The Beatles did.
What's the difference? Despite the gap in age, the acclaim, pressures, and--considering the processes involved--output are equatable.
In truth, I think Hitchcock is more the norm. (Even the Beatles broke up, which was entirely natural.) Artists get tired of their shtick. They want to try something different. They move on to a different medium. They put their energies into something non-art related. Directors and actors and music groups rise and fall not just in popularity but in production.
I recently read a book A Day in the Life by Mark Hertsgaard that examines the Beatles' music from the point of view of artistry. The writer does a fine job exploring the power of collaboration. The success of the Beatles, he argues, did not hinge on one single artist. Even though McCartney and Lennon wrote most of the songs and were arguably the leaders of the group, the presence of all members during all phases of production was not unusual and the contributions of all members was not slight. It was the energy or aura or creative input of the entire group that made them produce as they did.
What is equally astonishing is that every one of them had a strong career after the break-up, including Ringo (who often gets unnecessarily mocked). The charisma, hard work, and creative perspective of the individual members allowed them to excel in quite distinct ways later, which backs the collaboration argument. Hertsgaard proposes, fascinatingly enough, that Ringo replaced Pete Best as much for this elusive collaborative potential as for anything else. Ringo fit. He appeared to have a future. He was attractive as an artist. The others recognized in him a kindred spirit.
So why couldn't Hitchcock remake himself like these young men?
Well, for one, by the time he hit Torn Curtain, he was 67 years old, and yes, age does slow people down.
But I think there is another reason: Hitchcock fell victim to the intelligentsia. He began to believe in his own legacy before his legacy was complete.
The Beatles didn't. The most striking characteristic that I noted in Hertsgaard's analysis of the group was "irreverence."
Now, I don't mean "rebellion." Oh, they were fighting The Man! That's why they were so good! Their irreverence went deeper than that. They were willing to challenge not just The Man, they were willing to challenge the ideologies of the "avant-garde." They were even willing to challenge their own legacy, their own phenomenon. They challenged their manager, even though they liked him. They challenged fans, even though they knew they depended on them. They challenged intellectuals who wanted to cozen up to them. They knew better. They were Liverpool Boys at heart and forever.
Hertsgaard writes, "[P]recisely because the Beatles didn't know what they didn't know, they would suggest innovations that never would have occurred to better-trained but more conventionally minded colleagues." But you know, to the Beatles, conventional wasn't so bad either. They knew that they wanted to make money, for instance.
One of the sorrows of John Lennon's assassination and George Harrison's death from cancer is that they may have ended up who-knows-where. There's no strict or known trajectory that can be assigned to artists who are willing to knock down even the sacred cows of their artistic "set."
Video: "Eight Days a Week" is not considered the greatest of the Beatles' hits and the Beatles themselves reportedly didn't think much of it. I use it here because (1) I love it; (2) it showcases the incredible talent of these boys even when doing a "simple" rock song, which songs they never entirely fell out of love with; (3) it showcases the phenomenon that they walked away from by their 3rd album. Considering their age, that shows remarkable will-power and belief in their own abilities.
And belief in their own abilities is a trait they share with Hitchcock.
No comments:
Post a Comment