One thing that really really riled me!

Posted this elsewhere as its own thread but deleted it, as it probably works better in this one

I enjoyed the movie, and thought Aaron Johnson (as well as everyone else) did a great job -- especially in aging his character from 15 to 17 or 18. But like other posters, I thought he was too good-looking to play Lennon, and didn't look like him enough (though I know director Sam Taylor-Wood cast actors who could inhabit the role, not ones that resembled whom they were playing). However, later in the film, when Lennon was older -- when he became more wild and rebellious, and wore more "rocker"-typle clothes and styled his hair different -- I could certainly see more of a resemblance then.

One minor quibble, though (much in the spirit of "Why didn't they give him brown contact lenses?"): Why didn't they give him a prostethic nose? The fact that he didn't have the classic Lennon nose bothered me everytime I looked at him, creating distance between Aaron Johnson the actor, and John Lennon the character he was playing.

Virginia Woolf's facial features were probably less well-known to the general public than John Lennon's, and yet Nicole Kidman was given quite a schnoz in "The Hours."

I reserved my judgements after seeing the cast line up from the publicity shots and ye i really thought i'd hate much of the casting especially mcartney, but for some reason the characters just seem to ooze out of them. I soon realised actually it's all in the acting and i think the whole cast did brilliantly. and i genuinely believed what i saw and felt each actor was the character they were supposed to be.

Alcohol and leprosy are Very similar, too much of either and you'll end up legless

I think there may be some validity to that theory. I thought Aaron Johnson caught the contradiction behind Lennon well (confidence & insecurity), the actors capturing the personality rather than an impression.

Papaghede said:

"Sangster, on the other hand, was spot-on as McCartney - hardly a lookalike, but he really nailed the preternatural musicianship and lack of concern for image. As we all know, Paul was really the musically gifted one; John's talent was for self-promotion"

Interesting, but I viewed the distinction somewhat differently (just my own subjective p.o.v). McCartney definitely comes across as the more technically accompliced musician, even gaining admiration from Julia which irks an insecure John. (I didn't realise he was left-handed - and also lost his mother as a teenager, only learning this after I accessed wikipedia upon seeing the film. McCartney's father also passed on an interest in music).

But there is a distinction between the two young men, in my interpretation, that Lennon is the more emotionally authentic & passionate, his rage/anger, rebelliousness and attitude (outburst of violence). Young McCartney is more self-contained/controlled despite also suffering a family tragedy. There is an edginess to Lennon that found self-expression in his solo work. You could argue that many of the most famous Beatles songs were written in the main by Paul McCartney (Yesterday, Hey Jude), but that the member whose solo work is best remembered is Lennon. Lennon comes across as more of an individual (emotional), McCartney a member of a group/gifted musician experimenting with music as a form (borrowing from the classics).

I think he was both. He was a teenager. I don't know why he was portrayed as a goody two-shoes, because he wasn't. He was already a good guitarist, much better than John, and did teach him how to play. But I don't think Paul and John were very different in the kinds of things they did with their time.