Beatles Get Back documentary

I remember reading a quote from John Lennon saying something like he thought that Phil Spector had done a great job on Let It Be considering the load of crap that we gave him to work with.

It's simply amazing what Jackson has done with the picture quality.

Looking at Let It Be and then at Get Back and it's hard to understand the difference in image.

One looks dark and grimy and the other looks bright and clear, uncannily clear, (some might say digitally artificial).

Some of the differences are due to the original being shot on 16mm as a documentary and then, shock horror, pan and scanned onto a 35mm film for cinema release to satisfy their contract with United Artists.

I've already signed the online petition for Disney to allow Jackson to release an extended version with 5 /6 extra hours.

Why not?

Nothing else gives a better insight into how the Beatles worked and much of the Abbey Road is here in the making.

https://ultimateclassicrock.com/peter-jackson-get-back-extended-edition/

This is one of the most rewarding, amazing films I’ve ever seen.

Comparing it to other films is difficult as it is unlike most films, even unlike most documentaries.  It is not a typical documentary. It’s closer to an archeological project than, say, “Grey Gardens,” “Hoop Dreams,” or, “Crumb.”  While Michael Lindsay-Hogg certainly did a great job filming in 1969, “Get Back” belongs to Peter Jackson.  With a total of 60 hours of video and 150 hours of audio to exhaustively scrutinize and edit into a beautifully-made, 8-hour, 3-part film, Peter Jackson and his colleagues ultimately created, in my opinion, something akin to a world treasure.

Jackson had me at the opening montage sequence.  He spends only 2 minutes putting the viewer in perfect historical context as to why we are watching this footage in the first place.  After only 2-3 minutes, he masterfully puts the viewer in January 2, 1969 Twickenham Studios, circa 9:00 am, as the workers sweep the studio floor and set up the gear for Day 1 of the recording sessions.

From then until the end of the film, one need not be a music fan, let alone a Beatles fan, to be completely gripped throughout the 470-minute running time.  The level of intimacy afforded the viewer to the personal relationships and real-time creative process of a ridiculously famous band under massive pressure is simply astonishing.

If one is interested in watching an unflinching depiction of this, rendered with incredible video/audio quality and masterful editing, it’s a must-see.  For Beatles fans, it’s essential viewing.

I watch lots of movies of all kinds. Again, it’s apples and oranges comparing “Get Back” to classic fiction and non-fiction. Either way, I can’t think of many films I’ve found more deeply rewarding.

@fjship I feel that the relentlessly over-flogged message in the media that preceded the film’s release (aided and abetted by Paul and Ringo themselves) and the reinforcement of such by the media following the film’s release should be discarded and ignored.  

The tired and trite message the public was pounded with ad nauseam was:

”Look! The Beatles weren’t so mired in strife and lackluster creativity! Look how happy they were!  This will ‘change the narrative’ of Beatles history, blah, blah blah…”

One should forget all that noise. The fact that they were at their lowest point is the reason the film is so gripping.  Us Beatles fans would rather watch 8 hours of sessions from their halcyon days, but that footage may not necessarily make a more compelling film.

Due to the trite messaging of the media blitzkrieg that preceded the film’s release, I was worried that Peter Jackson may have been too biased towards depicting harmonious relationships and successful, triumphant achievements, and too quick to jettison honest depictions of the inherent strife and lackluster productivity of those sessions. I was very relieved, after watching the film, that he did not do these things.

I intend to eventually watch Get Back, even though I have found the album from the day it was released to be grim and unbearable to listen to (I still have my original UK LP). They sound so tired, so "done." "It’s" obviously over, they’ve all outgrown The Beatles. Well, maybe not Ringo ;-) .

But their imminent demise was of no concern to my mates and I, as there were far more interesting new bands and solo artists vying for our attention. For hard rockers there were Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath (no musicians I knew liked either, only stoners), for LSD lovers Pink Floyd and The Grateful Dead,, for Roots Rockers (who already missed Buffalo Springfield and The Lovin’ Spoonful) there were the emerging Americana bands and solo artists (okay, singer/songwriters): The Band, Little Feat, Ry Cooder, Randy Newman, Neil Young & Crazy Horse, C, S, & N, Fleetwood Mac (original line-up), Moby Grape, The Flamin’ Groovies, The Flying Burrito Brothers (and shortly thereafter Gram Parsons solo, as well as Emmylou Harris), Dan Hicks, Commander Cody, plenty of others. Even Jazz was "infecting" Rock ’n’ Roll, leading to a lot of looooong "songs" featuring musicians one-by-one soloing. Yawn ;-) . Progressive Rock (the blending of Jazz and Classical) was developing a very large audience, and the "The 60’s Are Over" party was just getting started.

Even before Get Back appeared---in fact before Abbey Road had, The Beatles were starting to sound as passe to me as had the "teen idols" when Meet The Beatles changed the world overnight in 1964. Unlike perhaps many of you, I am ambivalent about Abbey Road. By the time it appeared, I had already moved on. For me The Beatles peaked in 1965-66: the Rubber Soul, "Paperback Writer" b/w "Rain", "Strawberry Fields Forever" b/w Penny Lane", Revolver era.

I saw and heard The Bealtes live in the summer of ’65 in S. San Francisco (having passed on doing so in ’64, at that point in time still not loving them), and was not overly impressed. By that time I had already began attending local shows in San Jose, seeing all the legendary Garage Bands ya’ll may have heard of (Rock ’n’ Roll historian Greg Shaw proclaimed San Jose "Garage Band Ground Zero"): The Chocolate Watchband, The Syndicate Of Sound, Stained Glass, People, many others. The next year it was up to The Fillmore and The Carousel and Avalon Ballrooms to see not just the new stars (Cream, Hendrix, etc.), but also the old Blues guys whose careers were being revived by their young white imitators (Clapton, Page, Peter Green, etc.). Thanks to them and Bill Graham I got to see and hear the likes of Albert King. OMG!

The popular music of the mid-late 60’s now appeared to have been more Pop than Rock, and the future of Rock ’n’ Roll music was going to be defined more by musicians than songwriters. The Beatles were better songwriters than musicians, at least in terms of the Rock ’n’ Roll standards becoming dominant in the late-60’s (virtuosity). When The Beatles "picked themselves up" to do those last two albums, George Harrison hadn’t played guitar in two or three years (that damned sitar ruined him as a musician imo), Ringo’s timing had gone to hell, and they hadn’t played live in three years. They weren’t a Band, they were a Pop Group. And the days of Pop Groups was over, just as had been the days of the Teen Idols when The Beatles first appeared.