He's Only Evil On Weekends

But the way in which he closes his eyes & puts his entire self into signing the song’s final words here = beautiful 🥹

Their decision to live together caused a lot of comment at the time, with the sexist assumption that Paul can’t have asked her. It’s worth questioning that. Given her general assertiveness, if 1966 Jane had wanted to marry before cohabiting, I’d be surprised if she had settled for anything else.

Of the two of them, Paul is *much* more committed to marriage as a concept. He comes from a background where early marriage was the norm, and had always seen it as part of his future. Jane was less conservative. Interviewed in 1969, she goes out of her way to say that she’s “not in the least disapproving of anyone who had a baby without being married first.” She went on to do just that: her first child with Gerald Scarfe was born in 1974, but they didn’t marry until 1981.

In Many Years From Now (where we know he’s downplaying Jane’s role in his life), Paul comments: “Once or twice we talked about getting married, and plans were afoot but I don't know, something really made me nervous about the whole thing.” That “Once or twice” suggests an ongoing conversation - which matches what they told Hunter Davies: “At various times, one of them wanted to get married, but the other didn't. Jane says it was usually something happening with the Beatles, just when it looked all settled, which made her change her mind. Paul says it was her acting…”

In 1965 and 66, Paul seems more committed than Jane does. Of course, that needs lots of caveats: he was wildly unfaithful. But he’s planning a life for them as a couple, while Jane is the one holding back. This is his peak era of learning from the Ashers, exploring the London culture scene. He buys the house in April 1965, and pours time and money into remodelling it on the lines of the Asher house in Wimpole Street, installing a six-foot high triple portrait of Jane in his music room. In that context, asking her to marry him doesn’t seem like a stretch.

And Jane? Goes to Bristol for a season with the Old Vic theatre company. (Performances started in October 1965, with rehearsals before that; she was probably auditioning late spring or summer.) So she decides to move away for a year, just as Paul is getting their soon-to-be-shared house ready.

That’s a big, conscious choice. In an interview in 2004, Jane reflected on turning points in her career: “There was definitely a mini fork where I could have done a film or gone to Bristol for a season. Theatre was what I really wanted to do at that stage - not that I didn’t and don’t want to do films, but it was more interesting at that time to go and build up my craft at Bristol and do a lot of good work.”

In a repertory theatre season, you stage a series of plays with the same group of actors, who work together as a company for a year or more. For British actors of Jane’s generation, a repertory season was a classic learning experience: packing in multiple roles and genres, coping with very fast turnarounds, trying things you might not be cast for in a standalone production. It’s intense and very demanding. A film probably meant a few weeks away from home. Bristol was much bigger, long-term commitment.

For Jane, it was also a change of mind. In the February 1965 issue of 16 Magazine (published when Paul was already house-hunting), Jane told Alan Freeman: “I was offered two years at Stratford [ie., a repertory season with the Royal Shakespeare Company], but it would have meant leaving so many things that mattered to me - friends… and everything.” (Sentimentally, Freeman comments, “She didn’t go deeper but I’m sure I know what she meant.”)

So at the start of the year, Jane turns down a repertory season, specifically because she doesn’t want the impact it would have on her personal life. By summer, her priorities have flipped. What changed?

It’s possible that she regretted her Stratford decision. The Royal Shakespeare Company’s 1965 season was a hit, including a youth-conscious Hamlet with David Warner’s hero suggesting a modern student, and future Oscar-winner Glenda Jackson as his Ophelia. Maybe Jane looked at it and thought, “That could have been me.” Maybe she was tempted by the shorter Bristol season (one year, rather than signing up for two in Stratford). The Bristol Old Vic was less high-profile than the RSC, but was still a respected theatre that would look good on her CV. She was 14 years into her career, and had made the leap from child star to ingenue; Bristol would give her credibility as an adult actress.

Jane as Juliet in Bristol, with Frank Middlemass as Friar Laurence and Gawn Grainger as Romeo. David Warner as Hamlet for the Royal Shakespeare Company. Paul visiting Jane in Bristol

What about the personal side? I suspect she got cold feet. At the start of 1965, she told Alan Freeman that she wanted “The same as every other single girl, Alan. To eventually get married and have children.” Eventually, not right now. She helped Paul find and decorate Cavendish Avenue, but maybe he was going too fast for her. Bristol would give her space to slow down, to live independently, rather than taking the old-fashioned route of going straight from her parents’ house to her romantic partner’s. And it would be a break from the Beatles, from living with Paul’s fans camped outside her door.

Jane had every right to pursue her craft and ambitions, to resist being rushed into wifehood. More generally, the way the Beatles pressured their wives and girlfriends to give up work is appalling. But - much to my own surprise - I can see why Paul took her choice of Bristol as a rejection. It’s possible to be both in the wrong and have cause for hurt - both/and, not either/or. If I’d bought a house with my partner, planning a life together, and they immediately picked a year-long job in a different city, a job they had previously avoided because it was hard on relationships? I think I’d feel hurt. His reaction isn’t only sexist bullshit (though sexist bullshit is still very much present). It’s my impression that this is when Paul starts being a dick about Jane’s career. Before that, he actually seems quite supportive: regularly travelling to see her performances outside London, visiting her on movie sets, being her arm candy at premieres. It’s with Bristol that he starts bitching.

MYFN has an oddly vivid little description of I’m Looking Through You: “Written in Paul's attic room at Wimpole Street, surrounded by the evidence of Jane and her family, the lyrics are unusually specific and personal for Paul, who normally preferred to universalise his songs.” Miles then quotes Paul: “This one I remember particularly as me being disillusioned over her commitment” - which is a telling choice of word. He did “universalise” For No One, a later fight-with-Jane song. It becomes a breakup song, emphasising the fear of being left behind as the woman moves on. She no longer needs him.

They didn’t break up then, but from this point on, they’re on different trajectories. And I wonder about the what-might-have-beens. How differently does the story play out if Paul and Jane had married in 1965 or 1966? His idea that it’s only infidelity if you’re married is bizarre and terrible, but he’s consistent about it, changing his behaviour after marrying Linda. That said, the 1969 change was reinforced by depression and huge life changes. Would he have done that for Jane, while the Beatles were still touring? (Seems unlikely.) How would marriage/commitment to Jane affect his drug use, given that she hated drugs? Does he go on resisting LSD? Does he still become the cocaine elf prince of 1967? What about his Pepper-era closeness with John? What if he and Jane had had children? In 1969, she called children her “ultimate ambition” (surprising her interviewer, who expected her to pick a theatre role). She and Paul both turned out to be devoted parents. I assume that would have had a drastic impact on his priorities.