If you haven't seen the movie yet, let me say right out of the starting gate: it's worth watching. The writing is well-done. The acting is great (despite the lackluster Liverpool accents), and it's packed full of music. Although a fun watch, it has some major flaws in terms of historical accuracy; not necessarily in terms of story (although there are a few), but particularly through the twisting of characters to help the story along. Such flaws reportedly were enough to make the real George Harrison walk out of the screening minutes into the film. I understand that for most people, it doesn't matter a whole lot, but if you're a die-hard Beatle freak looking for a historical account, this may not be for you. Allow me to explain...
Forgive me. I'm about to geek out.
1.) Important people and events from the time were not present in the movie at all, like Allan Williams, The Beatles' first manager who got them the Hamburg gig. Paul and Pete getting deported for arson is completely left out of the movie.
2.) Accounts of Lennon in Hamburg have presented him as quick-witted and good-natured, although vulgar and at times a troublemaker. Lennon is portrayed in the movie as an angry, crying, and confused person who can't control his emotions.
3.) The movie portrays The Beatles as a tight, energetic, pitch-perfect band from the beginning. In reality, The Beatles were notorious around Liverpool as the worst band in town, with the worst equipment, and no stage presence. It was playing in Hamburg that made them the stomping, screaming, water-tight group they became, but their progression as a group is non-existent in the film. Also, the recording date with Tony Sheridan took place after Stu was no longer in the band. He actually attended the recording session to watch.
4.) In the film, McCartney and Harrison take a sort of back seat, and are portrayed as outsiders, not able to understand the complex relationship of Lennon and Sutcliffe. This undermines the importance they had in the development and sound of The Beatles. Furthermore, although McCartney has stated that he felt he had to "take a backseat" to Sutcliffe, Lennon considered McCartney his musical partner, and had known him longer than Sutcliffe. It's unlikely that the friction between them was as great as shown in the film, especially considering that they agreed on Sutcliffe's sub-par playing to begin with.
5.) In the movie, Astrid appears to live on her own. Actually, she lived with her mother and siblings, who took Stuart in as one of the family until he died.
5.) There is little to no support for the homosexual implications between Lennon and Sutcliffe. None of the other Beatles have ever mentioned such a thing, and Sutcliffe's own sister says the claim is probably false. Also, Lennon's crush on Astrid was another fabrication for the film. Tony Sheridan, fellow Hamburg performer and friend of the band at the time has since said that it was McCartney who was interested in Astrid, adding to the friction between he and Stu.
Lastly, and most importantly, I think the viewer shouldn't over-estimate the value of Stu to The Beatles. I understand that since the movie revolves around him, he's going to be presented as a young genius, at odds with a selfish and fame-hungry McCartney, but that seems to me to be giving Sutcliffe a little too much credit.
There's not enough focus on the fact that Stu could barely play bass at all. They show him as a guy who just makes mistakes sometimes, when really he could barely hold it together. It's been documented that every other Beatle, including Lennon, was never satisfied with his playing, and was often embarrassed by him. Stu Sutcliffe has been described by both McCartney and Harrison as just a school friend of Lennon's who never should have been in the band to begin with. To them, he was nothing more than that.
Ultimately, he's a footnote on their page in history, and they viewed him as such. The issue with this movie is that it was billed as being about The Beatles when really it's about John and Stu's friendship. And it seems pretty obvious to me that there's a concerted effort to add gravity where there shouldn't really be any. If you want the real story of The Beatles without the Hollywood add-ins, I recommend The Beatles Anthology. Backbeat was a good movie, but if I'm taking George and Paul's word for it (and I do), Stu was much more a pretentious hipster who owned a bass than he was a tragic genius.
Forgive me. I'm about to geek out.
1.) Important people and events from the time were not present in the movie at all, like Allan Williams, The Beatles' first manager who got them the Hamburg gig. Paul and Pete getting deported for arson is completely left out of the movie.
2.) Accounts of Lennon in Hamburg have presented him as quick-witted and good-natured, although vulgar and at times a troublemaker. Lennon is portrayed in the movie as an angry, crying, and confused person who can't control his emotions.
3.) The movie portrays The Beatles as a tight, energetic, pitch-perfect band from the beginning. In reality, The Beatles were notorious around Liverpool as the worst band in town, with the worst equipment, and no stage presence. It was playing in Hamburg that made them the stomping, screaming, water-tight group they became, but their progression as a group is non-existent in the film. Also, the recording date with Tony Sheridan took place after Stu was no longer in the band. He actually attended the recording session to watch.
4.) In the film, McCartney and Harrison take a sort of back seat, and are portrayed as outsiders, not able to understand the complex relationship of Lennon and Sutcliffe. This undermines the importance they had in the development and sound of The Beatles. Furthermore, although McCartney has stated that he felt he had to "take a backseat" to Sutcliffe, Lennon considered McCartney his musical partner, and had known him longer than Sutcliffe. It's unlikely that the friction between them was as great as shown in the film, especially considering that they agreed on Sutcliffe's sub-par playing to begin with.
5.) In the movie, Astrid appears to live on her own. Actually, she lived with her mother and siblings, who took Stuart in as one of the family until he died.
5.) There is little to no support for the homosexual implications between Lennon and Sutcliffe. None of the other Beatles have ever mentioned such a thing, and Sutcliffe's own sister says the claim is probably false. Also, Lennon's crush on Astrid was another fabrication for the film. Tony Sheridan, fellow Hamburg performer and friend of the band at the time has since said that it was McCartney who was interested in Astrid, adding to the friction between he and Stu.
Lastly, and most importantly, I think the viewer shouldn't over-estimate the value of Stu to The Beatles. I understand that since the movie revolves around him, he's going to be presented as a young genius, at odds with a selfish and fame-hungry McCartney, but that seems to me to be giving Sutcliffe a little too much credit.
There's not enough focus on the fact that Stu could barely play bass at all. They show him as a guy who just makes mistakes sometimes, when really he could barely hold it together. It's been documented that every other Beatle, including Lennon, was never satisfied with his playing, and was often embarrassed by him. Stu Sutcliffe has been described by both McCartney and Harrison as just a school friend of Lennon's who never should have been in the band to begin with. To them, he was nothing more than that.
Ultimately, he's a footnote on their page in history, and they viewed him as such. The issue with this movie is that it was billed as being about The Beatles when really it's about John and Stu's friendship. And it seems pretty obvious to me that there's a concerted effort to add gravity where there shouldn't really be any. If you want the real story of The Beatles without the Hollywood add-ins, I recommend The Beatles Anthology. Backbeat was a good movie, but if I'm taking George and Paul's word for it (and I do), Stu was much more a pretentious hipster who owned a bass than he was a tragic genius.