George Harrison: Living in the Material World

Why did Martin Scorsese decide to make a film about George Harrison? Why did he decide to make a film about the Dalai Lama? Or The Age of Innocence? While this is another documentary about a rock-star icon, following along from Scorsese's own The Last Waltz, No Direction Home: Bob Dylan and Shine a Light, it's closest in style and tone to the Dylan doc, as a profile of a man of his time and how he lived through it.

Unlike Dylan, who is a mystery even to the most curious of fans (or just one of the more obnoxious, depends how you look at it), George Harrison seems to be, from accounts and interviews, to be a man of spiritual and artistic integrity who had various concerns and ideas, and he expressed them throughout his life - or, if not in the recording studio or as a producer of films, then with his garden. One may not be able to find the link between the sarcastic (if 'quiet') kid from A Hard Day's Night with an old man in a garden (or for that matter the old man having to defend his life against a burglar, as he did, in 1999), but it's all here.

I may not have found Harrison quite as enlightening as Bob Dylan, but should he be? Maybe in his own simple way though Scorsese finds a more direct path or personal link to him through the spiritual side. Harrison was someone who found through the Maharishi, Indian music, transcendental meditation, some kind of path through the noise of Western civilization.

The clash is what's interesting here, and Scorsese knows it too. While the director is fascinated with BIG emotions in his films (see anything with De Niro for more on that), he's also fascinated how someone operates with a calm demeanor on the surface burning with emotion underneath. Harrison was the guitarist for the Beatles and then when the break-up happened, he had to break-off and find another way. He was still a pop star, and his first solo album, the great 'All Things Must Pass' went into the top ten of the charts. But how did he reconcile a working class British-Liverpool upbringing with the teachings of Haria Krishna?

Of course, the first hour of this massive three 1/2 hour films are dedicated to him and the Beatles, and it's wonderful to see the footage, hear the songs, find out some details about the songs Harrison wrote for the group (i.e. the first song he ever wrote, 'If I Needed Someone'). Then the second part is about the spiritual search, or what's close to it, mixed with the start of the solo career (and of course some of the famous tales of romantic highs and lows via Patti and Eric Clapton are included).

There's a section for the film-part of his career, where as a man of faith, though not exactly (it's complicated you see) he helped pay "the most ever anyone's paid for a movie ticket" for Monty Python's Life of Brian. And then about his gardening, his second wife Olivia (and - kind of a shock to me - the candor which Olivia, who was a producer on the film and wrote the book spin-off of the film, talks about Harrison's infidelities in their marriage, something I really admired), and other things like friendships, the burglary in 1999, and his untimely passing from cancer.

It wouldn't be a Scorsese movie without music, and hey, it's George Harrison so there's lots of good stuff here (sadly, for me, no 'I Got My Mind Set on You'), and there's the director via editor David Tedeschi's marvelous way of navigating the story with music. Watch the opening and how 'All Things Must Pass' goes over the WW2 footage, then mixed in with some of the more traditional music of the 1940's period to see some of the brilliance with which Scorsese does this. And the interviews are mostly illuminating and nice, once or twice piling on the adulation (perhaps as one might expect) while still giving some moments for the quirks Harrison had - such as a story Tom Petty tells about ukuleles - and some of his flaws as a man and artist.

I'm not sure if for fans the film will shine a whole lot of new light, though for newcomers it should provide the bulk of know-how. What's great about the film ultimately is the thread of the story, and how the filmmaker is not afraid to jump around, or jump ahead, and expect the audience to keep up. It's not as straight-thru as, say, The Beatles Anthology. We're seeing a life in various dimensions, time-spans, and it's as if not more post-modern than the Dylan doc. It's joyous, meditative, somber, happy, funny, a little daft and a little less than perfect. I can't wait to revisit the life and work.

I had very low expectations- I have seen so many movies about the Beatles and they all use the same tired old video clips we've all seen a million times.

Much to my surprise, most of the material was fresh , amazing material that I'd never seen before.. with insights from Paul and Ringo that held me spellbound.. how George was introduced to John Lennon and the first song he played on top of a bus(watch the movie for the details) -just the little things you'd never know unless you saw the movie..

In my opinion, the first half was better than the second half, I think mostly because I knew how things would end... and I really, really didn't want it to end. But it did.

I miss George and John. It was a fantastic movie.

I liked this documentary, but it was just hundreds of bits of film footage and interviews without any explanation. Even a little bit would have been nice.

As a casual fan of the Beatles, some explanation, such as the death of Stuart Sutcliffe and why Pete Best left the band would have been good. Instead, we have pictures of five Beatles, and then someone says that John Lennon was affected by the death of Stuart Sutcliffe, and then a clip of the Beatles with Ringo Starr. No information given about Sutcliffe or Best.

No doubt most fans know the stories, but I don't. Lots of good clips are spliced together, but it seems choppy sometimes. Like Claus Voorman and his wife Astrid are interviewed about the early Beatles, and how they were providing them with food, etc., then they just disappear. A lot of loose ends. I guess after you watch this documentary, you can read some books about the Beatles?

I enjoyed all the information and interviews, but compared to other documentaries, this one lacked a narrative that connected all the clips/photos/interviews together in a timeline.

Of course you'd have to be a fan to really appreciate Martin Scorcese's extensive re- telling of the life and times of George Harrison but I am and so I presume was everyone at the sold out screening of the movie tonight at the Glasgow Film Theatre. More assembled than directed of course, Scorcese takes us through the highs and occasional lows of the man's life without signposting anything too obviously so that the near four-hour viewing time rarely drags (it was broken by a half-hour intermission at the showing I attended) and I found myself rapt with attention.

The film starts with a typically humorous, modest and elusive appearance by George seen between the flowers in his massive garden at Friar's Park, which mansion features so extensively in the footage shown that it should almost get a credit too. From there, Scorcese takes us on a linear journey dwelling on the major events in his life without markedly signposting the passage of time at any point, which I think helped the flow of the film. There was much archive photography and video footage which even a die-hard like me hadn't seen before, and the interviewees are well chosen and well edited, although I was surprised that say, Jeff Lynne or Michael Palin didn't get a look-in, although maybe Marty thought re. the latter that the presence of two other Pythons (Eric Idle and Terry Gilliam) was enough. The best of the interviewees are probably Gillam, Ringo and George's widow while the resemblance to his son Dhani is quite uncanny. The shock appearance of a now incarcerated Phil Spector, looking ridiculous in his "wig of the day" is controversial and prompted gales of laughter amongst the Glasgow crowd but he's actually surprisingly lucid. Yes perhaps Scorcese dwells too much on the Beatles time and omits his output from 1973 to 1988 almost totally - it was a mistake surely to not mark the sequence on Lennon's murder without playing even a snatch of "All Those Years Ago" and likewise to make no reference at all to his comeback hit single "Got My Mind Set On You" and parent album "Cloud Nine". Even so, while some may argue as to whether Harrison's own legacy deserves this Scorcese tribute in the wake of the great director's other recent homages to Dylan and the Stones, the fact that the audience I was among thought enough of what they had watched to spontaneously applaud at the end tells its own story, I think. As we near the tenth anniversary of his untimely death, I certainly enjoyed the movie and left convinced that George was a decent, not perfect man who while he may he have been the third most talented of the four Beatles, was more than worthy of this sincere and entertaining tribute.

How Scorsese Directed this is beyond me...from it's very awkward silent start, through its incredibly bad editing to it's interesting ending, I cannot see how Scorcese was involved, he must have Directed it on paper, and Produced it by phone but it's like they just used his name to get the never before seen footage and interviews. Like the Rolling Stones Shine A Light this proves Scorsese should just stick to making movies. It is an interesting documentary, sure, with some lovely footage and great interviews but it's not put together well...so it gets a 7, hey it did better than the very boring Stones Shine a Light which I gave 3.

I will just say it once more Martin Scorsese should stick to making Movies and stay away from aging Pop Stars... Documentary Maker he is not.