Birth of the Beatles

Plot synopsis:
The film opens with the Beatles driving in a car with their manager Brian Epstein and John's wife Cynthia Lennon. It is 1964 and they are heading to America for the first time after already encountering massive success across Europe. They begin to remember the days before they became famous.
The film goes on a flashback to 1959, when the Silver Beatles (as they were called then) consisted of John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Stuart Sutcliffe. They need a drummer and a manager, and Sutcliffe cannot play an instrument, only being in it because he is John's friend and none of the others want to play the bass guitar. They go and audition for an agent, where they meet Rory Storm and the Hurricanes, and become good friends with the Hurricanes' drummer, Ringo Starr. The agent at the audition says that if they get themselves a permanent drummer they can have a job in Scotland and then afterward a job in Hamburg, Germany.
The Scotland gig occurs, but is not seen onscreen. The band finds a long-term drummer in Pete Best, whose mother owns the teenagers' hangout spot the Casbah Coffee Club. They begin to prepare for the trip Hamburg which lasts several months and they encounter disapproval from Cynthia and John's Aunt Mimi. When they reach Hamburg, they discover they are playing in the Indra Club on the Reeperbahn, Hamburg's notorious sex district. They play long, grueling hours (up to 8 hours a night, seven days a week), and have to stay active by taking Preludin, a slimming drug. They are living in the back of the Bambi Kino, a run down old cinema. While in the Indra, they play loudly and wildly, eating, spitting and drinking onstage, inviting women to dance on stage with them, etc. Things get so loud the club is eventually shut down.
The Beatles (as they have renamed themselves) not start before at the bigger Kaiserkeller club, and became a big hit among the German audience. While there, they meet up with Ringo and Rory Storm, who are also performing there, and Stu falls in love with German photographer Astrid Kirchherr. They begin to have a love affair. But suddenly, in the middle of a gig, German police burst into the club and arrest George for working under-age without a work permit. While searching for the paperwork to release George, Paul and Pete drop a candle that sets fire to the Bambi Kino, and the whole band is deported.
The downbeat Beatles struggle at first back home with their disapproving families, but gradually build up a positive reputation playing shows that fill the concert halls. One night after a performance, Stu is attacked and badly beaten. He is left in bad condition but refuses to see a doctor. This will have a devastating effect.
A month later, in 1961, the Beatles return to Hamburg. Stu reunites with Astrid and she cuts his hair into the famous moptop haircut. The others get their hair cut in the same manner and the Beatle haircut is born. They experience the same level of success as during the first trip, but Stu wants to leave the group and attend to art school (he is a talented painter) and marry Astrid. Before he can accomplish his dreams, however, he dies suddenly of a brain haemorrhage (in real life, he actually died in 1962). The others find this to be emotionally shattering, and think if he only had seen a doctor things would have been fine.
Back in Britain, the owner of the NEMS Records Store, Brian Epstein, is alerted that the Beatles are causing quite a stir in Liverpool with their performances at the Cavern Club. He is impressed with what he sees and asks to be the group's manager. They accept.
On 1 January 1962, the Beatles have an audition for the Decca Record Company, but are turned down. They keep searching for a record company to accept them but are turned down time after time. They are beginning to lose all hope. Around this time, they learn that Epstein is a homosexual and that he was attacked by a teddy boy in Liverpool because of it. However, they hold no prejudices and accept. Also, the Beatles finally get accepted by record producer George Martin, but they dump Pete from the group. In his place is Ringo, and the classic foursome is complete. However, before the first show with Ringo, the fans react angrily to Pete's firing.
The Beatles release their first single, "Love Me Do" and in 1963 release their first No. 1 Hit Single, "Please Please Me". They become the most famous group in Britain, and soon become hits across Europe. The film ends when the group ventures to America and performs on the Ed Sullivan Show to a mass of screaming fans.

Tags: humor

Review:
The most blatant liberty with the facts I think is when they start to play at Bruno Koschmidder's Kaiserkeller, when in fact they played at the Indra and moved to the Kaiserkeller later.I agree with Semprinni20 that the film was biased in favour of Pete Best's version, but if he is the story consultant then I guess he calls the shots.
I also agree with Semprinni that the recordings Pete Best plays on say the last word on the subject of why he was fired.Although the film is not such a lavish production as the later film "Backbeat", I prefer this film because it is more accurate, and because it has a better script with deeper characterisation.There is plenty in the film that is quite substantial - such as Brian Epstein trying to hide the fact that he has been "queer-bashed," only to find out that the band knew he was Gay all along.
Little touches like the band going into a café and ordering "Corn-Flakes mit Milch." My favourite scene, which does have some bassis in fact, is where at an audition Stuart Sutcliffe has just bought his bass guitar but can't play it, so he stands with his back to the impresario and tries faking it, but gets caught.
This is a rather overlooked film, though one with many good points.
It goes through the now familiar story of the development of the Beatles, ending (I think) with the tragic death of Stu Sutcliffe.
Unlike the later Backbeat, which, though a good film, was flawed by its 'arthouse' approach, Birth of the Beatles tells the story fairly straightly.
But check it out anyway - the performances (particularly that of John Lennon) are very good..
A somewhat one-sided telling of the Beatles early career.
However I felt that this film reflected a certain consultant's true feelings.Now I know I wasn't there and Pete Best was, but it seems odd to me that this movie (on which he acted as a primary consultant) contradicts other people's recollection of certain events.
It seems that Best feels that his dismissal from the band was a grave injustice and a plain old bad idea.
They even go as far in this film as to say that EMI (i.e. George Martin) liked his playing, and according to George Martin himself, it was he who told the Beatles that they'd have to use a session drummer because Pete's playing just wasn't good enough.Other than these glaring discrepancies and some chronological conjecture (Stu Sutcliffe died some time after the rest of the Beatles had left Hamburg for good) this is an average made-for-TV movie on one of the greatest bands of all time..
"Birth of the Beatles", for being a US television movie, released in the fall of 1979 has actually been, so far the best movie which tells the tale of the the four lads from Liverpool that revolutionized the music industry and the world.
As told by the point of view of former Beatle Pete Best.
The performance from the entire cast is excellent but, most especially the performance by Stephen Mackenna as John Lennon and Rod Culbertson as Paul McCartney.
Who a year earlier in 1978 had produced another TV movie, that has stood the test of time starring "Kurt Rusell" in the lead role about another musical legend; "ELVIS".
That movie was directed by an unknown director named "John Carpenter" who went on to direct other successful movies such as; "Halloween","Escape From New York", and "The Thing".
The only other film that tells the story of the Fab Four that I know of,is Back Beat which had a theatrical release in 1994.
Birth of the Beatles is very charming and simplistic film that gives you the essence of the beginning of the legend and the struggles & hardships they went thru and ends at there pinnacle of success when they arrive in NYC and appear in the Ed Sullivan show in 1964.
For any knowledgeable fan of the Beatles, it feels simplified to the extreme.But on the other hand, the actors playing John, Paul, George and Ringo are good (Paul is often on the verge of overacting though) and they got the voices down!
You could listen to the movie without watching it and you would be able to tell who is speaking!
It's still a fun movie to watch, even if it's only to pick up flaws and inaccuracies!.
As a knowledgeable fan I recommend this film as faithful to the facts and well acted.
Having read the definitive book of their beginnings (by Davis) I was surprised that this movie followed the facts very well with the exception of leaving out most of the sex and some of the drug use (it did touch on the use of methadrine/dexadrine).
The major players in the Beatles story are all there, and the settings (Liverpool, Hamburg) evoke the era and are believable.
The songs come over really well - sounds like Rain were a decent band in their own right.
The early relationship between Brian Epstein and the Beatles seemed very real.
Well, Pete Best was there at the time and, as an adviser, should have helped them to get it right.
For the knowledgeable Beatles fan, the main value in this movie is to just sit back and pick out the flaws, inaccuracies, combined events, omitted events, wildly exaggerated events, omitted people, timeline errors, mis-attribute quotes, incorrect clothing, out of place songs, and (shame shame) incorrect instruments and other boners I just cant think of right now.
The flaws come fast and furious so you'll have to be on your toes.I didn't give this a "1" primarily due the fact that it is filmed in Liverpool and the actors (the band Rain) give it their all (the Lennon character is credible and does a good job).
Also, the song "Cry for a Shadow" is heard at one point and THAT counts for SOMETHING.So,,, watch it for fun, but please don't take it as historically accurate..
One of the better films about the Beatles.
In my Opinion this is one of the better films about the Beatles.
I know some arty types prefer Backbeat but I feel that this movie captures the Beatles more accurately.
I don't mean everything about the film is accurate but they capture the personality, talent and spirit of four young Liverpool lads who became the Beatles.Stephen MacKenna is outstanding as John and the other actors do passable impersonations of the others.
Brian Jameson is good as Brian Epstein and Nigel Havers is brilliant as George Martin.On stage they look and act like the Beatles and there is enough music to keep fans happy, remembering that this is the early days before they hit it really big.So for genuine Beatles fans this is a movie well worth seeing..
Love this film, but try to find the European and unedited version!.
Having just watched this film again from a 1998 showing off VH-1, I just had to comment.The first time I saw this film on TV, it was about 1981, and I remember taping it off of my mother's betamax.
It wound up taping in black and white for some reason, which gave it a period look that I grew to like.I remember very distinctively the film beginning with the song, "My Bonnie", as the camera panned over a scene of Liverpool.
I also remember the opening scene where Paul gestures to some girls and says, "Look, talent!" So it was with great irritation that I popped in my 1998 taped version and "remembered" that the film opens with "She Loves You", instead of "My Bonnie".
Also, in this "later" version when Paul sees the girls, he says, "Look, GIRLS!"..and somehow having remembered the earlier version, THAT word just didn't seem to fit, either.
Personally, if I'm going to watch a film about a British band, I want all of the British colloquialisms and such that would be a part of their speech, mannerisms, etc.Another irritation was how "choppy" the editing was for television.
What some people might find as insignificant in terms of dialogue (and thereby okay to edit), may actually go the way of explaining a particular action or scene that follows.My point is, the "best" version of this film was probably the earlier version I taped from 1981, which just so happened to include the "Shake, Rattle & Roll" scene that my 1998 version didn't.
I started to surmise that there had to have been two different versions made for television, and a look at the "alternate versions" link regarding this film proved me right.
That the American version had some shorter/cut/different scenes and/or dialogue is a huge disappointment to me and something worth mentioning if one cares about such things.
Imo, ones best bet is to try and get a hold of the European version of this film, if possible, and (probably even less possible), an unedited version.
Sadly, I had to discard my old betamax European version because I didn't know how to convert it.All that aside, I found this film to be, perhaps, one of the best films regarding the story behind the "birth of the Beatles".
Being well aware that artistic and creative license is often used in movies and TV when portraying events in history, I didn't let any discrepancies mar my enjoyment of the film.
Sure, you see the Beatles perform songs at the Cavern that made me wonder, "Did they even write that back then??
I don't think so", but, nevertheless, I thought it was a great film and the performances, wonderful.The real stand-out for me, in fact, was the actor who played John, Stephen MacKenna.
He looked enough like a young John for me to do a double-take towards the end of the film when you see the Beatles performing on Ed Sullivan for the first time.
I actually found myself questioning whether or not it was actual Beatle footage, until I saw the other actors in the scene.If you're looking for a dead accurate history of The Beatles' life and beginnings, you can't get any better than, "The Beatles' Anthology", as it was "written" by the boys', themselves.
However, if you're looking for a fun snapshot of their pre-Beatlemania days leading up to their arrival in America and you leave your anal critical assessments at the door, you can't go wrong with the "Birth of the Beatles"--a MUST for any "real" or casual Beatle fan..
Birth Of The Beatles, dating back to 1979, is a reasonable stab at presenting the pre-fame Beatles story in the context of a (made-for-TV) feature length dramatisation.Of course, it isn't 100% accurate - how could it be?
They don't always capture the essences of the individuals they portray, with one exception: Stephan MacKenna nails the young John Lennon with an uncannily accurate portrayal - voice, body language, mannerisms, everything is totally believable..
The idea of making a film about the Beatles sounds doomed idea, as no production can catch the idea of the actual historic Beatles.
This is exactly what 'Birth of the Beatles' offers to us, the simple story known to us without any extravaganza.*** SPOILERS here on *** Be warned that not everything is that accurate as some Beatles-graduates might expect.
The Beatles are seen performing songs that hardly were even composed by that time.
The Beatles perform "Ask Me Why", "P.S. I Love You" and even "Don't Bother Me".
The Beatles-graduates should see that if the Beatles on the film only performed songs that they actually did at Hamburg, the younger viewers might not anymore recognize the Beatles they have learned to know them.
Goode" and Stu Sutcliffe's "Love Me Tender" are retained.The guys who play the Beatles in this production scarcely look like the originals, but the rest of the film still make good viewing as the film is for the rest fairly accurate.
The guy who plays Lennon does it good and the rest of the band are not bad either.
Brian Epstein is great and the moment when he sacks Pete Best from the group is probably the most memorable scene in the whole film.
Another View of John & The Beatles Early Days.
As mentioned by other reviewers there are a host of inaccuracies within this version of the Beatles early days, and yet.
Too many early "Beatles" films show John as the angry young man always shouting and being nasty/violent.
While that may have been a facet of his character this simply does not equate with the comments of Tony Sheridan and some other people from those Hamburg days.
So while not a good film about a great group I would urge film buffs and especially Beatles fans to view this take to avoid getting a one sided view of early Beatles life..
I saw this film only once when it premiered on the ABC movie of the week.
What this film tries to do in a 90 minute span is tell the story of the start of The Beatles from the beginning in Liverpool.
As far as facts go there are some discrepancies.The songs that are preformed is one but the sacking of Pete Best was way off.
From reading the book "Shout" ( a must for any Beatle fan, if you can find a copy get it)That scene we all know was coming.
To me it was personal as Pete Best was involved in the making of the film.
Overall not a bad film but I always hoped that they would do a second film with the same actors to continue the history of the band leading up to the breakup.
I guess they did not think we needed to see it.My biggest problem with movies about rock bands is that they skip over things you want to see and always leave you with a happy ending (HYSTERA the Def Leppard story anyone?) If any die hard Beatle fan has not seen this movie try to find it I think you might enjoy it..
I'll give this movie a 4 just on the basis that it's better than "Backbeat" (90's art-film hogwash about the bromance between John and Stu), and it gets a little bit of a pass for being the first movie to really tackle the beginnings of The Beatles.BUT!
The actors look ten+ years older than the 20 year-old Beatles they're playing.
Especially in the early scenes the guys are treated like wacky cartoon characters; sweet, goofy, ambitious young men with a dream in their hearts!
In reality, the post-Hamburg, pre-Epstein Beatles were raunchy, groupie-screwing, foul-mouthed, drunken lunatics, Lennon especially.
I feel like this movie kinda makes them out to be boy scouts (but again, in 1979, the full extent of their hedonism probably was still pretty unknown).
Like a lot of other reviews have stated, Pete Best was the main historical consultant on this, so all the circumstances around his sacking should be taken with a grain of salt (listen to a pre-Ringo recording of The Beatles - Pete straight sucked at drums).I've said this about "Backbeat" too, but it should be noted that The Beatles were pretty notoriously terrible before they shipped off to Hamburg.
I know they only had so much time to cram in a lot of info, but the film shows very little musical growth; we just have to pretend that they were amazing from the beginning.Other things: in addition to a very polished, 1964-sounding Beatles on stage in Hamburg, there's also an overwhelmingly syrupy, dramatic-sounding score all over everything.
They have Lennon, McCartney, and Harrison being a lot nicer to Pete and Stu than they allegedly were in real life (they gave Stu endless grief for being a crappy musician, and couldn't stand Pete Best's moody "bad boy" BS).
Like in "Backbeat", Allan Williams, their first manager, is completely absent from the film.
Brian Epstein is treated like a sensitive little toddler rather than the extravagant, genius businessman he was.I dunno, I always think the main issue with these Beatle movies is that the writers never actually know enough about The Beatles to accurately capture everyone's personality/the history.
This is like watching...well, a mediocre TV movie.
It makes the most badass rock band of all time look like they belong in a stupid after-school special.
I recommend "Nowhere Boy" or "The Beatles Anthology," but this one's okay I guess, especially for how old it is..
Birth of the Beatles.
This movie receives such high praise from other reviewers, because other films about the Beatles beginnings are so bad.Contains much that is out of order and completely falsified.
Stewart Sutcliff's death is presented more than six months before it happened.The Beatles are told that they have a recording contract while in England, while actually Brian Epstein (their manager) cabled them in Germany to let them know.The first time they meet George Martin (their producer) it is actually long after they met him historically.They tell Brain they want Ringo in and Pete out before they even meet George Martin, and it was George Martin along with George Harrison who were the biggest advocates in getting rid of Pete.Dick Row (Decca executive) is presented in a scene giving his famous lone (which was actually delivered over the phone) as George Martin walks in (who worked for competing record company EMI).There are numerous of these historical inaccuracies.
There is a scene where John Lennon chastises Brian Epstein for not getting a record contract that I have never heard of.
And at that point Brian had raised their appearance fee from 16 pounds a performance to 100 pounds, making the confrontation unlikely and contrived.Also this film has the Beatles playing songs years before they were written or recorded by previous groups.The Decca recording session on January 1, 1962 presents them playing songs that are not in the actual set.Has the Beatles in the wrong costumes and playing the wrong song for their opening appearance for Ed Sullivan.Almost worthless as history, but it does have some of the music.