Rocketman (2019) (1 Viewer)

[Robert Crawford]

It doesn't offend people, but you keep arguing your points of contention. We get it, you didn't like the film based on the reasoning you posted.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I thoroughly enjoyed this visual jukebox presentation of Elton's life (up to about 1990).

Do you disagree with my belief the movie ends in 1983? (Not counting the "what happened later" postscript, of course.)

 

[Hollywoodaholic]

Do you disagree with my belief the movie ends in 1983? (Not counting the "what happened later" postscript, of course.)

For somebody who radically didn't like the film, you sure spend a lot of time writing about it.

I've been an Elton John fan (don't ever forget Bernie Taupin is the lyrical part of that equation) since Tumbleweed Connection (1970). I've probably seen him in concert more than a dozen times. I have a great photo on my office wall of him glaring directly at me from 8 feet away because I'm at the foot of the stage taking a close up photo of him with a Nikon camera past the three opening songs that any press are allowed to take such photos. He looks pissed. I felt bad, but not so much for the story it's given me. (And frankly, who hasn't been the target of one of his temper tantrums?)

So, the most jarring thing about this biopic for me was hearing the songs completely out of sequence to when they were written. Of seeing "Crocodile Rock" at the Troubadour two years before it was written (1972). Or the very first song in the film "I Want Love" during his childhood years being the most recent released (2001). "Hey, what's going on here, where's the right continuity?!"

But I soon got over that. The songs were used for emotional context, not historical continuity. It's called artistic license. And so it is with the timetable of events in the movie. I don't think I've ever seen a biopic that sticks to the facts or correct sequence. It's up to the collaborations of creative minds involved to formulate the presentation. If they want to take a jumbled fantasy sketch musical approach, I'll go with it if it's done well and with integrity and good intentions and is entertaining. I have many documentaries on Elton (making of Classic Album Goodbye Yellow Brick Road excellent, and playing on AXS TV, btw), so I have content for historical entertainment. This film fills another category, and I get that Elton is moved by it for what it thematically says about his life, rather than precisely or historically.

And sorry, but it's way better than that single emotional note, sugar coated, Mercury biopic with the dubbed singing. Box office has never been the final arbitrator of the quality of the film, or what lasts.

But if you want a recommendation for my ultimate favorite rock 'musical' that incorporates a single group or artists' songs in connection to a story, and with all the artistic license and artistry everyone involved contributes to the max - you can't go wrong with the use of Beatles songs in Across the Universe. A masterpiece. Yesterday, I suspect, despite the pedigree of writer and director, not so much. But I'll check it out.

 

[Jake Lipson]

[sidebar]

But if you want a recommendation for my ultimate favorite rock 'musical' that incorporates a single group or artists' songs in connection to a story, and with all the artistic license and artistry everyone involved contributes to the max - you can't go wrong with the use of Beatles songs in Across the Universe. A masterpiece.

Agreed.

Yesterday, I suspect, despite the pedigree of writer and director, not so much. But I'll check it out.

Don't bother. You'll be much happier just watching your Blu-ray of Across the Universe again.

https://www.hometheaterforum.com/community/threads/yesterday-2019.360847/page-2#post-4755360

[/sidebar]

Carry on.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

For somebody who radically didn't like the film, you sure spend a lot of time writing about it.

I didn't realize that one is only allowed to write about/discuss movies one likes.

Simply asked a question. You stated that the movie goes up until about 1990, which would be the case if it stuck to the facts, but it doesn't.

To me, it appears the movie ends in 1983, as it presents "I'm Still Standing" as the big triumph after Elton's "reunion" with Bernie.

I could accept "ISS" as another song used out of place for emotional/thematic value, but the way the movie presents the renewed partnership as being related to the "Too Low for Zero" songs appears to place the ending in 1983.

Anyway, I was just curious if you agreed the movie ended in 1983 or you thought it really did go to 1990...

 

[Wayne_j]

I thought it ended in 1990.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I thought it ended in 1990.

Even though it presents the Elton/Bernie "reunion" as occurring right before "Too Low For Zero"?

 

[Hollywoodaholic]

The only reason I thought it went to about 1990 is because that's close to when he started rehab, and also because he didn't marry Renate until around 1987. But it's kind of a pointless game to pin this film down to a strict timetable.

 

[Wayne_j]

The movie ends with Elton in rehab and we are then informed that he has been clean for 28 years. This would indicate that the movie ended around 1990/1991. I also agree with Hollywoodaholic that with how many things happen out of order in this movie that I wouldn't base a date based on what happens when in the movie.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Anyway, I was just curious if you agreed the movie ended in 1983 or you thought it really did go to 1990...

It's a futile task to try and pin the film down to specific dates. This is a musical fantasy about Elton John's life, not a factual docudrama. Unlike Bohemian Rhapsody, it doesn't claim to be anything else.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

The only reason I thought it went to about 1990 is because that's close to when he started rehab, and also because he didn't marry Renate until around 1987. But it's kind of a pointless game to pin this film down to a strict timetable.

As mentioned earlier, Elton's marriage was 1984. The movie appears to place it around 1978 or 1979, though.

Logically, it SHOULD be 1990 because that's when Elton actually went, but given the fact that the movie futzes with the chronology, "actually went" means nothing!

 

[Colin Jacobson]

The movie ends with Elton in rehab and we are then informed that he has been clean for 28 years. This would indicate that the movie ended around 1990/1991..

No - it indicates that they weren't willing to fudge the real dates during that portion of the film. The postscript was clearly more bound to reality - it showed the real Elton and "updated" us about his life.

That postscript doesn't mean the movie's events went all the way to 1990...

 

[Colin Jacobson]

It's a futile task to try and pin the film down to specific dates. This is a musical fantasy about Elton John's life, not a factual docudrama. Unlike Bohemian Rhapsody, it doesn't claim to be anything else.

I still disagree. I think it uses the "musical fantasy" conceit when it desires but it still tries to paint the actual events of Elton's life.

As I said, the "musical fantasy" concept is a copout for the filmmakers. If they wanted to make a real "musical fantasy", they should've ignored Elton's real life entirely.

Ya can't really have it both ways and not expect criticisms...

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

As I said, the "musical fantasy" concept is a copout for the filmmakers. If they wanted to make a real "musical fantasy", they should've ignored Elton's real life entirely.

Why? Why does it have to be either or? There have been lots of musicals based on the lives of real people, and they've all massaged and reordered the facts to suit the structure and requirements of the musical genre. Rocketman is no different.

It announces its intentions right out of the gate, when it shifts from rehab to his childhood via a musical number. Its purpose is to tell an emotionally accurate tale of the journey from Reginald Dwight to Elton John to sobriety. It's purpose was not to tell a factually accurate accounting of the specific events as accurately as possible.

Do you have a problem with The Greatest Showman not being a historically accurate P.T. Barnum? That Evita isn't a factually accurate biography of Eva Perón? That Gypsy takes liberties with the life of Gypsy Rose Lee?

Even stepping outside the musical genre, Amadeus is not a historically accurate portrayal of Mozart, but it's widely considered one of the best movies of the eighties. Is that beyond the pale too?

 

[Jake Lipson]

The factually accurate version of Elton John's story is coming out in October. It's his autobiography.

https://www.amazon.com/Me-Elton-Joh...hy/dp/1250147603/ref=sr_1_1?crid=6Z2I9F4SC52X

As Adam noted, that's not what the goal of this film was.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Why? Why does it have to be either or? There have been lots of musicals based on the lives of real people, and they've all massaged and reordered the facts to suit the structure and requirements of the musical genre. Rocketman is no different.

It announces its intentions right out of the gate, when it shifts from rehab to his childhood via a musical number. Its purpose is to tell an emotionally accurate tale of the journey from Reginald Dwight to Elton John to sobriety. It's purpose was not to tell a factually accurate accounting of the specific events as accurately as possible.

Do you have a problem with The Greatest Showman not being a historically accurate P.T. Barnum? That Evita isn't a factually accurate biography of Eva Perón? That Gypsy takes liberties with the life of Gypsy Rose Lee?

Even stepping outside the musical genre, Amadeus is not a historically accurate portrayal of Mozart, but it's widely considered one of the best movies of the eighties. Is that beyond the pale too?

As I've noted, it's tougher to accept inaccuracies with a subject you know.

Also as I've noted, I'm fine with the leaps into the musical numbers - it's the weird jumps in time that make no sense that bug me.

Also also as I've noted, even if the film was 100% accurate, I still don't think it's good. The factual liberties annoy me but I'd mind them MUCH less if I thought the movie worked.

It doesn't. It's simplistic and maudlin and mawkish and monotonous, a waste of good subject matter...

 

[Jake Lipson]

As I've noted, it's tougher to accept inaccuracies with a subject you know.

That's fair. But they were never trying to be accurate nor claiming that it was 100% accurate.

Also as I've noted, I'm fine with the leaps into the musical numbers - it's the weird jumps in time that make no sense that bug me.

I don't want to speak for @Adam Lenhardt so I would encourage him to come back and correct me if I'm making incorrect inferences. But what I think he's getting at is that if the film already has leaps into musical numbers, that requests a certain suspension of disbelief from the audience. So, accepting some dates as being fudged should not be a big deal if the film is already asking you to accept the fantasy sequences. If it's a fantasy anyway, why isn't it allowed to fudge dates?

 

[TJPC]

About 1970 with the break up of the Beatles, I stopped listening to what I called “music on the radio”. If I heard the music of Elton John, or Queen” it was accidental. (I listened exclusively to Classical and Broadway).

I love movie musicals however and usually see every one. From the stand point of movie musicals, I found both “Bohemian Rhapsody” and “Rocket Man” excellent. Both were extremely enjoyable in their own right. They may be inaccurate as “The Glen Miller Story”, or any other musical “biography”, but who cares? They are meant to be a pleasurable experience, not a word for word depiction of holy writ.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I don't want to speak for @Adam Lenhardt so I would encourage him to come back and correct me if I'm making incorrect inferences. But what I think he's getting at is that if the film already has leaps into musical numbers, that requests a certain suspension of disbelief from the audience. So, accepting some dates as being fudged should not be a big deal if the film is already asking you to accept the fantasy sequences. If it's a fantasy anyway, why isn't it allowed to fudge dates?

Exactly. Musicals are inherently subjective, rather than objective. People don't spontaneously breakout into song in objective reality. But in musicals, it's a mechanism to express things that novels do well, but movies generally don't: the inner thoughts and feelings of the characters.

There are lots of very important events in my life that I remember clearly, but I don't always remember what year they happened in or the precise order they happened in.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

That's fair. But they were never trying to be accurate nor claiming that it was 100% accurate.



I don't want to speak for @Adam Lenhardt so I would encourage him to come back and correct me if I'm making incorrect inferences. But what I think he's getting at is that if the film already has leaps into musical numbers, that requests a certain suspension of disbelief from the audience. So, accepting some dates as being fudged should not be a big deal if the film is already asking you to accept the fantasy sequences. If it's a fantasy anyway, why isn't it allowed to fudge dates?

Because the movie ostensibly presents these as accurate. Obviously no one believes that the musical numbers really happened, but there's nothing in the movie that tips off a viewer that the incorrect dates are incorrect.

No one believes Elton met his childhood self underwater as he crooned "Rocketman", but people will clearly believe that he married Renata in 1979 (or whenever) and skipped a concert to go straight to rehab in 1982 (or whenever).

As I stated earlier, I'd not mind the factual inaccuracies as much if I enjoyed the movie. Do the stretches of fact in "Amadeus" bug me? Sure, but it's such a great film that they're easier to forgive,

If "Amadeus" was totally fictional, it'd still be a terrific movie. If "Rocketman" was totally fictional, it'd still be a lousy movie.

Therein lies the main issue!