Let me state this from the off: I've got a lot of respect for Martin Scorsese. And I'm a big George Harrison fan.
But I was so bored of this documentary that I had to leave it an hour and a half through.
The biggest problem? There was no narrative. No flow. You're given no over-arching journey or picture at all, and no purpose or drive to what unfolds. It was assumed you knew the story anyway, and so it was simply ignored (I can't imagine how confusing someone unfamiliar with the Beatles would've found the section about Astrid Kirchherr and their Hamburg days. Even to fans like myself, it was told in a way that was insubstantial and unclear) (That you're told Stuart Sutcliffe's death was difficult before you've even been introduced to him or told his relation to anyone else is one example of this).
The story was told in isolated blocks - ten minutes of George and the Beatles coping with screaming fans and hotel rooms. Followed by ten minutes of them entering the studio. - and it didn't work. Not only did it disconnect things that were actually intimately entwined, but it removed any sense of development. Things were presented in a roughly chronological way, but not such that any of it felt meaningful. "This, and then This" rather than "This, and therefore This".
It was as though someone had made two checklists, one of "Events" and the other of "Footage", and they just indiscriminately filed all of the latter into the arbitrary structure of the former.
Some of the cuts also stood out (never a good sign for a cut anyway) as really poorly done - music stopping abruptly as we cut to a talking head, or a scene with an older George inexplicably squashed in amongst something utterly different (Did it cast those shots in a different light? Reframe the meaning, recast the subject? No.)
Another real disappointment was the failure of the documentary to convey any atmosphere, sense of place or sense of character. Who was George Harrison? What were his relationships like? Nothing came across. Or how about the places and the mood of their existence, be it in hotels, or the studio, or during his childhood or in India or...again, the documentary was empty, vacant, frustrating. This was partly due to the talking heads, who didn't offer any insights or anecdotes beyond their own self-importance (Eric Clapton calling himself a "lone wolf" was inadvertently hilarious though), but also due to the disconnected, inexpressive editing.
My overriding thought throughout was "Man, this is really poorly done". I didn't expect that, I was entering this film full of excitement. But after an hour and a half of time and again catching myself saying it, I decided enough was enough. A real disappointment; one of the messiest, dullest, directionless documentaries I've seen in a long time. The subject matter deserves a much better, more sensitive, meaningful treatment.
But I was so bored of this documentary that I had to leave it an hour and a half through.
The biggest problem? There was no narrative. No flow. You're given no over-arching journey or picture at all, and no purpose or drive to what unfolds. It was assumed you knew the story anyway, and so it was simply ignored (I can't imagine how confusing someone unfamiliar with the Beatles would've found the section about Astrid Kirchherr and their Hamburg days. Even to fans like myself, it was told in a way that was insubstantial and unclear) (That you're told Stuart Sutcliffe's death was difficult before you've even been introduced to him or told his relation to anyone else is one example of this).
The story was told in isolated blocks - ten minutes of George and the Beatles coping with screaming fans and hotel rooms. Followed by ten minutes of them entering the studio. - and it didn't work. Not only did it disconnect things that were actually intimately entwined, but it removed any sense of development. Things were presented in a roughly chronological way, but not such that any of it felt meaningful. "This, and then This" rather than "This, and therefore This".
It was as though someone had made two checklists, one of "Events" and the other of "Footage", and they just indiscriminately filed all of the latter into the arbitrary structure of the former.
Some of the cuts also stood out (never a good sign for a cut anyway) as really poorly done - music stopping abruptly as we cut to a talking head, or a scene with an older George inexplicably squashed in amongst something utterly different (Did it cast those shots in a different light? Reframe the meaning, recast the subject? No.)
Another real disappointment was the failure of the documentary to convey any atmosphere, sense of place or sense of character. Who was George Harrison? What were his relationships like? Nothing came across. Or how about the places and the mood of their existence, be it in hotels, or the studio, or during his childhood or in India or...again, the documentary was empty, vacant, frustrating. This was partly due to the talking heads, who didn't offer any insights or anecdotes beyond their own self-importance (Eric Clapton calling himself a "lone wolf" was inadvertently hilarious though), but also due to the disconnected, inexpressive editing.
My overriding thought throughout was "Man, this is really poorly done". I didn't expect that, I was entering this film full of excitement. But after an hour and a half of time and again catching myself saying it, I decided enough was enough. A real disappointment; one of the messiest, dullest, directionless documentaries I've seen in a long time. The subject matter deserves a much better, more sensitive, meaningful treatment.