as the third or fourth newest member, here, i offer a welcome and a good show for the link to 'the walrus' - a pretty decent depiction of the true paul, before his probable assassination and replacement by a clown/double
Only a geezer like myself would notice this, but the phones in '1966' would have been black (or possibly green, or tan), rotary dial phones. The prop man appears to have used vintage 1983 phones in the early scenes. The hand set and chord shown at 14:38 - with rotary dial noises - is correct for the later 1960s. bzzzt. The cassette player at 3:52 - vintage 1970. Didn't exist in '66. bzzzt. The plane shown at 12:46 - probably not in commercial use in 1966. I could be wrong. bzzzt.
As for the plot itself: Not sure I got it, but to the best of my knowledge there is noevidenceatall to suggest that Faul had any role in any beatings (or worse) of Paul McCartney, nor is there any evidence that I am aware of to suggest that he sought to take the place of Paul McCartney and engaged in behavior to make it happen. NONE. If, by chance, he did, we have not seen any real evidence for that.
Nor do I find, or subscribe to, any notion that Paul was being subjected to mind control, torture, etc. while the Beatles were touring. The idea is almost patently absurd, given the circumstances.
So, for my two cents, this film is disinformation, promoting a notion held by people who weren't there.
There seems to be a group of individuals eager to demonstrate to the world that Paul is dead or replaced, and they make their 'case' with blinders firmly in place, and their minds made up about who was responsible.
I am open to being persuaded otherwise, but this film doesn't pass "Mustard" for me. If John M Hollback and company wish to be persuasive, they'll have to do better than this. There may be some 'food for thought' here, but that is about it.
I don't see how the plot of this film, as nebulous as it was, is any better or worse than any other ideas presented by other individuals anywhere else at any time. Nor did I feel an attempt was being made to persuade others of their ideas.
In fact, I tip my hat to the director for leaning on symbolism and open-interpretion suggestion rather than overt depiction. For instance, it is when Paul looks in the mirror that he sees the 'William' figure. Is he also the caped man? Is he in league with Dr. Ascher? Can't tell. Paul draws the portal on the mirror, nice touch. And I love that the pastor and 'William' were played by the same guy (Hollback).
And it seems to me like the MK-ing (or whatever it might be) was happening before the tour. Beginning in the fall of '65. Notice the autumnal setting when he finds the open book in the park and is captured by two men, then given his lip scar. (And perhaps that wasn't even the beginning of it).
"...disinformation, promoting a notion held by people who weren't there" "There seems to be a group of individuals eager to demonstrate to the world that Paul is dead or replaced, and they make their 'case' with blinders firmly in place, and their minds made up about who was responsible."
To be fair, this is how I would describe every attempt to demonstrate Paul is dead or replaced. Not saying he wasn't , but has anyone who was there ever made a demonstration?
Although I felt the depiction of McCartney was quite poor, I still give the film a B (no pun intended). No "this is definitely what happened", nice symbolism and mystery, some nice freeze-frame rabbit holes, and good production value for what it is; a fan-fic - based on the best guesses they can make. Just like every other theory anyone else has ever come up with, myself included. Nice to meet ya John M Hollback. As The Ramones say,
Usually, when we hear or read something new,
we just compare it to our own ideas.
If it is the same, we accept it and say that it is correct.
If it is not, we say it is incorrect.
In either case, we learn nothing.
~ Thich Nhat Hanh ~
Sherlock Holmes to Watson: "Never theorize before you have data. Invariably, you end up twisting facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."
Thanks for the welcome! I've been a lurker but never a poster .
Though flawed, I felt this film was at least an attempt at taking PID seriously. There have been several other independent films that depict the traditional hoax narrative, but The Walrus is the first I've come across that takes an angle based on some semblance of reality.
I felt the depiction of Paul was fairly close in spirit if not in physical attribute (ala Thomas Sangster in Nowhere Boy). Honestly, I'd rather have that than a perfect look-alike who fails to accurately translate Paul's personality. Granted, it seems the film takes a pretty optimistic view of its subject, or projects a certain innocence onto him. Whether or not the actual Paul was that way is debatable. The actor (whoever he is) did manage to smoothly mimic some of Paul's mannerisms at times, which I enjoyed.
Interesting that John M. Hollback chose to cover the period leading up to the replacement. PID tends to focus on the aftermath, because that is where the evidence rests. What actually occurred before then is anybody's guess. About the only solid lead we have is the September 11th news announcement that a Beatle had been involved in a fatal car crash. I'm interested in knowing if Hollback intends on making a sequel?
Would loved to have heard the interview. Maybe it went something like this:
DJ - can you tell our listeners what your thoughts are concerning the Paul controversy? Walrus - well, all I can tell them is a walrus had nothing to do with it. DJ - well, can you expand on that a little bit? Walrus - what's to expand? The man met a bad end and was replaced with a couple of bad actors. DJ - that's it? Walrus - well, yeah. The photo comparisons sewed it up for me. DJ - true day. Anything else, sir? Walrus - sure, tell the Navy to cease and desist Pacific operations or it's going to meet a bad end. And, I'm a girl, see, no tusks. DJ - Well, alrighty, whitey, that was our special guest, the Walrus. Coming to you live from WORK-FM, now back to the morning crew.