#thoughts on

I had a lot of reservations about the festival being in the middle of nowhere

whether it would be safe for minorities, how hard would it be to get there, would it be well attended, would it be well managed?

so far, as a poc I've felt very safe. people are VERY nice here. random people will help you. multiple people in stores, just going about their daily lives (not employees) will help you and chat with you.

I can't speak for queer and trans minorities because I haven't been talking about my sexuality and I'm cis but the festival was (obviously) safe for queer and trans people

the festival was also safe for disabled people! they had an accessibility viewing deck with a fantastic view of the stage and they had an ASL interpreter. (I can't speak on all disabilities obviously, but as someone who often feels overlooked because of my disability, I didn't. I'm too used to seeing disability sections be an afterthought in the corner of nowhere)

admittedly it is not easy to get here. most people I know had to take multiple flights because Albany just doesn't have many direct flights. and it's about a 90 minute drive into Cooperstown. Ubers are quite expensive too so if you don't/can't drive or don't have someone who can with you, you're a little SOL. but the town is absolutely gorgeous and it was a fantastic choice.

the guy running the lemonade stand also told us that the brewery used to often hold music festivals but kind of fell off after the pandemic. so props to Louis for bringing that back honestly.

the brewery itself isn't hard to locate and everyone working the festival was REALLY nice. right from the guys in the parking lot to the people checking you in, to food vendors to security. everyone was lovely

attendance was fantastic. I don't know the planned capacity or how many tickets were sold but I could hear the crowd singing. and I could see a lot of people. and people were enjoying all performers. all of whom expressed gratitude to Louis for the opportunity

it was also very well managed. the hotels Louis' team reserved (at least the one I saw) was a nice place. things were structured logically and easy to find. sets all started on time. my only nit is that I wish they'd better planned/stocked festival merch. selling out in 3-4 hours of the first day is not super great. I'm hoping the crowd today will be as calm as yesterday and there won't be crushing during Louis' set.

food was kinda overpriced but I think that's pretty typical for events like these.

This right here is such a huge turning point in Jean’s road to recovery. It’s him finally hitting that point and acknowledging that what happened to him was fucked up, that he’s actually a victim of monsters.

I think the two points of comparison that really made it clear to him were:

His sister being sold. Stuart was right. He wasn’t special. If his parents could do the same thing to his sister who he loved dearly and was the last person in the world who deserved that level of cruelty, then where did that put him? If he deserved the years of torture and his sister didn’t and yet the same thing happened to them both, something doesn’t add up.

Seeing what a true loving father is like through Wymack and Kevin’s relationship. Or even just that kind people exist. I don’t think Jean really has any good examples of what a typical family was like and hearing Wymack talk about taking Kevin in simply because that’s what Kevin needed even without the knowledge that Kevin was his son juxtaposed with his parent’s cruelty probably really hit home that what happened to him wasn’t normal.

This is also the part where he cries and it makes me wonder how many years it’s been since the last time he cried from something that wasn’t forced out of him through physical pain or psychological torture. I don’t think he would cry over his situation because that would imply that an injustice was done to him and he’s been brainwashed to believe that everything that happened was something he deserved.

I just saw your tags on this post with gifs from The Hours and the Times. You said you love the movie, think it's probably the best Beatles movie out there, and that it's the only depiction of Brian you've seen that you liked.

I'm intrigued! Because I share your love of clever, literary one-shot fics, which you say this movie reminds you of, and yet: I struggled. The movie didn't move me. We did not get close.

I don't mean to drag you into a boring discussion about taste, or come at you all "explain yourself!" — it's just that your endorsement made me curious. I wonder, could you share what made you love this movie so much? Write its praises?

I'm in the mood for giving something a second chance. Maybe it's the season. ;-)

Thank you in advance!

"And so, what never was, ended."

okay well!

i think we could probably have an objective discussion about whether the film was decent or not based on parameters like what its intentions were and whether it achieved them, but the film not really moving you is a bit of a non-starter because that's entirely down to personal taste.

i imagine most of the things i might lay out as reasons for enjoying this film would be the very reasons other people didn't. its flat, low-quality black and white rendering reminiscent of arthouse films shot in the 60s? its audibly scripted, almost stageplay-like dialogue? the repressed detachment created by all the stilted distance between the characters? brilliant, perfect, exactly what i want from this dynamic in this medium. can i see how it might result in something that wouldn't move you? sure i can. it just means you like different things in a film than i do.

for my part:

i like the fact that it's under an hour. nothing is wasted, or bloated, or labouring the point. every scene is key in telling us who john is, who brian is, what their relationship is to each other inside the band and out of it, how they view and relate to their own actual or potential queerness, what their insecurities are, what their flaws are, how they might love but also hurt each other. the script is very like a stageplay, it works on a thematic rather than a realistic level, it has a literary slant, but it also pays detailed attention to character voice. it's a created, curated piece, and i enjoy the intentionality of that.

i like that it's not just a speculative piece of RPF about john's sexuality - or, it is that, but the film understands that speculating about it is the key to unlocking a wider understanding of john's character in general. in exploring this holiday with brian, we get to see how john sees other people, how he sees himself, his unwitting and deliberate cruelties, his desire for love and reassurance, his fear of abandonment and how it manifests as preemptive rejection (it's there in every conversation with brian, his pursuit of the air hostess, his expectation that anyone should want to sleep with him underscored by a disgust and displeasure that they do, his goading of the man in the club, his conversation with cynthia).

i like that there's such a clear style, direction, and tone to this film that it manages to transcend being simply a biographical movie, and stands as a queer indie film of its own merit. it has artistic, symbolic, and emotional weight, it tells us something about desire, about unrequited love, about self-hatred, beyond just how these themes might apply to brian and john's story specifically. the issue with beatles films, and with biopics in general, is they concentrate almost solely on doing impressions, and acting out a (mostly) accurate series of events. but what's the theme, what's the arc, what's the stuff that goes into making an actually good film that's not just a flat caricature? this film is less concerned with giving you its most realistic impression of john lennon (though for my part it's one of the best takes on john i've ever seen, in terms of attitude and spirit), and more with making you grapple with the reverberations of a complicated story of love and queer identity, whether you know about the beatles or not.

it also seems to me that the choice to shoot in black and white, to utilise that worn-looking, slightly blemished cinematography, and the flat sound mixing that characterises arthouse films of the 50s and 60s, is entirely deliberate. they cared about the medium when making this film, and the attention to aesthetic detail lends it a real sense of authenticity. it feels historical, like early beatles archive footage or scenes from hard day's night. there's nothing more offputting than being able to see a wigline in 4k resolution, and for someone who wants, more than anything, authenticity in their beatles rpf, this film couldn't be better, couldn't be more satisfyingly considered, both historically and artistically.

i also think the performances are just fantastic. david angus does aggreived heartache and self-inflicted self-reproach so perfectly, the way defeat and a tolerance for suffering reads in his eyes at every moment. ian hart manages to be both intentionally vicious and bluntly self-effacing, using moments of retreat and surrender to be as belligerent and provocative as his moments of deliberate attack. they are both nuanced in this portrayal, neither of them a clear aggressor or victim, both of them flawed, both of them condemnable, both of them figures of pity. the push and pull between them is fascinating, compelling, they circle each other, are curious about each other, bored by each other, reassured by each other, frustrated with each other, hate and love each other in a way that is both about them specifically, but also about what they are lacking, and what has hurt them, in previous lives and relationships.

it's just - entirely geared towards the things i like. it's a character study, it's a little arthouse festival film, it's a queer indie drama, it understands its characters, it understands its mode and medium, it knows what it wants to do, and it executes it on every level. it's a genuinely good film that convincingly and confidently speculates on john lennon's sexuality and says, hey, here's a key to understanding a really central aspect of this legendary figure - and that key is his queerness. there's literally nothing more i could ask for out of a film like this.

also not for nothing but personally my dna was rewritten back in 2006 by the confrontationally queer relationship between a young northern lad who uses his blustering ego to make sexual advances towards his older, middle-class, insecure professor in a way that is both the product of prurient intrigue and a need for validation in the film adaptation of the history boys so i can't not be predisposed to imprint on this kind of dynamic, epsecially when it's presented with the kind of literary, scripted dialogue of a stageplay that creates this incredibly satisfying precision of character exchanges that are slightly heightened, and a shade off of realistic in order to communicate something thematically relevant. there's something of dakin and irwin in john and brian to me, which is another reason why their dynamic, especially portrayed in this way, makes me so insane.

anyway, that's just my thoughts, feel free to like what you like, you know?????

I don't remember much, but I think I liked it. Also Charlie Hunnam yummy.