I like Danny Boyle and I like The Beatles, so why would I not like this? And therein lies a meta-question at the heart of this film - would the songs by The Beatles be popular if they were not by The Beatles?
I went to see this[1] largely off the strength of it being by Danny Boyle rather than The Beatles as there is a lot of Beatles stuff. As a director, he has an interesting collection of films and he isn’t afraid of trying things out - and they definitely don’t always work. I always thought of him as someone that likes to challenge himself and might put obstacles in his way or try to achieve the best he could with limited resources[2] . I do not think he has tried anything quite like Yesterday before - his last “feelgood” film I recall was Slumdog Millionaire and that had rather a lot of torture and pain for a proper feelgood film.
Yesterday’s setup is pretty simple, a jobbing singer-songwriter (Jack) is having trouble getting anyone to like his self-penned songs as he plays around local pubs and hotels Suffolk. Having played yet another poorly received gig in a small tent at the Latitude Festival, he decides to jack it all in - fed up with it all. Although his friend and manager, Ellie, tries to persuade him otherwise, he has had enough. And in this daze, he cycles off confused, annoyed and frustrated by it all. This state of mind isn’t conducive to safe cycling at night, especially in conjunction with a weird blackout and leads to him being hit by a bus. When he comes around he finds himself in a world where the Beatles have not existed - but he still knows all the songs. This, he discovers after singing “Yesterday” to some friends and discovering that they really like it (although, comically, it is hardly “Fix You” by Coldplay). What a power to have. It leads to a meteoric rise - but what happens after the rise?
The film answers the question of the Beatles’ songs by saying, “Yes, they would still be hugely popular”. Bereft of context, musical narrative and some of the pure innovation of The Beatles, yes, they would still be popular if heard for the first time. In this instance, the pure songwriting of The Beatles is being tested with no play made to the instrumentation nor the avant-garde production techniques pioneered George Martin. But that is just the music - none of the extra-curricular elements, none of the charm of the Fab Four, no Beatlemania, no Wings[3] , no Imagine, no Thomas the Tank Engine, no Concert for Bangladesh. In a way, the absence of all of these elements to concentrate on just the music makes you realise what an amazing force they were in just over seven years (1963-1970). And what music.
The questions asked of me when watching this, however, were slightly different to the original one. Of course, it is still a point to ponder how much we can ever separate the art from the author and whether some of that art would ever have got a fair listen without the weight of previous history. But I think we can all agree that an album with Octopus’ Garden[4] would be unlikely to be a multi-million seller without The Beatles previous work!
The creative process is a mystery to most of us and there is an argument to say that competence is doing something we know of very well but genius is doing something that most cannot even comprehend. So, within the film, when Jack is asked where all these songs are coming from, he can appear to legitimately say he doesn’t know. He keeps drawing from the well as he needs to but he is effectively communing with another world and drawing influence and inspiration from the multiverse. Is this really what genius is? I am not sure the film presents[5] it like that - this isn’t a metaphysical exploration of the creative process - it is a much fluffier film than that. This is fundamentally a feelgood romantic comedy and more Richard Curtis than Danny Boyle.
Throughout the film, Jack is drawing on the past and so he knows that it is not creative, he comes up with post-hoc justifications but he knows himself that it is not real. There are some nods to imposter syndrome here which I kept returning to - the belief, or fear, you are about to be found out as a self-promoting charlatan is one that I have (and one I wish some more people in government had). Again, I am not sure that it was meant to be presented as such but the exploration of this theme did end in people just being happy about good things rather than wanting to see Jack’s failure.
As a film then, I have to say that it lacked some of the flourishes I was hoping for and really was played pretty straight. To go back to the premise, this was not something I could have pegged as a Danny Boyle film particularly. The whirling nature of the bus collision (which is very early within the film) was the closest I felt to directorial flair. The soundtracking at this point alludes to Beatles songs without being explicit - it felt very much like “A Day In The Life” and this method is used through the film. It is fairly subtle but will set the mood for the scene without quite being the “fanservice” that many will want. There are some interesting shots sprinkled in but nothing that really sears into your mind’s eye. But, sometimes flair just gets in the way and I think this simple film is not trying to be provocative or trying too much. Similarly, thinking too much about time warps like this is not worth the effort - be comfortable with suspending your disbelief.
The questions asked of me by the film are less relevant than the questions asked of me by people talking to me - “would I recommend the film?”. Yes. It is enjoyable crap - simultaneously memorable due to the content and yet fairly forgettable due to the softness of the whole thing. And sometimes, that is exactly what you want - whether you know it or not. It is genuinely quite a happy film with the skeleton of a great soundtrack - but the real songs are better.
It may not be the best film I have seen with a title shared with a Beatles song (that would be Helter Skelter) but definitely worth watching for fans and non-fans alike. If nothing else, I hope some people are introduced to the complete spectrum of music of The Beatles[6] as then the world really does end up being a better place.
The trailer:
I went to see this[1] largely off the strength of it being by Danny Boyle rather than The Beatles as there is a lot of Beatles stuff. As a director, he has an interesting collection of films and he isn’t afraid of trying things out - and they definitely don’t always work. I always thought of him as someone that likes to challenge himself and might put obstacles in his way or try to achieve the best he could with limited resources[2] . I do not think he has tried anything quite like Yesterday before - his last “feelgood” film I recall was Slumdog Millionaire and that had rather a lot of torture and pain for a proper feelgood film.
Yesterday’s setup is pretty simple, a jobbing singer-songwriter (Jack) is having trouble getting anyone to like his self-penned songs as he plays around local pubs and hotels Suffolk. Having played yet another poorly received gig in a small tent at the Latitude Festival, he decides to jack it all in - fed up with it all. Although his friend and manager, Ellie, tries to persuade him otherwise, he has had enough. And in this daze, he cycles off confused, annoyed and frustrated by it all. This state of mind isn’t conducive to safe cycling at night, especially in conjunction with a weird blackout and leads to him being hit by a bus. When he comes around he finds himself in a world where the Beatles have not existed - but he still knows all the songs. This, he discovers after singing “Yesterday” to some friends and discovering that they really like it (although, comically, it is hardly “Fix You” by Coldplay). What a power to have. It leads to a meteoric rise - but what happens after the rise?
The film answers the question of the Beatles’ songs by saying, “Yes, they would still be hugely popular”. Bereft of context, musical narrative and some of the pure innovation of The Beatles, yes, they would still be popular if heard for the first time. In this instance, the pure songwriting of The Beatles is being tested with no play made to the instrumentation nor the avant-garde production techniques pioneered George Martin. But that is just the music - none of the extra-curricular elements, none of the charm of the Fab Four, no Beatlemania, no Wings[3] , no Imagine, no Thomas the Tank Engine, no Concert for Bangladesh. In a way, the absence of all of these elements to concentrate on just the music makes you realise what an amazing force they were in just over seven years (1963-1970). And what music.
The questions asked of me when watching this, however, were slightly different to the original one. Of course, it is still a point to ponder how much we can ever separate the art from the author and whether some of that art would ever have got a fair listen without the weight of previous history. But I think we can all agree that an album with Octopus’ Garden[4] would be unlikely to be a multi-million seller without The Beatles previous work!
The creative process is a mystery to most of us and there is an argument to say that competence is doing something we know of very well but genius is doing something that most cannot even comprehend. So, within the film, when Jack is asked where all these songs are coming from, he can appear to legitimately say he doesn’t know. He keeps drawing from the well as he needs to but he is effectively communing with another world and drawing influence and inspiration from the multiverse. Is this really what genius is? I am not sure the film presents[5] it like that - this isn’t a metaphysical exploration of the creative process - it is a much fluffier film than that. This is fundamentally a feelgood romantic comedy and more Richard Curtis than Danny Boyle.
Throughout the film, Jack is drawing on the past and so he knows that it is not creative, he comes up with post-hoc justifications but he knows himself that it is not real. There are some nods to imposter syndrome here which I kept returning to - the belief, or fear, you are about to be found out as a self-promoting charlatan is one that I have (and one I wish some more people in government had). Again, I am not sure that it was meant to be presented as such but the exploration of this theme did end in people just being happy about good things rather than wanting to see Jack’s failure.
As a film then, I have to say that it lacked some of the flourishes I was hoping for and really was played pretty straight. To go back to the premise, this was not something I could have pegged as a Danny Boyle film particularly. The whirling nature of the bus collision (which is very early within the film) was the closest I felt to directorial flair. The soundtracking at this point alludes to Beatles songs without being explicit - it felt very much like “A Day In The Life” and this method is used through the film. It is fairly subtle but will set the mood for the scene without quite being the “fanservice” that many will want. There are some interesting shots sprinkled in but nothing that really sears into your mind’s eye. But, sometimes flair just gets in the way and I think this simple film is not trying to be provocative or trying too much. Similarly, thinking too much about time warps like this is not worth the effort - be comfortable with suspending your disbelief.
The questions asked of me by the film are less relevant than the questions asked of me by people talking to me - “would I recommend the film?”. Yes. It is enjoyable crap - simultaneously memorable due to the content and yet fairly forgettable due to the softness of the whole thing. And sometimes, that is exactly what you want - whether you know it or not. It is genuinely quite a happy film with the skeleton of a great soundtrack - but the real songs are better.
It may not be the best film I have seen with a title shared with a Beatles song (that would be Helter Skelter) but definitely worth watching for fans and non-fans alike. If nothing else, I hope some people are introduced to the complete spectrum of music of The Beatles[6] as then the world really does end up being a better place.
The trailer:
2. For example, I thought he made Trance as an object lesson in what was the best you could do with a terrible film.↩
3. Wings? Who are they? Only the band The Beatles could have been. ↩
4. I use this for effect, I quite like it actually and is a component of probably my favourite album by The Beatles - Abbey Road.↩
5. But, how the film presents itself and what I get from it is often not the same thing.↩
6. as I was only ten years ago with the album re-releases↩
No comments:
Post a Comment