What actor could play John if his life story were made into a movie?

topic posted Tue, March 1, 2005 - 5:36 AM by  Frank
Share/Save/Bookmark
Advertisement
I saw some made for TV movie awhile back called "Two Of Us" or something like that. The guy who played John Lennon looked more like one of the brothers from the band Oasis. His accent was terribly wrong and I could not enjoy the movie because of those two points.

Now that Jamie Foxx won an Academy Award for his portrayal of Ray Charles in the movie "Ray", I'm wondering which actor might be able to pull off an Academy Award winning performance portraying John Lennon. I can't think of anyone at this moment. I'll see what you have to say first.
posted by:
Frank
Tucson
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • Hi Frank,
    I saw the "Two of Us" movie as well, and that actor drove me up the wall!
    Talk about a miscasting! He looked like Andy Warhol was playing Lennon, and he sounded like
    Benny Hill. I agree, the accent was all wrong.
    -Eric
    • Unsu...
       
      How about Backbeat people? Ring a bell with anyone? That movie was actually outstanding and you know what made it work so well ~ The actor who portrayed Lennon (and the actors who portrayed the other Beatles for that matter) was a NOBODY. You see, when you put a SOMEBODY up upon the screen they're already typecast, and you can't have a typecast portray such an an iconoclast as Lennon (It's much too disorienting and disturbing ~ most especially Julian and (LOL) Sean?!? ~ are you serious?) and expect it to work. I think one of the finest actors in the world and one who can morph himself into just about ANYONE is Gary Oldman. Oldman couldn't even fuckin' do Lennon. Please don't anybody suggest Liam or Noel!!!!
      • I agree. The boys brom Backbeat were unknown and they were very good at the parts. A lot of that had to do with the fact that they were unknown. And they looked just enough like the people they were playing to make it an excellent story.
        • Ian Hart, who played Lennon in 'Backbeat' was an excellent choice, mainly because he was a scouser and the accent was genuine. I agree with you all, the actor needs to be unknown but most of all he needs to sound right, nothing is worse than someone TRYING to sound like a Liverpudlian. xxx
          • Oh definitely a great point. Yes Ian Hart did an excellent job. He looked enough like John to be able to get the feel of the kind of person John was back then. But yes, the accent is very important.
            • I thought Ian Hart did a wonderful job too, he was the best thing in that movie.
              The music driove me crazy though!!
              I absolutely HATED the way the soundtrack recording artists were people from Sound Garden and Seattle Grunge bands. It sounded like Pearl Jam doing "Long Tall Sally" in Hamburg!
              The guitars, drums, everything about that soundtrack was so WRONG.
              But Ian Hart was great, I really enjoyed his performance.
              He captured the duality of John Lennon perfectly, without turning it into a caracature.
              -Eric
              • Unsu...
                 
                And whoever thought that Yoko might really be into a collaboration with Julian? What makes you think Yoko and Julian are close anyway? How come whenever it comes to the Lennon's and whether it's their history or presumptions that foster notions on how Lennon might be navigating his life if he were alive today that even the slightest criticism becomes tantamount to blaspheme. Somebody in this tribe once remarked to me that he couldn't get his mind around this knee-jerk reaction that people have towards being critical of Yoko Ono. I can't seem to get my mind around this knee-jerk reaction that people have towards disparaging remarks surrounding Lennon's less than admirable traits and behavior at times. I consider myself an extremely devoted Lennon fan, and his darker side does nothing to diminish his immense talent and genius ~ I just find it strange that so many fans refuse to recognize Lennon even having a dark side! As if 'All You Need Is Love' was the central motif to his day to day existence! John had a killer wit and more often than not he pulverized (and took immence, perverse pleasure in doing so at times) people with it. He had a look and tongue that could wither you beneath the table. Incidentally, towards the end of his life he had a deep dislike for the average peacenik ( the average fan is probably not aware of that) and often made fun at them. Lennon could be an extremely cruel and insensitive cat at times ~ no big deal ~ it's a hallmark of genius anyway so it's no skin off my arse. I got a laugh out of the post that claimed that Lennon had way too much integrity to have anything to do with the likes of a sellout like Elton John if he were alive today ~ again folks, Elton John happened to be one of John Lennon's closest freinds. Don't believe me? Look it up. The sixties are over people and if Lennon were living today he would be a man of the 21st century. I mean, my god, by 1980 he was just coming into his own for the first time, with sixties far behind him already.
                • I agree. John had many sides to his personality. Not always liked by the average fan (this may be one of the attractions of Paul). People tend to forget that he went through many changes those last years of his life. He was 40 years old when he was murdered and if he is like most people he would have changed a great deal more. Keep in mind he would have been 66 years old this year. A man like John would have had to change. He was not one to stay in one place in his thinking or his art. He was a work in progress and he always knew that.

                  You have to stop thinking of John as one of The Beatles and think of him as a man. A genius yes. But still a man. He was loved and he was hated. He spoke his mind and he loved some of the reactions he got. He was political but he was not stuck in the 60's. He evolved as did his music and his art.
                • Hey Danny,
                  I've read PLENTY on Lennon and The Beatles, as well as having read tons of interviews he'd done, I'm well aware of John's dark side.
                  I'm certainly not a novice Beatle fan, and I know my facts and trivia very well.
                  Lennon's dark side had more to do with his unhappy childhood and the loss of his parents. His darkness was not the product of his genious. Like any great artist, his genius was manifested in trying to find the balance between the two.
                  Yeah the 60's are over, I don't think any of us are confused about that. But in the memory of someone like John Lennon, and the music from that time period, there's a preservation of inspiration and creativity that people will always be drawn to in any decade.
                  Many people choose to see the good in Lennon because that's what inspires people. It took no talent what-so-ever for Lennon to beat his first wife, it took no great gift to get fucked up in Germany and mug sailors, it took no talent for John to beat the shit out of Bob Wooler with a shovel at Paul's 21st birthday party.
                  Who WOULD be inspired by this part of a person? So for some, choosing to see Lennon's happiness is not a choice of living in fantasy. The good works of any person are inspirational to many, and it's not being a silly hippy to be drawn to positive things. I can't STAND the stupid myth that the only valid form of art and expression is the art that was born out of pain. Think of the great art millions of people could create if they didn't have pain, unhappiness, madness and their own neurotic personalities to get in the way. Art didn't drive Van Gogh mad, poverty and no medical treatment for epilepsy did. Painting, art, was his happiness, his salvation. This is the MYTH, the artist in pain.
                  Lennon was conflicted, and he strove for balance, this is what I admire in him the most, even more than his music. He understood duality and reflected it.
                  -Eric
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    Unsu...
                     
                    You say Lennon was 'conflicted, and he strove for balance, that is what I admire in him most, even more than his music.'
                    What I'm curious about is how that statement, any way you'd like to slice it, completely contradicts the position that precedes it. At this point, I am much too tired to help you untangle it all but I must admit, it's intriguing, the words you chose to cap : PLENTY WOULD STAND MYTH. You're absolutely right Eric; people live and die for them every day.

Recent topics in "John Lennon"