The central premise of The US vs John Lennon (the latter as described in the Departed, of all movies, semi-sarcastically as "the president before Lincoln") is that public figures are always up for grabs if they come out on either side of the fence. Lennon was fervently anti-war- if very unsure about going all the way into the dangerous political zone (hence not going, wisely enough, to the violent demonstration that happened at the 1972 Republican convention)- and because of his connection with various people like Jerry Rubin and Abby Hoffmann, as well as questionable ties with the Black Panthers, he was monitored openly, and threatened with deportation for a bogus pot arrest in 1968. Nixon, meanwhile, was one of the all-time nut-job presidents when it came to the military, who ran in 68 on an "I'll-end-the-war-honorably" ticket and instead kept the war going for years, including invading Cambodia.
Many of the facts brought up in this documentary aren't new, especially to those who were alive during the time it happened and the media went all over Lennon (so it goes in today's tabloids as well, only here it was some kind of real news). But they are presented compelling enough so that they can offer up some bits of insights for newer audiences to Lennon's music and politics. To be sure, it is a slanted argument, but slanted for the right reasons (you're bound to not find anyone in a doc like this saying "oh, Vietnam, not so bad", unless maybe Liddy). Yet the argument holds strong throughout, about the nature of political practice and the ideals of changing things not going well with the establishment. And there are questions raised for the audience, if not directly: should Lennon, who technically wasn't American, be apart of a movement that was going on, or just stuck to doing his songs and music? (The filmmakers, by the way, wisely cut out much at all to do with the Beatles, albeit they kind of skirmish past the whole issue of "Beatles bigger than Jesus" when it's presented more as a footnote of the outspoken side of Lennon than connecting to the main focus).
It's interesting though to see the footage of the "bed-in", when Lennon and Ono did almost a kind of tour of protest-by-lethargy, and had the press in there as part of the ironic-not-quite-joke of the matter. And there's also fascination in seeing Lennon describe, candidly in archival interviews, the toll the media blitz and upheaval from the government had on him. Only towards the end do the directors start to waver the attention a little bit, even as it is, to be sure, part of the story of Lennon and his eventual tragic death in 1980. But the core idea behind the documentary is one that will always pose something that the viewer should look for: what is it about two unlikely connected figures- popular celebrity musician-cum-activist and one of the craziest presidents this country ever had- that still seems relevant today? Can people take away anything from Lennon's struggle with the powers-that-be? It might be a little obvious (i.e. getting past apathetic stances and doing nothing to just trying to do 'something'), but the point is made nonetheless in the film, and not in a manner that is too schmaltzy or heavy-handed. Just make sure you don't have a BS drug bust to worry about.
Many of the facts brought up in this documentary aren't new, especially to those who were alive during the time it happened and the media went all over Lennon (so it goes in today's tabloids as well, only here it was some kind of real news). But they are presented compelling enough so that they can offer up some bits of insights for newer audiences to Lennon's music and politics. To be sure, it is a slanted argument, but slanted for the right reasons (you're bound to not find anyone in a doc like this saying "oh, Vietnam, not so bad", unless maybe Liddy). Yet the argument holds strong throughout, about the nature of political practice and the ideals of changing things not going well with the establishment. And there are questions raised for the audience, if not directly: should Lennon, who technically wasn't American, be apart of a movement that was going on, or just stuck to doing his songs and music? (The filmmakers, by the way, wisely cut out much at all to do with the Beatles, albeit they kind of skirmish past the whole issue of "Beatles bigger than Jesus" when it's presented more as a footnote of the outspoken side of Lennon than connecting to the main focus).
It's interesting though to see the footage of the "bed-in", when Lennon and Ono did almost a kind of tour of protest-by-lethargy, and had the press in there as part of the ironic-not-quite-joke of the matter. And there's also fascination in seeing Lennon describe, candidly in archival interviews, the toll the media blitz and upheaval from the government had on him. Only towards the end do the directors start to waver the attention a little bit, even as it is, to be sure, part of the story of Lennon and his eventual tragic death in 1980. But the core idea behind the documentary is one that will always pose something that the viewer should look for: what is it about two unlikely connected figures- popular celebrity musician-cum-activist and one of the craziest presidents this country ever had- that still seems relevant today? Can people take away anything from Lennon's struggle with the powers-that-be? It might be a little obvious (i.e. getting past apathetic stances and doing nothing to just trying to do 'something'), but the point is made nonetheless in the film, and not in a manner that is too schmaltzy or heavy-handed. Just make sure you don't have a BS drug bust to worry about.