Re: ninteen hundred and eithty-five



fattuchus@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Ron wrote "Maybe it would have been better after John's death if Paul
HAD just told
the camera crews and news reporters to f--- off, instead of "it's a
drag, isn't it?" If the roles had been reversed, I'm sure that's how
John would have responded."


Dale wrote: "Paul doesn't need to explain anything about that
incident: what is
someone supposed to say when confronted with a lot of cmaera lights and

some stupid questions from a bunch of overpaid "talking heads" who
cannot begin to understand what such an event might mean to those most
closely involved? "It's a drag, you know" is as good a response as any
well-planned bit of eloquence. It always struck me as perfectly apt. If

someone close to you is brutally murdered and almost immediately a
camera crew shows up asking you how you feel about it, the only more
appropriate response might be "*** off." "




We really don't know how John would have reacted if Paul died. This is
all speculation. Who knows, John may have cracked some cynical joke.

Indeed, we don't really know how we ourselves will react if and when
someone close to us dies. Emotions are hard to predict.

However we do have one example . . . . when Brian Epstein died
suddenly, John and George faced the press, with sad, tired faces, but
appropriately. No "*** you." No "it's a drag."

I have seen the video of Paul's "It's a drag" remark and it was not his
finest moment. I believe what happened is a reporter asked him "Why
aren't you sitting home" and that is what got him pissed off. Paul
responded something like "Because I didn't feel like staying home" and
a moment later he made his "It's a drag" remark. I believe the
reporters made him feel defensive, and to an extent, I can sympathize.
It was almost as if the reporter was telling Paul how he should react
and what he should do under the circumstances, and Paul,
understandably, was not in the mood to hear a stranger's opinion about
how he should feel or how he should react.

I don't think Paul's explanation in Playboy is very credible,
especially when one sees the video. In the Playboy interview (if my
memory is correct . . . or perhaps I read it elsehwere) Paul made it
sound as if he were in a car and a reporter shoved a microphone in his
face, but as one can see from the video, that is not at all what
happened. As I said before, I personally believe that the reporter's
question or attitude made Paul feel defensive so he got angry.

Well, that's what I'm saying. The explanation - like John's explanation for his "Jesus" comment - is relatively lame, but that's because he is trying to do something he really doesn't feel he has to do: apologize for something he felt perfectly fine doing in the first place. And I agree with him.

The "sad faces" response is alright, but - given the propensity of the media to force its way into private situations - I think "go take a flying leap up an elephant's pleasure chute" or such is just as appropriate.

dmh


.

Loading