Originally Posted by
matt.guitarteacher
I came away from the film feeling that I understood much better what may have happened. I'd always heard about the Yoko aspect, creative departures or drugs etc. Life is complicated, and I know that all of these are factors, but for me, after watching the film, I felt something different. I thought the band seemed to be seemed to suffer from an Epstein-defficiency more than from an overabundance of anything else, including Yoko. Creatives need direction from somewhere, usually external, and I think it's an evident struggle for them throughout the film.
I know what this looks like on a personal level, as I live with a super-artistic creative type, largely disconnected from time in a linear way (schedules, goals, timelines for work, even things like actual meaning which might be interpreted from the order of events). There seems to be a direct correlation between creative openness to limitless possibility and the degree to which that very "limitless" aspect bogs things down, in terms of linear time and goals.
All artistic types deal with this to a degree, but they are usually hemmed in arbitrarily by external factors: prepping for a paying job, paying bills, making time commitments to the people that you depend on for all of these aspects etc etc. But what happens when you've reached the level where you can do whatever you want, where there are virtually no external limits? What happens when you don't clock in, and there's no one above you in terms of competency in your field etc? Then, factor in all of the "interests", financial and otherwise, who want to "help" and "advise" on what to do, when you're at the absolute top, the way that the Beatles were. Who to trust? I think, at the very least, they would have trusted Epstein as a way of outsourcing some of these debates. From what I can tell especially watching this, his absence left a pretty huge vacuum in terms of direction.
In the film, the numerous "summits" about what to do gave me a sinking feeling, because I know what it looks like at a personal level. They don't necessarily go anywhere, and in the film, they always bogged down into philosophical "meaning" questions which stopped them actually planning to do anything. These "what's it all for?" discussions mostly discount the "happy accident" aspect of life and the necessity of simply doing something, or even the idea that the more you do, the more opportunity for great moments.
The pivotol (and most moving) moment in the film for me was seeing Paul's rooftop performance, after witnessing the hours of debate on "what the point of it all" was. He didn't seem to be phoning it in or doing it for Ringo etc. I was struck by one aspect particularly: that he so obviously couldn't have foreseen that he actually needed and craved that moment. This type of "meaning" isn't best understood philosophically, beforehand, the way they were constantly debating in their meetings, but it's very much a kind of artistic imperative.
I think they needed that outside voice that they could trust enough to do some "arbitrary" events on a schedule. Life is full of meaningful moments which were previously unforeseen and arbitrary. Can you imagine them never having done the rooftop concert? It's arbitrary on multiple levels and required far too much emotional and creative energy just to arrive at as an event. I don't think you can discount the creative "space" which is freed up, as an artist, when you don't have to make all of those decisions. It's difficult for less artistic temperaments to appreciate the emotional drain of "basic" things like scheduling.
I just don't think there was anyone else who could be trusted as that voice to replace Epstein.
Hello from Chicago from big Mike
Today, 04:12 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos