|
|
Post by jerriwillmore on Apr 6, 2004 16:13:21 GMT -5
I posted about this earlier and deleted it (to make Spanky happy.) ;D It's about when I saw the 1967 anthology video. There was a scene of Paul in India strumming his guitar, I could swear his lip scar was on the other side. I wondered if he was playing his guitar as a "righty" and they flipped the tape! Anyone else notice it? Also there is a scene from MMT in which his upper lip looks swollen and wierd. Check it out.
|
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Apr 6, 2004 17:33:47 GMT -5
Can you be more specific about what part of MMT you're talking about ? What scene was it?
|
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Apr 7, 2004 17:14:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jerriwillmore on Apr 7, 2004 17:51:11 GMT -5
Holy F***!  Well, I've heard both "Pauls" are ambidextrous.... |
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Apr 7, 2004 18:28:23 GMT -5
Is it possible those shots were mirrored by accident? Maybe a closeup would show something like a shirt button which should be on the right side of the shirt. If it's not, then the shot is mirrored. It's hard to believe the Anthology editting would be that sloppy to include a mirrored shot. Unless it was another intentional clue ?  Or maybe Faul borrowed someone else's right-handed guitar. If he was originally right-handed he could probably play it both ways. I don't think the original Paul could play right-handed. |
|
Harb
Help! 
Posts: 74
|
Post by Harb on Apr 7, 2004 19:46:15 GMT -5
Well, back when Paul was learning to play the guitar the story goes that he originally thought that he couldn't play because the guitar was right handed. But when he flipped the guitar over and restrung it it felt a lot more natural.
If Paul could play ambidexrously then surely when he met John for the first time he would have just played it there and then, but no. Officially he re-tuned the guitar so that he could play it left handed.
I also find it hard to believe that Apple would reverse a clip for no apparent reason, making Paul out to play guitar right-handed. Surely, they would have mirrored him when he was playing right-handed to keep it all hush-hush.
|
|
Harb
Help!
Posts: 74
|
Post by Harb on Apr 7, 2004 19:51:25 GMT -5
Ahhh.... Here's something I've just noticed that could hold weight to the 'its just been mirrored' theory.
Look at the black plate on the body of the guitar. Because it's above the center hole, it can only be concluded that this is a left handed guitar that Paul has re-strung so that he could play left-handed. Why would he re-string a left-handed guitar to play right when they're a million times more common?
When the shot is mirrored, the plate stays at the top either way he's playing - therefore it must be a mirror. As I said before, if he was ever going to play right handed, then the black plate would turn up underneath the center hole.
|
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Apr 7, 2004 21:00:05 GMT -5
Could have been mirrored because as you said, the plate stays on top. (I noticed that too) But this is odd, the question as to why comes up again. Could be two seperate guitars as well, no big expense there. Maybe it was a transition, sorta like "training wheels" learning the comfortable way then switching to playing lefty.
|
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Apr 7, 2004 21:09:01 GMT -5
Ahhh.... Here's something I've just noticed that could hold weight to the 'its just been mirrored' theory. Look at the black plate on the body of the guitar. Because it's above the center hole, it can only be concluded that this is a left handed guitar that Paul has re-strung so that he could play left-handed. Why would he re-string a left-handed guitar to play right when they're a million times more common? When the shot is mirrored, the plate stays at the top either way he's playing - therefore it must be a mirror. As I said before, if he was ever going to play right handed, then the black plate would turn up underneath the center hole. I agree, although I think you meant to say he was playing a right-handed guitar that was restrung to play left. Which means those shots were most likely mirrored. The shirt also supports the mirror theory because it should have the outside button flap on our right, not left. Which leads me back to the theory that the Anthology editors were either incompetent or they mirrored the shot intentionally to plant a clue for the observant that he was not the original Paul! |
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Apr 7, 2004 21:18:56 GMT -5
Here are the photos in question mirrored:   |
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Apr 8, 2004 0:53:21 GMT -5
It is mirrored because of the FERN that gets in the way. Notice the fern close to him that gets in the way. When Paul plays right handed, the FERN is on his right. When he plays left handed, the FERN is on his left. Yea! for the foliage.
|
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Apr 8, 2004 4:46:30 GMT -5
Hey cool Doc, thanks! So now we are still scratching our heads as to why... As you watch it in motion, it appears to be lie left-right-left-right, etc. (or something like that) Interesting, someone once was so "religious" about how we should ignore Anthology, and yet there is this odd thing plain as day.
|
|
|
|
Post by lj on Apr 8, 2004 5:26:27 GMT -5
this reminds me of the sequence "for no one".
i don't think that a huge project as the anthology is, would be edited without care. everything must have been watched over and over and over again to make sure it was all ok and correct. so, thinking that this mirroring was accidental... i don't know... but i don't think so.
... bad spelling... and i noticed about it a day after, yes...
|
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Apr 9, 2004 0:03:48 GMT -5
Deliberate incremental exposure?
Just a guess.........
|
|
|
|
Post by LarryC on Apr 14, 2004 8:09:38 GMT -5
I'll just add my 2 pennies worth and say that many of us have been looking so closely at pics of Paul lately that we are able to see little subtleties which can tell you if a pic has been flipped or not. Perhaps the most significant would be his nose. If his nose is not angled slightly to the left side of the photo, then it's been flipped. Paul's nose is slightly crooked, angling slightly to his right/our left.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Apr 14, 2004 8:14:16 GMT -5
You are right....I see that now..........
|
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Jul 4, 2004 22:41:23 GMT -5
this reminds me of the sequence "for no one". LJ, are you refering to the part where just as Paul is singing "she knew someone but now he's gone", they show Paul looking straight at the camera, then down. That leaped out at me as I was watching it. It's also interesting that they chose that song to do the touring montage since it was probably one of Paul's last studio recordings. |
|
|
|
Post by LarryC on Jul 20, 2004 18:19:05 GMT -5
LJ, are you refering to the part where just as Paul is singing "she knew someone but now he's gone", they show Paul looking straight at the camera, then down. That leaped out at me as I was watching it. It's also interesting that they chose that song to do the touring montage since it was probably one of Paul's last studio recordings. Revolver is this Anthology footage? I don't believe I have that disk any longer...my collection has a hole in it between Anthology 6 and the Special Features disk  You know, I just thought of something that may be of some merit regarding the mirrored frames from India...that footage may have been intended for a music video at one time. In the '60's mirroring frames was a common thing merely for effects...most of them you see in a split-mirror format, but sometimes you'll see them mirrored like that just because someone is trying to be creative. Just a thought. |
|
