On Lennon's Legacy

The TV film Lennon Naked was almost the very definition of a flawed work. On the plus side, Christopher Eccleston did a good impression of Lennon - in a particular, he nailed Lennon's awkward, grating, nasal twang very effectively. However, he often didn't look that much like Lennon, especially in the scenes where he was meant to be playing John Lennon in the early days of his fame. The fact is that Eccleston often looked too old to be witless wonder who led the Fab Four. Still, Lennon gets off better than the other Beatles in this production. They end up looking like extras from Life On Mars, but with a fraction of the charisma.

But in one way Lennon Naked was extremely successful - it showed what an arrogant, self-absorbed, self-indulgent, dismissive and often cruel man John Lennon was. He is an idol to many people, and I'm sure that this presentation of Lennon would have wound his many fans up the wrong way. But this film showed what fame could do to a fragile ego, and how it could make someone into a demanding emotional vampire. I dare say it wasn't entirely accurate in its presentation of Lennon, but I'd argue that it was a lot more realistic than the attempts to make Lennon into a sort of messianic figure because he wrote some decent songs decades ago.

And I'd stress that - Lennon did write some decent songs. But that's it. And lots of people write decent songs; I'd argue that many artists have written better songs that Lennon (including two of his fellow Beatles). Lennon appears to have become one of those celebrities who is venerated by many owing to self-promotion and an untimely death. Unfortunately, neither of those attributes is actually a guarantee of a meaningful legacy.

In the cold light of day, Lennon's legacy is two-fold. He was part of a band who, perhaps more than any other musical combo in the history of rock 'n' roll, have become a brand. Sure, go ahead and deceive yourself about how the Beatles were hippies, or counter-culture icons. But when Beatles Rock Band backs up the re-release of the Beatles back catalogue, it is difficult to see the Fab Four as anything other than an exercise in money-making. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying making money is a bad thing; instead, I'm arguing that the Beatles perhaps aren't the hippy icons they are made out to be.

And the second part of the Lennon legacy - his attempts to create peace by not getting out of bed - didn't end the Vietnam war, or bring general peace on Earth. Rather, the Lennon protests allowed for a rock star to become a serious political commentator - and, often, an armchair revolutionary - for no other reason than having sold a few thousand records. Lennon was a pioneer - he was a pioneer for Bono, and for Sting, and for that warbling cunt out of Coldplay. He was a pioneer for any rock star who thinks that they are freedom fighters when all they are actually doing is promoting themselves and, intentionally or otherwise, getting even more attention for their musical careers. Lennon's political activities didn't result in peace; rather, they laid the foundations for the frankly insane world where Ginger Spice can become a UN ambassador - a world not only turned upside down, but where political engagement has been so debased that it is nearly meaningless.

So by all means be a fan of the Beatles, and an admirer of some of Lennon's work. But watch something like Lennon Naked with an open mind, and understand how Lennon was not the peerless, pure icon he is sometimes made out to be. Understand that Lennon was selfish, flawed, arrogant and insecure. And understand that he was just a human being. Like the rest of us.