纪录片自媒体解说素材-新闻动态参考-“甲壳虫乐队：回来”现在是一个六个小时的迷你系列。那么，为什么觉得更多可能会更少呢？（柱子）/‘The Beatles: Get Back’ Is Now a Six-Hour Mini-Series. So Why Does It Feel Like More Might Be Less? (Column)
https://cdn.6867.top:6867/A1A/hddoc/news/2022/07/0508/1817nsojszcwt3r.jpeg“甲壳虫乐队：回来”现在是一个六个小时的迷你系列。那么，为什么觉得更多可能会更少呢？（柱子）
‘The Beatles: Get Back’ Is Now a Six-Hour Mini-Series. So Why Does It Feel Like More Might Be Less? (Column)
我是批评家，但这并不意味着我从负面角度反身陷入困境。我喜欢强调阳性，看到玻璃的一部分。因此，当6月17日宣布彼得·杰克逊（Peter Jackson）期待已久，已久的甲壳虫乐队纪录片《甲壳虫乐队：回来》（Get Beet Rece）不再是一部电影 - 现在将是六个小时的迷你系列， ，在迪士尼和感恩节周末的三个两个小时的零件中显示 - 我尽我所能抓住了光明的一面。我们现在将要六个小时，而不是在工作中几乎没有两个小时的甲壳虫乐队录像，并在1969年的两个伦敦唱片工作室里玩。这可能是一件很棒的事情。作为70年代的一个少年，我曾经从盗版岩石唱片的地下目录中订购，而我买的很多东西都是从看似无底的档案甲板上的无底宝藏中剔除的。作为“重新召回会议”（工作室会议的多个小时应该成为“让它成为”）。每次这些盗版者中的一个邮寄时，我都会坐在邮件中，我都会坐下来听它，好像在镀金一样。盗版者总是比黄金更多的沙子，但是如果您像我一样（仍然是我的）甲壳虫乐队的狂热者，他们答应在窗帘后面瞥见，越来越深入披头士乐队的神奇之谜。当“甲壳虫乐队：回来”到达11月时，世界各地的甲壳虫乐队的粉丝都会吸收新电影镜头的每一分钟，将其作为一种神圣的Verité文字解析。我将成为其中之一。这是一个问题。既然我们刚刚了解到我们即将获得更多的甲壳虫乐队，所以为什么在我的内心和肠子里，感觉不到吗？让我们谈谈我们现在知道的事情：电影。 1970年，“让它成为”是一部电影。如果你问我，一个非凡的人。它是粒状，喜怒无常的，它显示了甲壳虫乐队的争吵（在几个场景中），也向他们展示了唱歌和演奏在一起非常动人。它的时刻是，经过多次观看（我可能是那个夏天三遍，从那以后见过五到六次），这是我的灵魂：约翰和保罗在“我们的两个人”上唱着他们那肮脏的二重奏，使我们感觉到他们两个走了多远。约翰和洋子双手跳舞，与乔治的“我我我的我”的土星华尔兹舞；保罗凝视着镜头，好像直接凝视着我们每个人，就像他唱歌“让它成为”一样。小组在最后的屋顶音乐会中看的方式 - 约翰穿着他的毛皮大衣，保罗穿着黑夹克和胡须，这两个传奇伙伴现在在视觉和精神上是如此不同，整个乐队都发出了足够的声音警察是一个干燥的英国笑话，因为这似乎是对60年代的叛乱的承认：人类历史上最著名的音乐团体激发了该机构的力量，说：“拒绝它！”近年来，“让它成为”尚未可见，但在电影史上占有一席之地。这是一个漫不经心的挽歌，捕捉了甲壳虫乐队故事的一部分的一定渴望的时刻。不过，从一开始，彼得·杰克逊（Peter Jackson）的“恢复”的前提是，导演迈克尔·林赛·霍格（Michael Lindsay-Hogg）在1969年拍摄的50个小时的镜头实际上讲述了一个不同的故事：一个更加复杂，更乐观的故事。正如任何甲壳虫乐队所知道的那样，周围的“让它成为”的光环是一种神话。这部电影显示了甲壳虫乐队接近末端，并且在小组分手后被发行（所以我们感觉就像是“最后一次在一起”），但实际上，在“恢复”会议发生之后南部，甲壳虫乐队回到录音室，录制了“修道院路”，这是一张像“ Let It Be”一样愉悦的专辑，在其忧郁中是有意的。是杰克逊会给我们一个更亲密和揭示的当时甲壳虫乐队的肖像，这增加了小组的神秘感。这就是为什么“甲壳虫乐队：回来”是我梦dream以求在剧院看的电影的原因。如今，大多数音乐纪录片仅在流媒体播放，但甲壳虫乐队仍然比寿命更大。他们将整个世界变成了一个社区，并且仍然有能力将观众变成一个会众。如果甲壳虫乐队不值得大屏幕，我不知道谁是谁。但这不再发生。现在，我们所有人都坐在家里，在三个单独的夜晚分开观看甲壳虫乐队。除此之外，我不得不问：六个小时？很明显，彼得·杰克逊（Peter Jackson）爱上了这种材料，并渴望给我们更多的东西，这听起来像是一种慷慨的冲动。但是六个小时的“重新回来”是很多“回来”。 （我的好奇心是发烧的，但没有人假装这是甲壳虫乐队最伟大的唱片。）杰克逊的最后一部电影《他们不会变老》（2018年）是一部出色的纪录片《重建》第一次世界大战将这场战争的灾难性经历提升到了新的即时性，并在短短99分钟内就进行了。这是一部超越电影。不过，总的来说，彼得·杰克逊（Peter Jackson）倾向于由他的吉格（Go-big-to-to-to-Home）一面主导，这首先在“指环王”三部曲中表现出来（我在我的狡猾时刻，我想到的是九个几个小时的人穿过树林），然后在“金刚”的膨胀中，然后在令人jaw目结舌的宏伟性中夸大了“霍比特人”，J.R.R.托尔金最苗条的中年小说，分成三部该死的史诗电影。您在这里感觉到一种趋势吗？我不是在偏见“甲壳虫乐队：回来”。当然，我希望它能对甲壳虫乐队提出启示性的愿景。但是我确实很恐惧，我很合理地大声说出来。我担心的是，杰克逊（Jackson）将“重新恢复”的镜头切成六个小时，并没有完成纪律严明且苛刻的编辑工作，塑造的工作，构成精美的工作一起磨练的电影。我担心，他会给我们提供甲壳虫乐队的纪录片，而是甲壳虫乐队的文件垃圾场，这是相当于过度的特殊版本盒装的电影。将“甲壳虫乐队：重新获得”参加迪士尼的必看活动，并在某种程度上减少了甲壳虫乐队的甲壳虫乐队，以使新商品化的流媒体世界的驾驶驾驶文物减少。我们将看看这是否是（引用约翰·列侬）不仅比耶稣大，而且比我们所有人都要大的小组的合适形式。
I’m a critic, but that doesn’t mean I reflexively come at things from a negative angle. I like to accentuate the positive, to see the part of the glass that’s full. So when it was announced, on June 17, that Peter Jackson’s long-awaited, long-delayed Beatles documentary, "The Beatles: Get Back," would no longer be a movie — that it would now be a six-hour mini-series, shown in three two-hour parts on Disney Plus over Thanksgiving weekend — I did all I could to seize on the bright side. Instead of two hours of mostly never-before-seen footage of the Beatles at work and play in two London recording studios in 1969, we were now going to get six hours. And that might be a great thing.
As a teenager in the '70s, I used to order from an underground catalogue of bootleg rock records, and much of the stuff I bought was culled from that seemingly bottomless treasure trove of archival Beatle-iana known as "the Get Back sessions" (the multiple hours of studio sessions for what would become "Let It Be"). Each time one of those bootlegs arrived in the mail, in its plain white sleeve, I would sit and listen to it as if panning for gold. The bootlegs always contained a lot more sand than gold, but if you were as much of a Beatles fanatic as I was (and still am), they promised a glimpse behind the curtain, a deeper plunge into the magical mystery of the Beatles. When "The Beatles: Get Back" arrives in November, Beatles fans all over the world will soak up every minute of the new film footage, parsing it as a kind of sacred verité text. I’ll be one of them.
So here’s a question. Since we just learned that we’re about to get more of the Beatles, why, in my heart and gut, does it feel like less?
Let’s talk about the thing we now know we’re not getting: a movie. In 1970, "Let It Be" was a movie. An extraordinary one, if you ask me. It was grainy and moody and desultory, it showed the Beatles bickering (in a few scenes), and it also showed them singing and playing together quite movingly. It contained moments that, after multiple viewings (I probably saw it three times that summer and have seen it five or six times since), are lodged in my soul: John and Paul singing their raggedly touching duet on "Two of Us," making us feel just how far back the two of them went; John and Yoko dancing, hand in hand, to the saturnine waltz of George’s "I Me Mine"; Paul staring into the camera, as if gazing directly at every one of us, as he sang "Let It Be"; the way the group looked in the rooftop concert at the end — John in his billowy fur coat, Paul in his dark jacket and beard, the two legendary partners now so visually and spiritually different, the whole band making just enough noise to bring out the police, which played as a dry British joke since it seemed an acknowledgement of what the rebellion of the '60s had come down to: the most famous musical group in human history inspiring the forces of the establishment to say, "Turn it down!"
"Let It Be" hasn’t been available to see in recent years, but it has a place in film history; it’s a scraggly elegy, capturing a certain wistful moment of reckoning that’s part of the Beatles’ story. From the start, though, the premise of Peter Jackson’s "Get Back" has been that the 50 hours of footage originally shot in 1969 by director Michael Lindsay-Hogg actually tells a different story: a more complex and upbeat one. As any Beatles fan knows, the aura that surrounds "Let It Be" is a kind of mythology. The film showed the Beatles near the end, and it was released after the group had broken up (so it felt like we were seeing them "together for the last time"), but, in fact, after the "Get Back" sessions went south, the Beatles went back into the studio to record "Abbey Road," an album as pristinely gorgeous in its joy as "Let It Be" was knowingly ramshackle in its melancholy.
The hope, which I (and millions of others) have, is that Jackson will give us a more intimate and revealing portrait of the Beatles at that time, one that adds to the group’s mystique. And that’s why "The Beatles: Get Back" is — or was — a movie I dreamed of seeing in theaters. Today, most music documentaries are streaming only, but the Beatles remain larger-than-life. They turned the entire world into a community, and still have the power to turn an audience into a congregation. If the Beatles aren't worthy of the big screen, I don't know who is.
But that’s no longer going to happen. Now we'll all sit at home, watching the Beatles separately, on three separate nights. Beyond that, I’m compelled to ask: Six hours? It’s clear that Peter Jackson fell in love with this material and was eager to give us more of it, which sounds like a generous impulse. But six hours of "Get Back" is a lot of "Get Back." (My curiosity is at fever pitch, but no one pretends that this was the Beatles’ greatest record.) Jackson’s last film, "They Shall Not Grow Old" (2018), was a brilliant documentary reconstruction of World War I that elevated the cataclysmic experience of that war to a newly heightened immediacy, and did it in just 99 minutes. It was a transcendent film. In general, though, Peter Jackson tends to be dominated by his go-big-or-go-home side, which first showed itself in the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy (which I think of, in my snarkier moments, as nine hours of folks riding through the woods), then in the bloat of "King Kong," and then in the jaw-dropping grandiosity with which he inflated "The Hobbit," J.R.R. Tolkien’s slenderest Middle-earth novel, into three damn epic movies. Do you sense a trend here?
I’m not prejudging "The Beatles: Get Back." I, of course, hope that it presents a revelatory vision of the Beatles. But I do have a trepidation, one that I feel justified in saying out loud. My fear is that Jackson, in chopping the "Get Back" footage down to a gargantuan six hours, hasn’t done the disciplined and demanding work of editing, of shaping, of putting an exquisitely honed movie together. My fear is that he’ll be giving us not a Beatles documentary but a Beatles document dump, the film equivalent of an overstuffed special-edition box set. Making "The Beatles: Get Back" into a must-see event on Disney Plus reduces the Beatles, on some level, to eyeball-driving artifacts of the newly commodified streaming world. We’ll see if that’s a fitting form for a group that was (to quote John Lennon) not just bigger than Jesus, but bigger than all of us.
本文资料/文案来自网络，如有侵权，请联系我们删除。
非常不错，感谢楼主整理。。 感谢分享啊。谢谢版主更新资源。
页:
[1]