tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2871690118199792415.post4581879749098332250..comments2023-11-05T04:01:35.425-08:00Comments on hey dullblog: Time-Lapse PhotographyAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09054118876539799264noreply@blogger.comBlogger143125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2871690118199792415.post-48415232968295143162013-08-08T07:54:28.217-07:002013-08-08T07:54:28.217-07:00Anonymous, I'm moving your comment over to the...Anonymous, I'm moving your comment over to the new blog. This thread will continue over at www.heydullblog.com.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09054118876539799264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2871690118199792415.post-62167993567671273442013-08-08T03:57:01.013-07:002013-08-08T03:57:01.013-07:00Back to the photos... I'm reminded of John exp...Back to the photos... I'm reminded of John explaining (Anthology book) that "the walrus was Paul" was John's weird own way of saying to Paul: thank you, it's been great, but I'm moving on with a new partner. (I can't recall the exact quote...) but the idea of him replicating the poses of some famous photos of him and his old partner doesn't seem so odd. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2871690118199792415.post-73245837217914792132013-07-30T19:29:53.513-07:002013-07-30T19:29:53.513-07:00Super @Karen, thank you.Super @Karen, thank you.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09054118876539799264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2871690118199792415.post-74325882239561976652013-07-30T19:28:15.023-07:002013-07-30T19:28:15.023-07:00@michael gerber--its half-way through the book (I ...@michael gerber--its half-way through the book (I have the e-book, having lost the paper copy years ago, and the page number would probably be irrelevant) but it's in the chapter "Touring Great Britain and Filming Help". Here's the relevant paragraph:<br /><br />"Including the Liverpool concert, this tour took in 18 different towns in England, Scotland, and Wales. The tour had arranged one free day....John's Aunt Mimi had moved to a seaside resort so John and Paul visited the McCartneys...<br /><br />They got up very early...and Paul fetched his two moped bikes...."<br /><br />They biked around the city, checking out the shops until they got recognized and had to get the police to rescue them.Karenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07309857073588366808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2871690118199792415.post-10608896433382148782013-07-30T18:01:49.548-07:002013-07-30T18:01:49.548-07:00@Karen, where is it in the Fast book? I have it ri...@Karen, where is it in the Fast book? I have it right here--what a tidbit, so surprising. Thank you.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09054118876539799264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2871690118199792415.post-73506117157961458462013-07-30T13:00:02.051-07:002013-07-30T13:00:02.051-07:00@Karen - Thanks, I could not find that source for ...@Karen - Thanks, I could not find that source for the life of me! I was beginning to think I'd imagined it!Stewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02012751731530666693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2871690118199792415.post-72120668561798708192013-07-30T07:38:05.681-07:002013-07-30T07:38:05.681-07:00@JR Clark: the moped trip was detailed in Julius ...@JR Clark: the moped trip was detailed in Julius Fast's bio. I have the book.<br /><br />Karenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07309857073588366808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2871690118199792415.post-58244575025554294632013-07-30T07:36:28.139-07:002013-07-30T07:36:28.139-07:00@JRClark: Julius Fast wrote a biography on the fab...@JRClark: Julius Fast wrote a biography on the fabs and details the trip that John and Paul took on mopeds. I have the book.<br /><br />Your (angry) insistence that John and Paul weren't close strikes me as personal, as if you have a vested interest in this belief. Not sure why.Karenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07309857073588366808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2871690118199792415.post-87681156096164560642013-06-22T14:12:45.180-07:002013-06-22T14:12:45.180-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09054118876539799264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2871690118199792415.post-82562113253247674342013-06-22T13:57:44.503-07:002013-06-22T13:57:44.503-07:00I wasn't sure where to post this, but I though...I wasn't sure where to post this, but I thought it was interesting, and this is the most recent "massive John thread".<br /><br />WENNER: What do you think was going on with [Jonh]? What do you think motivated him?<br />JAGGER: Wanted to be the most famous person in the world [laughs].<br />WENNER: I think he said as much.<br />JAGGER: Did he really?<br />WENNER: Along that line. “We want to be more famous than Elvis.” Something like that.<br />JAGGER: Yeah. Elvis just did it all wrong, didn’t he? Put all these silly ideas into people’s heads. And John picked up on it.<br />WENNER: Do you think that drove him?<br />JAGGER: It seems incredibly crass and superficial, doesn’t it?<br />WENNER: Yeah, but if you feel you have this big message for everybody... and at the end, he did.<br />JAGGER: Yeah, he did have a big message. I don’t think he had a message in the beginning, although he might have thought he was gonna get one. Or you think the message is to be famous, and then I’ll think of the message later [laughs].Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2871690118199792415.post-84383000134647951262013-06-20T14:39:10.063-07:002013-06-20T14:39:10.063-07:00I'm loving this discussion, so many excellent ...I'm loving this discussion, so many excellent points.<br /><br />I agree it's difficult to understand Lennon without understanding the UK class system. Interesting that he wrote "working class hero" but he was higher up the food chain than the other Beatles. Mimi was a landlady! He had his own room, living a posh little teenage lifestyle, like the spoiled teenage Lenny Bruce with his own bedroom and radio, before his parents split.<br /><br />I remember seeing an interview with the Beatles around the time of "In His Own Write." The interviewer, an older chap who could barely conceal his disdain for the moptops, made the sarcastic comment that he didn't know there were any writers in Liverpool. If you watch the interview, you can actually see Lennon's startled reaction, before covering it up with some jokes. No matter how pampered his upbringing, he saw himself as firmly in the working class, even though he regarded many of its members as dumb. (Didn't he say that he hoped wealth would insulate him from stupid people, not having to deal with them on a daily basis?)<br /><br />Years ago I met my friend's aunt, a woman from Liverpool, who implied the Beatles exaggerated their scouse accents. Despite the class envy, it wasn't popular to be seen as an upper class twit. <br /><br />One of the truest lyrics from Lennon's last period, about loving humanity, but it's "people that you just can't stand."<br /><br />- hologram sam<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2871690118199792415.post-64019673845325589642013-06-20T14:32:15.950-07:002013-06-20T14:32:15.950-07:00Paul's wisdom may be small-w wisdom--thoughtfu...<i>Paul's wisdom may be small-w wisdom--thoughtfulness on a human scale--whereas what John seemed to be seeking was Grand Eternal Wisdom, but the first seems to me to be a necessary precondition for the second.</i><br /><br />Yes, exactly. There's no shortcut to enlightenment. And there's a fine line between seeking enlightenment, and seeking to Be A Grand Wise Enlightened Person. You can't get far with the latter; you've sabotaged it by making it all about yourself.<br /><br /><i>What made/makes John Lennon so meaningful to people was the whole of who he was and what he did, and clothing his son in his symbols is an attempt to confer reverence Sean has not, and cannot, earn.</i><br /><br />Thank you for articulating this so well. I've tried my best not to feel skeeved by all that stuff, because who am I to tell Yoko and Sean how to treat John's memory? He was much more theirs than mine to lose and to remember. But yeah. It's odd.Annie McNeilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08214081463425287045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2871690118199792415.post-89044176513839269632013-06-20T11:01:50.169-07:002013-06-20T11:01:50.169-07:00Interesting, @Barb, thank you.
I think John had a...Interesting, @Barb, thank you.<br /><br />I think John had a much more complex relationship to "the class system" than people realize. I don't, for example, think he despised it. I think he despised not being at the top of it. <br /><br />When I lived in New York, I knew two types of English people: <br />1) Upper-class people trying to leverage that into money and access here in the Big Time. For example, Oxbridge types or teenage mustard barons. <br />2) Talented, driven middle- and lower-class people trying to end run the UK class system.<br /><br />Neither group really longs for a fairer world, and John, who was solidly in the 2) camp, didn't want that. Sure, he sang he wanted that, but everything he did reflected the conventional hierarchy. If John Lennon had been born a landed Duke, he would've been perfectly happy staying in England (as Harrison was) because he did the American version of that. John Lennon was incredibly status conscious, aware of social distinctions and--while he had an admirable "common touch"--showed NO desire to live like a normal person, especially after 1968. People loved him for mingling with them, just like the did Princess Diana, but at the end of the day John didn't seem to have much interest in "being one of the gang." Compare Paul McCartney who seems to actually enjoy that sensation.<br /><br />John was Mimi's son, and by all accounts judged the hell out of people based on their outward signifiers. That's what made him such an easy mark.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09054118876539799264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2871690118199792415.post-9919647857145489962013-06-20T09:47:14.656-07:002013-06-20T09:47:14.656-07:00I think John was an androgynous person, with both ... I think John was an androgynous person, with both masculine and feminine characteristics. I think it both flattered him and freaked him out that both men and women found him attractive. I also think he was bi-curious. When Brian fell for him, John so welcomed love and attention, he probably thought, “Why not try it?” As to John’s subsequent cruelty towards Brian, I think it was possibly because he saw that Brian was uncomfortable with his own sexuality and John always targeted people’s most vulnerable spots. <br /><br />But it’s also soo complicated. It wasn’t always just anti-homosexual jibes against Brian on John’s part. The jibes were often anti-Jewish, too. I wonder sometimes if there isn’t a class thing going on here, too. Brian was of “the merchant class”. The closest America has is the concept of the nouveau-riche. In the British class system of that time, the best that you could usually expect was to do was to become just a little better off than your parents. But Epstein’s family was quite well off, not because they came from money, but because they worked for it. And Epstein had those posh manners and that upper-crust accent, so did John dig at Brian for trying to have airs? Did he see Brian as less than genuine or trying to hide what he was? John would have hated that or might have resented the idea that Brian, by cleaning up the Beatles’ image, sort of hid parts of who they were. John was willing to do anything to break out of the class system, but that didn't mean he liked what he had to do. <br /><br />I think initially there was a push on Brian’s part to make them a bit more acceptable, a bit more like Cliff Richard, “the all-around entertainer” type. I just listened to a BBC documentary where Pete Best said that Brian picked the Decca demo songs and did so to show their “versatility”. I’m not blaming Brian. Before the Beatles, teenaged music/pop music was so young that pop idols either had a few hits and then faded away or took the route that Sinatra and even Elvis eventually did of becoming more “all-around entertainers”. It’s always amazed me that the Beatles paved a totally new way for pop stars to have long careers. John’s cruelty could have been just another way to say to Brian, “Stick to your percentages”. <br /><br />I once saw a press conference with the Beatles. Towards the end, Brian whispered in John’s ear that it was time to end it. John put his fingers to his own chest as if to say, “Me? How can I stop this craziness?” But then he did as Brian asked. That made me think, “There were very few people John listened to in his early years. Stu, Paul, Brian, and to a lesser extent, George Martin. Brian must have understood how special that made him. John only listened to those he respected (and could get him what he wanted out of life). That respect must have made a lot of difference to Brian.”<br /><br />Yes, Brian loved John. But remember, Brian failed at many things he tried before he made a success of NEMS. So like John and the Beatles themselves, he had something to prove. He had to prove that he could be a success on his own terms, doing things his own way. If I had something that important to me to prove, I could imagine myself putting up with some harsh words here and there, especially if I understood that underneath it all, I mattered. And that I didn’t just matter in terms of affection, that I mattered in making something I believed in a massive success. Maybe that’s why Paul put up with John, too. It wasn’t just friendship and love. They also built something amazing together; something that at times must have seemed like an impossible dream.<br /><br />---Barb<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2871690118199792415.post-78953322125784332902013-06-19T20:23:46.388-07:002013-06-19T20:23:46.388-07:00I agree that LSD sapped John. I think that he was...I agree that LSD sapped John. I think that he was left physically ill and spiritually wasted by his 2 (or 3?) year acid bender. I've never taken the stuff myself, so I can't personally speak to its power, but the stories of him alternately "destroying his ego" and professing to be Jesus Christ don't paint a real pretty picture. I'm sure there were magic moments aplenty (Derek Taylor's wife spins a yarn or two in the Harrison doc), but all of that acid dumped onto a fragile psyche? Wow. As far as John being gay? I don't see it. Of the four, he was the most likely to have experimented privately with his sexuality, but secretly gay or even bi? I don't think so. king kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00799924313164035740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2871690118199792415.post-49009334689571266242013-06-19T15:52:14.697-07:002013-06-19T15:52:14.697-07:00"When he hooked up with Yoko, I don't thi..."When he hooked up with Yoko, I don't think he really wanted to go on. For reasons only he knew, he seems to have felt so utterly defeated by the circumstances of his life post-India that Yoko's idea of turning them both into icons--a type of living art--seemed like a lifeline. It was something to do, and a way to create victory out of defeat. But if you're a sensitive person, as John Lennon was, that's no place to live."<br /><br />This cuts to the quick of it, I think—more than debates about whether John wanted to put the moves on Paul, or whatever. Who knows what he confronted up in the mountains in India, or how much he invested in the Maharishi as a father figure/Brian replacement, or what, but the way India ended seems to have kicked off a crisis that we <i>really don't hear too much about</i> because drawing too much attention to the fact that John Lennon returned to England and started behaving in ways that weren't just reckless, like his acid binges had been, but utterly self-destructive, even suicidal, puts his hooking up with Yoko in a weirder light. I personally think he, in all his naïveté, truly believed that the Maharishi was going to "slip him the answer", at which point all of the problems—ALL of them—that had been bedeviling him would be solvable. The anger he felt toward the Maharishi is the betrayal of someone who went into that situation expecting salvation, not simply of a pop star who felt duped. <br /><br />Now, why would John have expected that from the Maharishi? Michael's absolutely right that the 1964 Lennon wouldn't have. I honestly think LSD sapped him.<br />-MichaelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2871690118199792415.post-68834637987559155102013-06-19T11:31:35.457-07:002013-06-19T11:31:35.457-07:00Paul had more true wisdom than John ever did
I su...<i>Paul had more true wisdom than John ever did</i><br /><br />I suspect so--just look at their lives--and I think JOHN realized that, too, and it's one of the many, many things that he came to resent Paul for. "How dare you, the square, be able to navigate life more calmly and successfully than I, the Artist?" It's the "having things sorted" thing.<br /><br />Paul's wisdom may be small-w wisdom--thoughtfulness on a human scale--whereas what John seemed to be seeking was Grand Eternal Wisdom, but the first seems to me to be a necessary precondition for the second.<br /><br /><i>It's as if things started falling apart once John began seeing himself as an institution.</i> <br /><br />Absolutely, and this is what Yoko is about; at heart, she's a branding/marketing person. I've said this a million times, but it's this turning himself into an icon--an institution--that made John ultimately so lost. People can't live like that, and if you don't resist it (like Dylan has) you usually die (Marilyn Monroe, Elvis, etc). John knew this, so why did he do it? <br /><br />When he hooked up with Yoko, I don't think he really wanted to go on. For reasons only he knew, he seems to have felt so utterly defeated by the circumstances of his life post-India that Yoko's idea of turning them both into icons--a type of living art--seemed like a lifeline. It was something to do, and a way to create victory out of defeat. But if you're a sensitive person, as John Lennon was, that's no place to live.<br /><br />And even though Lennon proved the folly of this life-strategy--or maybe you think the 70s were fun for him?--Yoko's still doing it, marketing and branding. As if making their son be a musician and putting him into white suits and National Health glasses makes him into John. Either that's incredibly cynical ("his fans are so stupid they'll believe it") or it's really peculiar, a fundamentally religious act. <br /><br />What made/makes John Lennon so meaningful to people was the whole of who he was and what he did, and clothing his son in his symbols is an attempt to confer reverence Sean has not, and cannot, earn. The obvious attempt at "transmission" to Sean is weird, the stuff of Eastern religions, not rock and roll or celebrity. You didn't see Lisa Marie Presley dressing like her dad and becoming a singer--how absurd, right? It's no less creepy when Sean does it. Not that he CAN'T do it, it's his business, but...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09054118876539799264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2871690118199792415.post-36084104300879024762013-06-19T10:04:10.313-07:002013-06-19T10:04:10.313-07:00"will to power" is the best way I can pu...<i>"will to power" is the best way I can put it. John had a tremendous drive to be successful as a young man, and would not let anything stand in his way. Furthermore, his whole stage persona is about domination, dominating the audience--not seducing them like Paul, or playing hard to get like George, or charming them like Ringo.</i><br /><br />Yes. In addition (or, in other words?) John had that ineffable quality of inspiring people to follow him. He as an individual seemed able to inspire the same sort of filial love that people usually reserve for institutions -- their countries, kings, family names, etc. Some potent mix of charisma, talent, enthusiasm -- all qualities the other Beatles had, but John had that something extra. I honestly can't think quite how to express it.<br /><br />Of course, this dynamic played out in all sorts of unhealthy ways -- the classically narcissistic power-play of "I'm divorcing my wife, so everybody else better cut her off, too" comes to mind. John threw his weight around for plenty of petty reasons, and the fact that people were so willing to follow his lead is, frankly, a bit alarming. <br /><br />And the unhealthiness seemed to increase as time went on. It's like a corruption crept in as more and more John claimed authority/leadership/whatever, not as an Artist, based on personal merit (which must be continually proven and proven again), but as a Political Leader/Guru, based on his already-established fame and fortune. It's as if things started falling apart once John began seeing <i>himself</i> as an institution.<br /><br />But that kernel of pure inspirational leadership was always there, and is tremendously rare and special and I believe it's a big part of why he is so beloved by so many.<br /><br />I have no idea if this is what John meant when he said Paul needed him because Paul "wasn't strong enough" on his own. Paul is more effective and more comfortable in the First Officer position; he's said so himself. He too brought something to the table that John couldn't -- discipline, diplomacy, his own artistic vision, sure, but at the end of the day I think Paul had more true <i>wisdom</i> than John ever did.Annie McNeilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08214081463425287045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2871690118199792415.post-53360679903995824342013-06-18T04:50:49.682-07:002013-06-18T04:50:49.682-07:00Judging from their suits, I'd say '66, one...Judging from their suits, I'd say '66, one of their last concerts.<br /><br />Also, please keep us updated on your new humor magazine. <br /><br />- hologram samAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2871690118199792415.post-39990040278738514492013-06-18T04:30:51.380-07:002013-06-18T04:30:51.380-07:00NME poll winners' concert 1965.NME poll winners' concert 1965.Stewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02012751731530666693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2871690118199792415.post-13536511377899565492013-06-17T20:19:18.526-07:002013-06-17T20:19:18.526-07:00When was that do you think, Sam? I'd guess but...When was that do you think, Sam? I'd guess but I always get it wrong...:-)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09054118876539799264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2871690118199792415.post-29918149369382591292013-06-17T14:39:15.715-07:002013-06-17T14:39:15.715-07:00A very brief clip of happier times:
http://www.yo...A very brief clip of happier times:<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGOcn4hKkWY<br /><br />- hologram sam<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2871690118199792415.post-59928045079378639812013-06-13T17:24:20.337-07:002013-06-13T17:24:20.337-07:00As I was proofing my comment I thought of one more...As I was proofing my comment I thought of one more thing:<br /><br />I'm paraphrasing because I can't find the quote, but Ringo said that recording with Lennon after the breakup was very sad, because his bandmate would simply break down. That John wasn't the same guy he used to be, in the Beatles. I think what Ringo was seeing was John's loss of the confidence and inner drive to dominate, the "will to power" that was so present in him prior to 1968.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09054118876539799264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2871690118199792415.post-5901575400013428242013-06-13T17:11:03.779-07:002013-06-13T17:11:03.779-07:00Well, hell, @Sam, if you're going to bring in ...Well, hell, @Sam, if you're going to bring in actual EVIDENCE... @Both of you: I may need to rethink my thinking on this. Thanks for such a great back-and-forth.<br /><br />(@Stew, my store of comedy gossip is rather meagre but is about to explode, I'm launching a new national humor magazine. But to the topic at hand.)<br /><br />I think John's humor changed around the time we're talking, 1967-68. John's spastic impersonation seems to be a prominent feature of his humor consistently in the early days, and my guess is that it was (in part) encouraged by the disabled people in the front row of their concerts. But the other part was a genuine fascination with/horror of misshapen or "different" people, which comes through in his drawings and prose quite clearly. It's kid stuff, like drawing junk in the back of class, and doing a bit to crack up your friends. (Full disclosure: I have a slight case of cerebral palsy, so John's cripple bits always make me wince.)<br /><br />The Hitler saluting thing is, I think, 100% situational--that's the joke ANY funny person of John's generation would think of when on a balcony in front of a mass of fans. The difference is, only a really ballsy person would do it, and if someone did it today, TMZ and Twitter would effing BREAK. Compare John Cleese, John's contemporary, doing impressions of Hitler as a boy. This doesn't mean he's a Nazi; but if Cleese had worked up a Marilyn Monroe impression, I would look at that a little differently.<br /><br /><i>he loses respect for people as soon as they seem to adore him too much</i><br />This is the key to understanding John Lennon during the Beatlemania years, IMHO. When you loathe yourself, as I believe he did (and so many of us do), adoration either strikes you as absurd or as "falling for the act." This explains Lennon's two settings towards the fans: Olympian bemusement, or a kind of rage.<br /><br /><i>an itch or a kink to dominate</i><br />Absolutely. Earlier in the thread, someone asked about John's comment that Paul was too soft to succeed on his own. Showbiz is very, very hard, and to get your shot requires an incredible reserve of...well, "will to power" is the best way I can put it. John had a tremendous drive to be successful as a young man, and would not let anything stand in his way. Furthermore, his whole stage persona is about domination, dominating the audience--not seducing them like Paul, or playing hard to get like George, or charming them like Ringo. It's pure "I'm in charge and you're gonna lay there and enjoy it" type stuff. <br /><br />That is the drive to dominate I'm talking about, and it would've been expressed sexually, as well; to work, it's gotta be who you are. It would not have been expressed within the group--"let Paul do it"--as long as he was the unquestioned alpha dog. But the moment he felt he wasn't, it would've come back. (And did.)<br /><br />People who are very dominant in their public persona are often more passive privately, and vice-versa. This makes sense in that people are a mix, a balance. So I think that John was definitely very aggressive, very dominant, from 1957 to 1966 or so; dominant in public, passive in private. Then, with the help of acid, first got in touch with his softer side, then overcorrected into it (which necessitated Yoko, the "bloke" that did all the hard stuff and allowed John to be the dreamy one). The problem was, Yoko wasn't temporary, and so by the mid-70s, you have a situation where John either has to be passive all the time, or have it out with his wife. Which he didn't want to do, for lots and lots of reasons.<br /><br />But with all this stuff, the first thing that has to be recognized is that the Lennon pre-1968 is simply a different guy than he was later, and the world is changing, too. So I am perfectly willing to believe that John could've been a super-aggressive, homophobic, gay-panicky a-hole in 1964, and gone to Rocky Horror in a dress ten years later. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09054118876539799264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2871690118199792415.post-60853077611655495612013-06-13T16:03:59.119-07:002013-06-13T16:03:59.119-07:00Okay, here's a color clip (I've never seen...Okay, here's a color clip (I've never seen it in color before!) of Lennon camping it up as shakespeare's "beauteous lady."<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhJ67QsFg1Q<br /><br />- hologram sam<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com