Obviously, you're the target audience, and there's no snark at all in me saying that. I know a number of people who are really excited by this project and a number who have been driven crazy by it. I am a fan of what went into this.
That said, I am an Orson Welles obsessive, so I recognize a bit of what is going on between the Fabs and [maybe?] Orson's son.
The Beatles did not agree to any of Michael Lindsay-Hogg ideas for staging "Get Back", the live concert for TV, which never did happen, did it? It's a fluke that John said "f--- it, let's do it' for the Rooftop performance, it was up in the air until that moment. Paul was interested in getting something happening, having a Beatles project to throw into the world---in that moment he identified as a Beatle and was more invested in that "Brand" than any of the other three.
Still is, you know.
One can detect that in the group's interactions, how George is tired of being bossed, how John is lost in his world. Ringo's still committed to the brand.
Still is, you know.
In many ways, the group considered all those cameras and microphones an imposition on their creative process, and they further tied their hands creatively by deciding they were not to have any overdubs with this project. So, Lindsay-Hogg had his dreams of cinematic grandeur and the Band mostly wanted it to be over and get on with the songs that required overdubs, and the steady hand of George Martin.
That said, Peter Jackson did a remarkable job of cleaning up an awful mess and making something out of it. It is rare to have fly-on-the-wall documentation of any band at work, that much more amazing that it would be this group and that there would be so much useful and interesting stuff recorded in the process. The degree which I find Michael Lindsay-Hogg clueless can also be witnessed in the dreary, ugly-looking film he finally came up with.
It's a fluke that this process resulted in such a powerful document, but I guess Lindsay-Hogg should be given credit for documenting so much.
