DeeT
Contributor
Posts: 18
|
Post by DeeT on Oct 31, 2003 17:42:18 GMT
Faul is taller than John, and Magical Mystery Tour was made with Faul, so in those pictures, Faul should look taller, right? Generally he does, but in the picture near the back, where he is wearing a black flower, he looks shorter than John.
Are my middle-aged eyes failing me?
-DeeT
|
|
|
|
Post by Darkhorse on Oct 31, 2003 18:17:39 GMT
Many of us believe Faul was wearing flats and John had lifts in his shoes(see the awkward way John is descending the stairs in Your Mother Should Know video).(Also, notice how John is standing next to Faul in between George and Faul to hide the height difference of Faul over George.)
If you have seen enough Beatles videos you will know that George was slightly taller than John by about a half inch and in MMT John looks taller.
That's the only explanation I can think of.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheWatusi on Nov 4, 2003 5:26:55 GMT
can you or anyone supply pictures supporting what youve said, please?
|
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Nov 4, 2003 11:06:25 GMT
Faul is taller than John, and Magical Mystery Tour was made with Faul, so in those pictures, Faul should look taller, right? Generally he does, but in the picture near the back, where he is wearing a black flower, he looks shorter than John. Are my middle-aged eyes failing me? -DeeT Are your middle-aged eyes failing you? Yes! ;D  |
|
|
|
Post by Darkhorse on Nov 4, 2003 15:53:36 GMT
can you or anyone supply pictures supporting what youve said, please? I would recommend you watch the video and see for yourself and see what you come up with.  |
|
|
|
Post by zoona on Nov 4, 2003 18:50:33 GMT
Yes and on watching the video you'll probably see that Paul lifts himself a tiny moment before the others, and that is where a lot of these pictures that are supposed to show Paul looking taller originiate from.. that split second!
You can also see that his legs are straighter cos he has lifted himself and the others' legs are bent..
|
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Nov 4, 2003 19:23:49 GMT
Actually---not trying to be dissident, but I agree. I watched MMT all the way thru twice--I watched the Mother Should Know segment 2 or 3 times.
They are all choreograohed to bounce from the ball of their feet, it appears, in rhythm to the music as they travel. Paul's "bounces" are slightly ahead of the other 3. In fact, Paul seems to have more natural movements---as if he studied a little modern dance as a high schooler. There is some natural "up-spring" that jazz and ballet teach, not the "down into the floor, heavy foot" style of a lot of modern dance. In ballet , the thought is always "up", full height, momentum is against gravity, In modern, the idea is often to think of sinking into the stage, or the ground.
Anyway, Paul/Bill?Faul studied some dance as a youth etc, it seems. He has the edge here, and was choreographed as lead man. Lennon is doing OK, the strangest thing is how his left foot is in complete turn-out (second position ballet, do I remember this right, no I didn't take ballet, just played keys for a few classes), so he is busy keeping the left leg turned out. Like, he is intentionally twisting that leg WAY out for each step. The others didn't seem to, but I will watch it again. He has very little "bounce" coming down the steps. I do agree that his shoes must be interior lifts. There is one step, of, I think it was the right foot, that he seems to misjudge the depth of the step and the step seems insecure for just a moment, about midway down as he strains to claim one of the steps. John IS simply trying to not trip and go careening down those grand sparkling stairs like Cinderella tripping on a rat. Ringo puts a lot of verve into his arm and head movements coming down (SO like a drummer) but Ringo seems to have a lot of sense about the camera and how much energy to put out. (Ringo should have done more acting.) Poor George is as stiff as you'd expect. "Oh, why am I doing this bloody xxxx?!" His back is locked with his hips as he tries to just get the step promenade descent.
Bill does look taller than George and John by an inch, though, in most of the time spent at the bottom of the steps. The movement keeps them in motion, up and down for a while, maybe to hide heights. Where Bill seems surprisingly taller is in earlier crowd scenes--going in and out of the tent, although he is not in frame with the other Beatles most of the time. When with Ringo, of course he looks way taller. (Why is it over half a film before we get a much of George? Why John and Paul have virtually no scenes together? After Help!it appears the relationships between Beatles go unexpressed(at least in this flick). The four never seem to sit together, or talk together, or anything. I guess it is set up as all strangers, but its so disconcerting by comparison to Help!)
The scene is a nice try to imitate "Broadway Melody of 1929" with the spinning cale etal. All the peripheral dancers in the far background (and later joining up front) are delicious camp par excellence. Very amusing. But what has it got to do with the song? Still, it's great to have such Beatle silliness on film.
But, in the final anaysis, I just hear Buzby Berkeley screaming "CUT!!!!!"
|
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Nov 4, 2003 19:27:57 GMT
Yes and on watching the video you'll probably see that Paul lifts himself a tiny moment before the others, and that is where a lot of these pictures that are supposed to show Paul looking taller originiate from.. that split second! You can also see that his legs are straighter cos he has lifted himself and the others' legs are bent.. Please DON'T SEE the height BUT the proportions!  |
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Nov 4, 2003 19:30:21 GMT
Bill's/Paul's legs are more technically correct, I think. Lifting from the foot, or ball, or arch or whatever, is the movement looked for here; bending a lot at the knee is a pitfall of a non-dancer trying in this case I think. Any pro-dancers on board? Am I in space on this?
Also, Paul's legs seem very straight---curiously NOT bowl-legged as a cowboy. Perhaps the trousers hide it? Why hide it? He seems to have long straight legs.
In "Fool on the Hill", which I think is a very effective video---(JMO)
in the running in the "strange voluminous garment" scene (to quote Hector Poirot from the Orient Express movie) Paul's looks nearly as lanky as Tommy Tune! Talk about stretched out-I mean there ain't nothin' wrong with reall tall----unless you ain't real tall!
|
|
|
|
Post by pennylane on Nov 4, 2003 19:43:04 GMT
i don't think their is any confustion with the height unless your blind..  in all the early performances ie ed sullivan.. you can clearly see they are all the same height then later after 66 suddenly faul was at least 2 inches taller... confusion... i think not... |
|
|
|
Post by Perplexed on Nov 4, 2003 19:53:47 GMT
I am not confused about the height.
Clearly, in many places one sees a tall, longer legged, bigger torsoed Bill with contrast to Paul. This is true. Of course they do things to make a better matchup with Paul.
However, in the Mother Should Know video, I DO think, one sees where they have used lifts successfully to counteract the hieght issue. In many shots, the three come in close to the same height, with Paul slightly up. Paul does bounce ahead of the others coming down the stairs , so all I am saying is that a still DOES NOT SHOW the heights they would have had standing still, that day, in those shoes. The producers used lifts. I just feel that there are better examples of the height thing----a motion capture can be misleading. The reason Bill is taller in the capture has to do with movement. I am sure you and Sun King are right; if we could take off everybodys shoes, make them all stand up straight, we would see that Bill is 2 inches taller.
We can't trump the height issue if we tiptoe around the evidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Nov 4, 2003 23:02:36 GMT
Final sum-up:
George was the tallest
John the second
James Paul the third
Ringo (!) the fourth
James Paul was "the cutie" one.
So he wore shoes with "internal" heels to "appear" tall like George and John.
ABSOLUTELY DO NOT TRUST THE ANTHOLOGY VIDEOS!!
I have a "gallery" about the actual Beatles heights yet to publish.
The actual differences are in the Sgt. Pepper booktlet
because George John Faul wore NO SHOE in that photo session (only Ringo wore shoes with small heels)
|
|
|
|
Post by Darkhorse on Nov 4, 2003 23:51:16 GMT
Final sum-up: George was the tallest John the second James Paul the third Ringo (!) the fourth James Paul was "the cutie" one. So he wore shoes with "internal" heels to "appear" tall like George and John. ABSOLUTELY DO NOT TRUST THE ANTHOLOGY VIDEOS!! I have a "gallery" about the actual Beatles heights yet to publish. The actual differences are in the Sgt. Pepper booktlet because George John Faul wore NO SHOE in that photo session (only Ringo wore shoes with small heels) I am gonna disagree with you Sun King for the first time. My research shows that James Paul was the tallest, maybe at 5'11" and John was 5'10" and George in between at 5'10 1/2". If James Paul had lifts in his shoes they had to have been at least an inch since he looks about an inch taller than John in most pictures(see uberkinder.5u.com/paul/fc42.html) and about a half inch taller than George(see video version of A Hard Day's Night). The question is is do they make lifts in 1/2 inch or one inch and where did you get this information SK?  P.S. Everyone check out and take my poll on the Off Topic board: 60if.proboards21.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1067477110&start=15 |
|
