Lennon Naked

[poliphilo]

Lennon Naked is yet another TV play in which the bleeding entrails of a dead entertainer are publicly exhibited for the delectation of his or her admirers. It's not a genre I respect. In the case of Lennon- who did such a good job of invading his own privacy- the exercise seems peculiarly pointless. We already know- from copious sources- what a tortured soul/selfish bastard he was. If you want to get to the heart of his parental issues just listen to The Plastic Ono Band.

Christopher Eccleston gives a bravura peformance.  Just one small thing- actually one enormous thing: Eccleston is 46- and he is playing Lennon between the ages of 24 and 31.  John in this era was fresh-faced and plump, a bit of a cheeky chappie.  We switch from archive glimpses of him as he really was to this raddled old geezer in a bad wig- less loveable mop-top than Ronnie Wood.- and it's not a smooth transition. Youth is a partial excuse for Lennon's bad behaviour- and the casting of Eccleston rules it out of court. 

Comments

[endlessrarities.livejournal.com]

I don't like this habit of 'historicising' the very recent past in the form of historical fiction. I don't think enough water's flowed under the bridge yet. An informed doumentary? Yes. A play? No thank you...

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I agree. Things like Lennon Naked are neither one thing nor the other. They don't quite work as drama, because they're too dependent on facts- and they can't be trusted as history because too much has to be invented.

There have been so many of them recently. The best are tolerable- the worst feel like grave robbing.