. Lennon's being murdered was not an important element of his life (let alone of the story of the federal government's attack on him.)

reply

[–] flick11 17 years ago

No, Mark David Chapman was from Decatur, Georgia, just outside of Atlanta.

reply

[–] BlackGoldMustang 16 years ago

MK Ultra
the Manchurian candidate.

"Make love not war"

reply

[–] Cinema_Love 15 years ago

Elvis ?

reply

[–] ctoprefect-2 18 years ago

Divorcing Lennon from his murder would deprive him of his humanity. It is the story of a man who tried to achieve his full potential: his death underscores his struggle. In a film about his life, Lennon's tragic death is part of what you pay for.

Naturally, if there was a movie about Lennon recording an album or about his 15-month party in L.A., then I would see no reason to end the picture with his murder.

Actually, I'm surprised that, in a political film such as this, no one tried to talk about conpiracy theories at the end of the picture. That showed some restraint on the part of the filmmakers (whether you believe in conspiarcies or not is immaterial - the fact is this type of movie usually would have tried to go in that direction). it is for this reason that I don't consider this film just a piece of propaganda as some have called it.

reply

[–] Mr_Nike_Guy 18 years ago

"Divorcing Lennon from his murder would deprive him of his humanity."

What ?

Meaning that he would be less human(e) had he not been murdered ?

Meaning that he's... uh... married to his murder ?

reply

[–] ctoprefect-2 18 years ago

No, Mr. Little.

Apparently, I said it badly. I believe that Death is the thing that makes us human, the one thing we all have in common. The very fact that we all have to face it someday (and that it may interrupt whatever good work we were planning on occomplishing) makes us all humble.

Mr. Lennon's death was too early and horribly unfair (like so many in the world). It is not crazy to say that he died before he attained his full potential. This is the thing that gives his story such poignancy (I probably mispelled that).

I don't know how I gave the impression that Mr. Lennon was married to his murderer. If I did, then I appologise.

reply

[–] littlemisssmartypants 18 years ago

Well the filmmakers said that they considered not including Lennon's murder at the end of the film but because that's something that viewers do know and is apart of Lennon's history, they thought it would have been weird to not include that part.

reply

[–] Mr_Nike_Guy 18 years ago

"I don't know how I gave the impression that Mr. Lennon was married to his murderer. If I did, then I appologise."

Oh, no cause for apologies, but maybe a cause for discussion. You used the phrase "Divorcing Lennon from his murder". Now I understand that it's a manner of speaking, but what followed showed that you thought that his death makes sense in regards to his struggle and was so to speak a logical outcome and more or less a fatality. I don't think that "Lennon's tragic death is part of what you pay for." Famous activists do take more risks than "apolitical" artists but as Paul once pointed out, crazy murders like that can happen to anyone.

What I mean is that the murder was not inavoidable. It was an acting out of the murderer's problem, with no relation to any of John's business. It's not like there's a price to pay for living your life to a full extent. Otherwise the inference would be that, had John limited himself to writing nice catchy tunes, he would still be here - with this underlying conclusion that when you're famous, you shouldn't rock the boat because it's safer to toe the line.

What's more, including his death in this documentary makes it look like it is indeed, in your words, "a film about his life". It's not. It's a film about the paranoid and totalitarian will to crucify and deport artists and activists for their ideas, coming from a country that's supposed to be a democracy and is so proud of its tradition of free speech and so obsessed with it. This pattern was laid on Emma Goldman and Charlie Chaplin. None of them was murdered. But they were both heavily persecuted. Emma Goldman, in particular, was imprisoned three times and smeared and discredited through charges of conspiracy to assassinate President McKinley.

So I think that mentioning the murder in this case does little more than distract the viewer from the real stakes, make a false connection between this particular episode and the assassination, and upset the fans.

reply

[–] thepandamancan 17 years ago

I just got back from a screening where the director was asked about that afterwards and he gave this reason. Originally, they wanted to end it when he beats the US government and gets his green card. That was the original ending of the movie and then they looked at it and went...well we want people to experience how it felt for Yoko. We all know what happens and to not address it sort of would leave an empty feeling for some. Yoko thought adding that was best for the documentary and her only complaint was that the gunshots weren't loud enough.

-Panda

reply

[–] dean-weldon 17 years ago

"Well, that IS what happened... Don't blame the filmmakers, blame a certain individual from Hawaii. "

lol so *beep* hillarious you Hero!

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gintysda 17 years ago

Do you not think it is illustrative of US society that John Lennon was murdered? The killing of people in the public eye is a very American phenomenum and Johns' killing is therefore highly pertinent to his life and stance on issues outside of his music because it happened in the USA.

The US both lauded and reviled him, depending on which side of the fence you stood. Finally it took the ultimate sanction and for the most silly of reasons. Johns' slayer was not a political person and acted from purely selfish grounds.

The message - Imagine no guns in private hands.

reply

[–] ZookGuy 15 years ago

Actually, Mark Chapman didn't murder Lennon on "purely selfish grounds", I believe if I remember the book I read on Lennon, he was insane.

I honestly can't think of a good signature...

reply

[–] will_teach_13 15 years ago

Your message? Gonna have to call BS on that one. I own a high-caliber, high-powered handgun and I'm very good at shooting it. _I_ never shot John Lennon, or anyone famous, or anyone at all, for that matter. I did, however, subdue a robber in my home with the aid of my pistol.

Your emotional plea is specious. Next you'll be trying to take away my ciggies and booze, and making me wear a seatbelt and motorcycle helmet for my own good.

If you don't want to own a gun, then don't; but don't blame an inanimate object for a nutjob's actions.

There will be no Beatles reunion as long as John Lennon remains dead.
-- George Harrison 1981

reply

[–] BlackGoldMustang 15 years ago

The part where he's swimming and then they freeze the film and the gunshots start ringing out, never fails to choke me up.

"Instant Karma's gonna get you"

reply

[–] fishcough-1 17 years ago

"Why does every film about Lennon have to end the same way?"
You mean with Lennon getting shot and killed? Yeah, I always wish we could change that part, too.

reply

[–] TheySpeakEnglishInWhat 17 years ago

I agree with what most people are saying here; to show his death was necessary. I think if they would have ended it with a happy ending it wouldn't have made all his efforts to promote peace as necessary. His death was incredibly tragic, thus it makes his message resonate more. It makes you realize that if someone as wonderful as John can be murdered, we as a human race have a long way to go. It just motivates you more to carry out what he tried so hard to do.

"I never had any friends later on like the ones I had when I was twelve. Jesus, does anyone?"

reply

[–] s_sepulveda 17 years ago

That is kind of like saying "Why do movies about the Alamo always end with the defenders losing?"

Where we talk behind IMDb's back!!!
www.mrphys.com

reply

[–] Noir-It-All 17 years ago

Including the murder showed the irony of someone who fought the US government to live here was murdered by a private citizen. My understanding of the Lennons is John was down to his last million when he gave Yoko, a banker's daughter, power of attorney to run the finances. Her success was so stunning, the story about Yoko's management of the estate was featured in an issue of Forbes (or something like it) magazine read by Mark Chapman. He felt Lennon had sold out so killed him.

"Two more swords and I'll be Queen of the Monkey People." Roseanne

reply

[–] darth_imperial2653 17 years ago

Remember when we were young
John got shot with a gun
Never got away

Remember, Remember!
The 8th of December!

BANG! BANG! BANG!

probably just to remind us that maybe he was killed for what he believed in, and the *killer* is not just a crazy bastard!!!

reply

[–] Ms_Placed 17 years ago

It's in the title: "The US vs John Lennon". The plot deals with Nixon's attempts to silence him. The general theme, mentioned in the trailer: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it", sort of gives it away. It was just 3 years after those fatal shots that we took part in Operation Urgent Fury in Granada, and 1 decade later that we got the itch to liberate Kuwait. Imagine if Lennon had been alive for those parties. Of course, Neil Young has been very vocal about this most recent liberation activity in Iraq, but no one has been singing his songs in the street, really. It could be we'd all be deaf to John Lennon today, but those who are out marching every Saturday are singing his old songs. That's why it ended with his murder.

So maybe, just maybe the CIA really did send Mark David Chapman out with a loaded weapon.

reply

[–] frogca 17 years ago

Not everyone knows John Lennon died. Yes, we all know, but not everyone who might go to see the movie.

Why it has to end that way? Because it's important information. The film is not about entertaining you so you think you "got it." The fact that he died is part of the true story.

And it's supremely ironic that he hated authority, not the common man. Personally, while I'm not fan of abused authority, I really have no problem with it properle exercised -- responsibly. I have a problem with the common man who thinks his dumb view of reality is of any value, like the murderer, like people who are violent and refuse to communicate honestly, like people who think they can pay the nominal dollar cost of something, they have a right to consume this planet. Etc. There's another whole damn movie in the fact that he didn't hate the common man. Yes, the US government was after him, just like they kept dossiers on many in the protest movement. Same happens in Canada in recent years. But the common man is an ugly wild card.

reply