The Killing of John Lennon

I have read many Lennon biographies as well as numerous detailed accounts of Chapman's life. The books that I have read go deep into his background and they explore what conclusions can be made about his thought process and motivations.

In that regard, this film presents a strikingly superficial rendering of who Chapman was and what was motivating him. While skipping realistic depth and detail, the film uses atmospheric shots, music, and creative editing to conjure an atmosphere that is in effect, an art project.

Given the subject matter, I find it distasteful.

The shots of Chapman walking around in a clearly 21st-century time square (the film is set in 1980) are silly. The randomly sped-up shots of him maniacally grimacing are irritating, and, honestly, a bit cheesy.

I will give the film credit for it's depiction of Lennon at the end, I found him strikingly life-like.

If you really want to learn about Chapman, get one of the recognized books on the subject matter and delve deep.

This film is an art-school project that reveals nothing and presents a superficial, unbelievable caricature of Lennon's murderer.

As a film, "The Killing of John Lennon" is extremely well done. It is expertly crafted. Well directed. Well acted. Well edited. Well shot. But that is a technical appraisal. I have a difficult time respecting this film because its emotional impact relies on one and only one factor, John Lennon's murder. If you do not care about John Lennon, the film has no impact. This is why this talented filmmaker chose his subject. Had he made a nearly identical fictional film that featured the murder of someone who the audience does not literally love, he'd have a film that very few would feel the need to watch. He'd also have a film that I could respect.

Instead, he has a film that Beatles and Lennon fans will watch, even if it in spite of themselves. And if Sean Lennon or Yoko Ono said, "You're raping John's corpse," well, I don't see how the filmmaker or the company that might buy and release this film could deny that in fact their money is soaked with John's blood.

The director himself was both arrogant and evasive at the Q&A after the movie. Someone in the audience asked, "Do you think Chapman would be happy after seeing this film?" Instead of answering, the director said, "I don't think he will ever get out of prison, and if he does someone will shoot him immediately." I assume that he avoided a real answer because the real answer is, "Yes. He'd be ecstatic. The fact that there's not one but two films about him will completely affirm whatever parts of his psychotic mind still cling to his desire to be someone. I've made Chapman very happy, that is for certain, even he never sees this movie." I did want to ask why he titled the film with "Killing" and not "Murder." He seemed the sort to enjoy a discussion on semantics.

I support this director's right to do the wrong thing, and only wish he'd have either chosen to not exercise it or would have made some effort, even if it were a disclaimer at the end of the film to express an acknowledgment of the exploitation and perhaps make amends for it. I am not saying that the filmmaker has to donate some or all of his profits from this film to a charity that supports the families of murder victims, but I am saying that he should. The Lennon family certainly doesn't need the profits, if there are any, from this film. And the filmmaker should not want the profits, because it is not his skills that will draw an audience but John's name and the world's affection for him.

I give this film a 4 because technically it earns a 7 and thematically earns a 1, which averages to 4.

"I was nobody, until I killed the biggest somebody on earth". The words of Mark David Chapman perfectly sums-up this Andrew Piddington biopic of the estranged murderer of John Lennon. Not only does the film track Chapman's movements in the months leading up to the fateful event, but it also follows what happened to the killer from the moment he shot the infamous Beatle, right through to his committal into a psychiatric hospital. The unknown Jonas Ball's portrayal of Chapman is splendidly subtle and disturbing and combined with the artful and experimental direction of Piddington, 'The Killing of John Lennon' makes for an aesthetically pleasing yet chilling examination into the mind of a killer who just wanted to be famous.

I watched this film on pay per view mainly because I remember that day so well. It's hard for me to say exactly why, but I don't think the film quite works. Somehow the character development didn't click for me. The film was a bit slow moving, and I didn't like the occasional surrealistic asides showing him freaking out, descending into madness.

Technically, there were many flaws. They didn't try very hard to get the period right, other than obvious things like his haircut, car, and the 1980 presidential campaign. Also, I recall reading that part of Chapman's motive was that he was a rigid Christian, and he still smarted from Lennon's offending of the faith way back in the 60s. I think he had been some sort of youth counselor as well.

Overall, there was too much of an amateurishness to the production for me to recommend.

Seen at the IFF Rotterdam, 1 February 2007.

Expecting little more than an arty exercise in film-making, this turned out to be an exceptional film. Despite its low-budget, this independent feature is a supremely well-made, handsomely filmed and fascinating psychological journey into Mark Chapman's twisted mindset, from his background in Hawaii till his dramatic encounter with John Lennon outside the Dakota building.

Piddington largely based the film on Chapman's detailed diary entries and makes extensive use of voice-over, turning the film into an almost dream-like experience. Shot entirely on locations in Hawaii, Georgia and New York, it's remarkable how he achieved to give the locale - New York in particular - the necessary sleazy and grim 1980 look. In one scene, we see Manhattan through the dirty windows of a taxi cab. When looking carefully, some modern cars can be spotted and some modern neon signs, not around in 1980, but the photography is such, even these small anomalies don't matter at all.

Newcomer Jonas Ball captivates completely as Mark Chapman, filled with narcissistic resentment and anger, desperately looking for a way out of Honolulu, destined to make some kind of claim to the outside world. Although we know exactly what's going to happen, his every encounter he has becomes frightening, even when we know the only person he ever harmed was Lennon. When he picks up a copy of J.D. Salinger's "A Catcher in the Rye", this becomes his everyday bible and its main protagonist, Holden Caulfield's, loathing of 'phoneys', leads Chapman to think Lennon is the biggest phoney of all.

In an interesting Q & A with the director afterwards, Piddington said he based everything on firm, hard evidence and tried to make the film as factually accurate as possible. He even challenged the audience to find factual errors in the film. Not that factual accuracy is that important to me, but he surely set out to make this with a clear factual approach, largely based on press cuttings, police files and books about Chapman.

One of the interesting things about Chapman's psychology is that he didn't have a lifelong obsession with John Lennon. He randomly picked up a book from the shelf in the local library with photos from John Lennon, but if he would have read a book about The Rolling Stones at that time, 'it would have been Mick Jagger all over the sidewalk', according to Piddington. His obsession was largely self-centered. He wanted to be famous. The murder didn't follow out of any reasoned hatred against the person of Lennon himself. Lennon was a phoney, but George C. Scott was on his list too.

Mark Chapman is also the first known case of a celebrity stalker. I'm sure there were cases of stalking before, but no-one was even convicted for stalking before this case, let alone murdering a celebrity. In a certain way, Chapman might be the first true example of a 'modern stalker', a media-driven obsessed man, longing for media fame himself. 'I was nobody', he claimed,'until I killed the biggest somebody in the world.' When incarcerated and watching the news about Reagan's assassination attempt, he exclaimed they got the idea from him. Actually, it was Jodie Foster in TAXI DRIVER that sparked that one, but Chapman's actions might have given the definitive push.

If there's any minor knit-picking, keeping this from hitting the bulls-eye completely, is would be the ending. It seemed like the last half hour consisted of one climax after another, like Piddington wasn't sure how to wrap it up. It didn't really matter to me, because the film kept me in a state of trance till the very end, but if I were the producer or a potential distributor, I would demand some reworking of the ending. But this a very minute reservation about an otherwise great film, that clearly deserves a run at bigger markets. Highly recommended.

Camera Obscura --- 9/10