From: edc@evolution.bchs.uh.edu (edward s. chen)
Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles
Subject: Re: Life and Times
Date: 10 Jan 1993 03:54:50 GMT
Organization: Little to none, or maybe not......
NNTP-Posting-Host: evolution.bchs.uh.edu

In article <1993Jan9.212412.20549@midway.uchicago.edu> ifsa@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>	Just this afternoon I heard a review of this film on the local arts
>program here in Chicago.  As I'm sure most of you know, this film is about
>the trip to Barcelona that Brian Epstein and John Lennon made in (early?)
>1963.  (For Chicago-area folks: it's at the Music Box for one week only).
>
>	The radio reviewer gave it a excellent review, saying the actors
>caught the major personalities well, and concentrated on their friendship
>rather than any physical intimacy they may have had (you know the rumors
>about this trip) and hinted it was required viewing for Beatle fans.
>
>	My question: Has anyone seen Life and Times?  Is it worth seeing?
>

Actually, the name of the film is "The Hours and the Times."  What
follows is an excerpt from this newsgroup between the esteemed saki
and myself from last year that should answer your questions...

---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>edc@evolution.bchs.uh.edu (edward s. chen) says:
> saki says:

>>This was passed on to me by a friend, after the film's recent showing 
>>in the L.A. area:  (the review is excerpted from the Village Voice by Amy
>>Taubin) [as always, reprinted without permission]
>>----
>>A delicately nuanced film about what might have happened between Brian
>>Epstein and John Lennon on a weekend the two spent together in Barcelona
>>in 1963, Christopher Munch's "The Hours and the Times" is so far removed from
>>biopic, docudrama, or cinema verite as to seem suigeneris.  Visually sparse,
>>and emotionally intricate, this elegantly written, black-and-white chamber
>>piece has racked up prizes from Sundance to Berlin....

>I too was mightily impressed with this film when I saw it several weeks
>ago. 

After attending a screening tonight, I feel I must add my own praise,
and comments.  In short, if you get the chance, go see this film.  The
best summation I can give is that (IMHO) the real Lennon would not be
displeased with his fictional counterpart.
 
>Perhaps part of that admiration comes from watching the director's
>ability to research a topic---about which there are a plethora of questions
>and very few facts---and to synthesize that information without doing a
>disservice to what we know of the truth. Munch is an "outsider"---not a
>born-and-bred Beatlemaniac---but managed to capture the essence of the
>point in time (April 1963) when the Fabs were accelerating toward
>phenomenology...and when Brian and John were both compelled to act
>on a momentary opportunity to explore their reciprocal fascination for 
>each other.

What most surprised and shocked me is the accuracy of the little things.
The boots placed outside the door, the fictional Lennon constantly making
funny faces, the telephone conversation with Cynthia, the very Lennonesque
doodles. (etc,etc)  These greatly increase the films sense of "reality",
without pandering to the fans.  In fact, had Munch chosen to use Beatles music,
it would've detracted to the film.  

>Munch's film is deservedly award-winning. The screenplay is superb, eloquent
>without excessiveness. On the whole, the black-and-white cinematography is
>quite laudable, calling to mind some of the best work of Douglas Slocombe
>in British cinema of the sixties. 

...and is absolutely perfect in capturing the era.  Remember that before 1965,
all moving images of John Lennon on film were black and white.  Had Munch 
chosen to use color, it would've been (to me anyway), very 'wrong' in some
fundamental way.  Further, with regards to the cinematography, only one scene
is needed to emphasize the excellence of both that, and the directing.  Namely,
when John is talking to the stewardess, and he is in focus, while she is 
simply a blur in the background.  Very much the way Lennon's poor vision would
have seen the scene.

>I found the two lead performances to be quite wonderful. Again, this surprised
>me. Dealing with characters who have become somewhat larger than life, actors
>can be led astray all too easily. Though clearly playing Epstein and Lennon,
>the actors manage to create interpretive performances rather than slavish
>impressionist routines. "Brian" is perhaps a bit more suave and self-assured
>than I would expect, under the circumstances; "John" a bit more crass and
>ingenuous. These are minor concerns; within the context of the film, these
>performances are defensible, and they're ultimately convincing.

Interestingly, I was given a slightly different impression.  Bill Harry has 
been quoted as saying that the Lennon character is not "mean enough."  I agree
a bit more with that ascertation, but I think "mean" is the wrong word. 
"Brusque" seems much more appropriate.  However, suffice to say that the 
Lennon depicted in the film would not return to London, and punch out Bob 
Wooler over homosexual allegations, as the real Lennon did.

>I wouldn't be surprised if the film also makes it to a limited-distribution
>VHS format, in which case we might be able to rent or buy it. I'd recommend
>it in either case to any Beatles fan who's ever been curious about this
>oft-mentioned but little-explored "Spanish Holiday".

Agreed.

<ESC>



-- 
Something in the way she moves, attracts me like a pomegranate.
                                     -- George Harrison