List of inaccuracies.


Allot of people who haven't seen the film yet keep asking about inaccuracies in the film. i thought that i could list some off the top of my head.

In case you don't know much about John Lennon's life and don't want to be SPOILED then don't read ahead.

Firstly, i'd like to say that i think it was a great film, the only thing needed was a better director who actually knows something about John Lennon and a better cast. Also, i've only seen the film once at the movies and that was a while back now, so forgive me if i say something false about the film.

1. Mimi was portrayed as quite wicked, especially in the scene after George's death where she doesn't want to hug John. She loved John and the film didn't really explore their connection at all, they just despised each other.
2. At the fete, John was playing 'Come Go With Me' when Paul McCartney arrived (in reality). In the film, he is playing Maggie May. They also play way too well, John never played well until the Hamburg days.
3. John and Paul never shook hands when they met. Paul played Twenty Flight Rock upside down on John's right hand guitar, as well as Be Bop A Lula. The film briefly shows him playing Twenty Flight Rock right side up.
4. George had already briefly met John prior to playing Raunchy on the bus. He did not want him in the band as he was only fourteen. The film shows John meeting George on the bus and he is instantly let into the band.
5. John knew his mother always. The film makes it seem as though he hadn't seen her in years.
6. In Spite of All The Danger was recorded on the 12th of May and John's mother died on the 15th of May. She dies before they record the song in the film.
7. Paul and George's characterization was all wrong.
8. John never punched Paul.

That's all i can think of right now. if you can add more, please feel free to.

reply

It's a film, not a reconstruction.
Get a grip.

reply

Really?

I'm surprised how many people like or don't mind inaccuracies in biopics (or any fact based movie)

I have'nt seen this movie yet, but I hate when they add or change facts in a film.

When I watch a fact based film - it's because I want to know what happened...not what some people think would be entertaining for me to see.

I find it incredibly annoying, particularly because truth is often more interesting than anything someone dreamed up.

What is the point of changing facts anyway???

I am sure I will be irked by this movie for these reasons and especially, if their characters arent how they really were - that will drive me nuts.

To those who dont mind, I simply cant understand.

reply

I don't know if anyone mentioned it but the actor clearly has green eyes, contrary to real life

reply

I agree with you 100%.

Especially with something so crucial as the fact that John always knew his mother. Why make the picture at all if you're going to completely fictionalize the events?

It just seems pointless, and becomes trite melodrama, instead of an historical drama.

reply

Why make the picture at all if you're going to completely fictionalize the events?
Well they clearly didn't and I hate to say it, but I will. Yes folks, it's definitely not a documentary. The director virtually said the same thing to Paul when he queried her on the punching episode.

I couldn't give a toss about the colour of the actor's eyes as compared to John. He undoubtedly did look like an early John and sounded like him.

Where I do agree with you and others relates to
... something so crucial as the fact that John always knew his mother.
Much of the movie's plotline hinges on this facet of his life and it seems ridiculous to me and is an indictment of the film, that artistic licence suddenly was imposed here. The director/writers should have stuck closer to the facts as we know them, instead of going off on their own little tangent.

reply

And the fact that John knew (but had limited contact) with his mother would have been very easy to portray in the film. It wouldn't detract from the drama to have indicated what was reality: That John had limited contact with his mom his entire life, but that their relationship became closer as he got older and didn't rely on Mimi to take him to visit Julia.

As for Mimi being the stern but loving aunt: Certainly not according to Cynthia Lennon, whose book in no uncertain terms says that Mimi was always cruel and belittling to John, and that Mimi only created her more kindly but stern persona after John's success.

I don't know, though. John spoke to her every week of his life, so that says something.

reply

It wouldn't detract from the drama to have indicated what was reality:
Yes, I don't really know why they decided to tread the path they do.
John spoke to her every week of his life, so that says something.
It certainly does.

reply

Biographical films are rarely 100%, it's called creative licensing. So what if he recored the song before her death, it was a nice dramatic touch that she had left him something, and that it led to the recording.

IMDB Film Ratings: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=22271274

reply

1.John never wore a red jacket.
2.He was sitting on his mother's couch.What a lie ! He was always sitting on a chair.
3.Mimi never had sat with her sister in the garden the day she died.

My inaccuracies are better than the OP's.

reply

More inaccuracies I notice...

1. The scene when Lennon eats dinner with his mom and her family, they were eating "fish and chips". In reality John Lennon always put mustard on his fish, he didn't do that in the movie. There wasn't even mustard on the table.

2. John Lennon wears a watch on his wrist throughout the whole movie. Every picture from his "teen yers" I've seen, I never saw a picture of him with a watch on.

3. The gated fence at MiMi's house should have been broken, all the time Lennon swung that gate open and slammed it shut, the gate stay in tact...


"I left my heart in England, with the girl I left behind".

reply

The make-up of the movie shows such a contrast between his Mum and his Aunt Mime. This point: "also, in reality, when asked to choose between his mom and dad john chose his mom NOT his dad which was claimed in the film" shows hoe the Aunt got John. But if it's not true, what is the truth?

reply

"in reality, when asked to choose between his mom and dad john chose his mom NOT his dad which was claimed in the film."

Are you sure? I could be wrong but I believe I've always read he DID choose his father, which hurt his mother. When she turned and started walking away, John got quite upset and ran after her and so, ended up not going with his dad. At least that's what I've read.

reply

Most films based on real-life people are usually not 100% accurate. Even something like HBO's "John Adams" was far from perfect, even though they did a good job with most of the history. "Nowhere Boy" is concentrating on the relationship between John and his two mother figures, so that's probably why Stuart, Cynthia, etc. are not shown. I think it was a fairly good portrayal of the events. It's not a documentary!

reply

The big one that is missed - was where was Cynthia and Stewart Sutcliffe?
I know John meets Stu at Art College - but he was Johns best friend - so he should of been in there. Especially with Lennons art work stuff!
Also when John went to Hamburg - he was with Cynthia (Lennon).

Thought Paul in this was a miscast - he didn't fit the Paul McCartney of the day - who could give as good as he could get - hence why the Lennon/McCartney label worked - they worked well together and played off one another - hence the eventual problems years later!

John was well played!

Do you know what a Psycho is?
Of course I do he's a geezer that dresses up in his mothers clothes!

reply

Stu is mentioned by John at the end when he is sitting at the table with Mimi. Someone commented that Cynthia could have been the blond he was messing around with at the gig. There just isn't enough time in the movie to cover all the details and give attention to the story that was played out for us. I thought it did give a lot of insight into the personality/talent/emotions of the man John became and that was the main purpose of the film.

reply

You've left loads out!

1. John wasn't an actor who was born in 1990.
2. He never had a film camera follow him around everywhere recording his actions to be shown at the cinema.
3. There wasn't a rock'n'roll soundtrack playing in the background behind a lot of major events in his life.
4. No director ever shouted "cut" at him in the middle of emotional moments.
5. Paul McCartney had never previously appeared in 'Love Actually'.

But then again, I could be wrong. I wasn't actually there.

reply

But none of that stuff happened in the movie either. It happened in real life, while they were making the movie.

reply

[deleted]

Yes, but then what is this film about?

If they wanted to tell the story of a guy who never met his mother until his teens, they could have named their guy "Paul Lucas" (no reference to anyone... I just made it up) and gone with that. It would have been a great story.

But they really just want cash from using Lennon's name, so they take his story, modify it, and present it.

I think it's shameful.

reply

1. Mimi was portrayed as quite wicked, especially in the scene after George's death where she doesn't want to hug John. She loved John and the film didn't really explore their connection at all, they just despised each other.

True...to an extent. She loved him, but WAS the disciplined, task master of the two(her & Julia). To be fair, the tough, disciplinarian is played up the first half, but she does soften up towards the end of the film.

2. At the fete, John was playing 'Come Go With Me' when Paul McCartney arrived (in reality). In the film, he is playing Maggie May. They also play way too well, John never played well until the Hamburg days.

What are you basing this on? They obviously played more than one song. All Paul has ever said(a million times) is that he thought it was very clever that John came up with his own lyrics for "Come & Go With Me". He never said "thats the song they were playing when i arrived". He also said John was playing a guitar "gaurenteed not to crack"(i like that they incorperated this line in the film when they went to buy it) but that he was making a good job of it. As far as the band, well being better than they should have....didn't bother me as far as accuracy.

3. John and Paul never shook hands when they met. Paul played Twenty Flight Rock upside down on John's right hand guitar, as well as Be Bop A Lula. The film briefly shows him playing Twenty Flight Rock right side up.

How do YOU know they didn't shake hands...really??? Ivan Vaughn introduced them, so it's possible. There are several versions of the story with diffwerent details.

4. George had already briefly met John prior to playing Raunchy on the bus. He did not want him in the band as he was only fourteen.ALL VERY TRUE
The film shows John meeting George on the bus and he is instantly let into the band.


He was let into the band, based on that audition though. Also, i couldn't make out if it was the top of the bus(which it should have been) or not.


5. John knew his mother always. The film makes it seem as though he hadn't seen her in years.

Agree completely. This was the thing that bugged me more than anything else.

6. In Spite of All The Danger was recorded on the 12th of May and John's mother died on the 15th of May. She dies before they record the song in the film.

Yeah, filmaking Hollywood style.

7. Paul and George's characterization was all wrong.

George wasn't characterized much at all to begin with. As far as Paul, physically the face was alright, but he was a bit waifish. But he was presented as intellegent, musically skilled, and an important partner to John. Unlike in Backbeat, where he was portrayed as an unimportant, wallflower.

8. John never punched Paul. didn't care

Overall i thought Aaron Johnson caught Lennon's humor, leadership, and sensitivety better than most, and the film very good.

reply

Aaron Johnson looks nothing like John Lennon. Add that to the list.

reply

"Firstly, i'd like to say that i think it was a great film, the only thing needed was a better director who actually knows something about John Lennon and a better cast."

Wait, what did you like about this film again?

reply