Chronicles the early days of The Beatles in Hamburg, Germany. The film focuses primarily on the relationship between Stuart Sutcliffe, John Lennon, and Sutcliffe's girlfriend Astrid Kirchherr.
Similar titles
You May Also Like
Reviews
Such a frustrating disappointment
Highly Overrated But Still Good
Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful
The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.
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.
I think that it's especially appropriate that "Backbeat" was released right after the 30th anniversary of the Beatles coming to America: everyone was remembering them, and then a really good movie shows their early days. Specifically, it focuses on when they went to Hamburg and met artsy photographer Astrid Kirchherr. I should identify that this movie is for mature audiences only: aside from the language and sex, it shows how John, Paul, George, Pete, and Stu got addicted to speed so that they could keep playing; as a result, they got little sleep and their eyes got all glassy as they laid awake.A really effective scene is right after Stu leaves the Beatles. Hoping to devote his life to art, he goes out and gets all drunk. Around this time, East Germany's government erects the Berlin Wall. Watching it on TV, Astrid and Klaus hold hands to be supportive of each other. When Stu sees this, he gets all violent. This scene - possibly more than any other in the movie - shows his mental breakdown.All in all, a great movie. We also see that they first met Ringo in Hamburg. I'm sure that we'll all be remembering "Backbeat" for years to come. Rock on, lads!
I really enjoyed this film, I do however doubt that i would have enjoyed it as much if it hadn't been for the absoloutely storming soundtrack made up of Fifties covers which you believe would have been played by the Beatles at that stage in their careers. Add to that the fact that the Band used to create the sound of the Beatles consisted of some of the leading musicians of the 90's. They bring their own interpretation to the music just as you believe the Beatles would have done, The only exception to this is the Drum beat which tends to sound more like the 90's than the 60's that being said it does make it more accessable to a contemporary audience.Now as for the actual film itself, It was built on an interesting story about Stuart Sutcliffe, John Lennons best friend, Choosing between music and Art, the latter enevitably wins out with the help of Astrid. Much of the story is of a Tug Of war between John lennon trying to keep him involved in the music and Astrid who sees his artistic potential. It's a story that has been played over and over again but is refreshed in the context of surrounding characters that you feel you already know.The Characteristically funny Lennon, Business like McCartney, Shy Harrison all come across very comfortably. But they are merely bit characters as this film is more about the choices of sutcliffe than it is about the fab four.
I really enjoyed this film, but I just had a little trouble with the music. It was truly terrific, but Dave Pirner sounds nothing like Paul McCartney by any stretch of the imagination, nor does Greg Dulli sound anything remotely like John Lennon. I thought it was great that they used such well-known and talented musicians as Thurston Moore and Dave Grohl, but couldn't they have found somebody that sounded a little bit more like Lennon and McCartney? Ok, enough about that. I didn't know the whole story about Stuart Sutcliffe, and I had no idea that *SPOILER* he died. That was awful. But I really enjoyed learning more about one of my favorite bands, especially since I completely missed out on their heyday. (John Lennon died about six months before I was born! Oh, the agony!) I really didn't know much about the early days of the band, so this movie was very informative. I thought all the actors looked incredibly like their real-life counterparts. I had already see Ian Hart portray Lennon in The Hours and the Times, so I knew his characterization of Lennon was awesome, and made me enjoy his performance in Backbeat all the more. I highly recommend this film to all Beatles fans and anyone interested in rock 'n' roll history.