Chapter 27 Murders John Lennon Again
by Jaden
The internal life of a famous murderer is an interesting high concept screenplay that is usually an easy sell, 
but for some reason, Chapter 27 is not appealing to the critics. The reviewing public (possibly Internet users born after 1980 who do not comprehend the importance of John Lennon or for what he stood) seem to like the film.
Why kill? Why kill a peace preaching person who is adored by the world over? It is the burning question we all want to know and why we would go to see a movie like this. Does this movie answer that question? A little bit.
There are many conspiracy theories and endless explanations for John Lennon’s death. He was one of the strongest voices for peace of all time who was globally in conflict with politicians and religious leaders. Many see Lennon’s death as the end of a major movement towards peace.
Chapter 27 is about Mark David Chapman who went to New York, stalked, and killed John Lennon of The Beatles. This story takes the angle that Chapman’s mentality floated somewhere between mental illness and religious zealousness.
Not mentioned in Chapter 27 is why would a Christian hate the peace-loving Beatle?
On March 4, 1966, Lennon said to the London Evening Standard, “Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink. I do not know what will go first, rock ‘n’ roll or Christianity. We’re more popular than Jesus now. Jesus was all right, but his disciples were thick and ordinary.”
Did the young 25-year old religiously-turmoiled killer Mark David Chapman know about this statement in 1980? I don’t think Chapman was even a Christian yet when Lennon made that comment.
Chapman was obsessed with J.D. Salinger’s outstanding book Catcher in the Rye wherein the narrator goes on about how “phony” everyone is. According to Chapter 27, Chapman decided that Lennon was a wealthy phony and should therefore be killed.
Relating the ever-inspiring Catcher in the Rye to this sicko is not something I enjoy having in my brain file. According to Leto, for rights reason, they were unable to use much of what was written in the screenplay that tied the murderer’s actions and thoughts to the Salinger novel. Thank heavens for that! I’m already traumatized.
Whereas I thought the title Chapter 27 was a reference to law and murder, researching the matter, I discovered otherwise. Catcher in the Rye has 26 chapters, so supposedly Chapman was writing the 27th chapter with John Lennon’s death. Also, John Lennon is said to have been into numerology and multiples of 9. Lennon and his son were born on the 9th and he wrote a few songs with the number 9 in the titles. His first home address was 9 Newcastle Road. Lennon was murdered in the evening of December 8th in New York on what would be the 9th in his English homeland. (27 is 3 times 9, in case you didn’t do the math on that one.)
Author Robert Rosen wrote a book called Nowhere Man: The Final Days of John Lennon that elaborates on the numerology. Rosen states that the movie’s title “comes from the section of the book called The Coda, which includes Chapter 27. The producers claim to have based their story on the Chapman bio Let Me Take You Down, by Jack Jones. The problem with the Jones book, however, is that it doesn’t explain how 27 numerologically connects Chapman and Lennon. As has been reported in Mojo magazine (and various other publications), only Nowhere Man fully explains what Chapter 27 means.” The Coda section, Rosen explains,”is based on original research, including interviews with people who’d interacted with Chapman outside the Dakota. I also attended Chapman’s court hearings, but I did not interview him.”
Before Chapter 27 was made, a British version of the film called The Killing of John Lennon came out by writer/director Andrew Piddington, based on official court transcripts, journals, depositions, and interviews with Chapman himself. On a small budget, Piddington’s film faired a little better with the critics than Chapter 27, but it was still met with mixed reviews. Piddington welcomed the “controversy, adverse criticism, and scorn.”
Watching these kinds of movies about real killers makes me a bit uneasy because I don’t want to be part of the machine that glorifies and encourages freaks. Oh yay, you shot someone, wow, you are really f’n special. Way to make a name for yourself.
Here’s the clincher that really chaps my hide. Not only does this murderer of one of the greatest most beautiful musicians of all time get to live, but Chapman is also currently eligible for parole! Ain’t that a kicker? And who has been paying for this guy to live in prison for the last 28 years? Us! The American taxpayers. Chapman probably costs us about $4,000 a month; more than we spend on ourselves! I don’t get it.
With so many important issues to discuss, the hour long interview I attended with Jared Leto (where I was clearly not the one asking questions) only focused on the actor’s weight gain for the movie.
In two months, Leto gained 67 pounds for the role and required a wheelchair because he was so out of sorts and had troubles walking. To gain the weight, he said he stuffed his face with fast food constantly. On the Internet are reports that he drank pints of melted chocolate ice cream and olive oil — aack!
How exactly he lost that 67 pounds, Jared never really answered. Was it cocaine? Anorexia? Bulimia? Carrot juice? What? All that his interviewers and presenters kept saying was that he was “sick.” My friend said that there is probably some secret Hollywood drug diet that they don’t want leaked to the press. I don’t know, but actors sure do turn it around quickly. Jared joked: Like a pregnant woman, the bulk of the weight came off quickly, it was those last few pounds I couldn’t get rid of.
Jared said that no one forced him to gain the weight, that he chose to do it himself and that it really helped him to get into the psyche of his character. The weight altered his gait, his voice, and his emotions. At the end of the work day, there was no going home and taking off the uniform.
By the time I saw him, Jared was as skinny as a rail again. How he lost the weight — who knows?!
Jared Leto and Lindsay Lohan give quality believable performances that truly merit recognition.
Writer/director J.P. Schaefer’s screenplay Chapter 27 is not faulty, it is just not great. It plainly walks us through three days of a mildly disturbed person’s life.
I could not find out much information on Schaefer, but Leto said he was 20 years old when he wrote and directed the script. Schaefer looks much older in pictures, but if he is or was young, then he did a pretty good job with Chapter 27, all things considered.
The fact that writer/director Schaefer was not even born yet when John Lennon died could explain his irreverence to the human being who is now a mythical legend.
To be fair, I don’t have a negative review of Chapter 27. If it was not John Lennon about whom we are speaking, if it was not someone who gave his life to worthy causes and who charmed the world with his gift of music, if Chapter 27 was just another stalker movie, I would tell you that it is a fine movie.
The problems I have with Chapter 27 are 1) who we are talking about here, John Lennon, is far too important to be a nonentity in this film, and 2) there are far more interesting and in-depth ways to tell this story.
As a film unrelated to the truth or a real person, it is a satisfactory movie. Though it would not get as much press, I would have enjoyed this film far more as fiction with a man who stalks and kills an undisclosed celebrity. The way this story is told, and because we don’t see or learn anything about John Lennon, it could have been anyone. In this case, it would have been to the filmmakers’ advantage to make it fiction.
Writing this review makes me feel sad and empty because I want to give credit to the filmmakers and actors for their valiant efforts, but something feels wrong about it; there is a lack of respect. The film and its entities come across as purely financially driven and naïve.
Someone as special as John Lennon warrants a better explanation for his untimely death than what Chapter 27 bestows upon him.
A distant dead star, John Lennon’s brilliant light continues to shine, and no little energy-sucking black hole is going to snuff it.
photo credit: Atari, Gracinha & Marco
Comments
16 Responses to “Chapter 27 Murders John Lennon Again”
Got something to say?
-
Subscribe
-
-
content rss
I love John Lennon. I will not watch this movie.
Great Review. You are right, people who commit hideous crimes are always glorified in film and film makers somehow look for such crimes that they can glorify and earn some quick money at the box office before people realize that the movie does not have any substance. There is only so far you can go before the effect of “name dropping” fades. I might still see this movie out of academic interest but I am not sure.
Reel Ninja
REEL NINJA — Academically, there is nothing to see here. It is just a guy stalking and standing outside Lennon’s building. Not much happens in the movie, actually. Just a lot of standing around waiting for Lennon to come out of the building. Save your money and rent the DVD.
NOTE ARTICLE CHANGES:
Author Robert Rosen of Nowhere Man informed me that I misstated some facts with regards to his book. I have altered my Chapter 27 article from its first publishing to reflect his requested changes and it should be accurate now.
I see Lindsay Lohan is in it. How does she do in the movie?
At first glance, you may view me as just another Lennon or Beatle fan, which I really am.
But, before you dismiss me on account of this as a biased commentator, let me assure you that I am also a human being and an author of other serious subjects other than John Lennon.
It appalls me that someone would stoop to write such a movie, and that the actors who are in it are praised here, but worse, that they would stoop to being in it, at all. It doesn’t matter how ‘good’ their performances are.
So, you may argue, my logic is flawed: that if a subject is evil, there should be no movies made about it; for example, no movies should have been made about Hitler or the Holocaust. But this isn’t my point.
When we watch movies about Hitler and other such historical figures, we learn something about history, and perhaps how not to repeat it.
This movie - from what I have read here and elsewhere - does not teach us any lessons; nor do we learn anything new. Nor does it seem to be respectful of he subject murdered. Its just another example of exploitation for Hollywood, a vehicle for pulp for the masses, and junk food for people equally sick as Chapman.
That may sound harsh, and it is. Chapman acted on his sick thoughts, whereas anyone viewing this movie is merely a voyeur. I feel sorry for any critic having to sit through it and actually have to write a review about it. The author of this review deserves praise for how he handled it and the conclusions he drew.
I cannot judge the movie’s technical merits or flaws because I will not see it.
What I write here is only based on gut intuition and other reviews. This movie should be boycotted.
Why?
The only possible reason to make a movie of this is to learn more about the mind of a psychopathic killer. This movie does not aim to nor does succeed in accomplishing that task. In addition, since when did interviewing or even psychoanalyzing individual murderers give us any clue as to why they are inclined to kill? Or further insight? Time and again, criminal psychologists have stated that no matter how they may explain the root causes of a particular murder or murderer, it brings us no closer to understanding what makes their minds ‘tick.’
I was particularly reminded of this when I happened to watch a so-called documentary about Charles Manson. (I know, I know. I shouldn’t have even watched. Believe me, I would not go out and paid for it.) I was hoping to learn whether Manson was truly insane or as smart as a fox. As it turned out, I lcame to the conclusion that he is both; and that he enjoys being on camera and manipulating the public and even the interviewers. No matter how long he was prodded and whichever way the questions were put, nothing could explain his original actions, except that he wanted attention and he acted on his heinous and abnormal impulses.
He, like the murderer of Lennon, should not be given ‘air’ time;and if I were not against the death penalty, I would say they should not be given any air, either. I agree, putting them away for life is a burden on the taxpayers. Why should we pay for it? The only reason that I can see for keeping these sickos ‘alive’ is that perhaps death is too easy an ‘out’ for them.
But, for goodness sake, do we have to make them eligible for parole? What’s worse, do we have to continue to re-visit them and glorify them by giving them exposure- which is why they committed their crimes in the first place? To get their fifteen minutes of fame? That is their raison d’etre. They live for this. Anyone giving it such coverage is scurrilous and an accomplice.
It seem that in this society (increasingly) what we reward is the notorious. It is better to have committed anatrocious act than to have remained an unknown. (My apology to William Shakespeare for the twisted metaphor.
Another note, who really cares why a particular actor lost or gained weight or how he did it, when we are discussing a subject as important as the life of a human being? I don’t care if the victim was Lennon, or a total unknown, the murder is equally heinous. But they do not go out and make movies about ordinary murders that go on everyday. No. Only if the murders are particularly gruesome and the murderers are serial murderers. ‘Regular’ old murders and murderers do not get this kind of coverage. Doesn’t anybody here think that in itself is an indication of a sickness in our society?
Perhaps in the end, we should all blame ourselves, partly, for the murder of Lennon. He said it himself. “Sooner or later, they’re gonna crucify me.).
And please, lets not add insult on top of injury to our intelligence. He was a nut-job, not a CIA operative. And who cares why he did it, or what book he based it on? These are trivial matters that do not help us solve anything or put the murder in perspective. It was horrible, it was senseless, and the man who did it deserves no comment or analysis. He certainly does not deserve entire movies devoted to him. I even wonder why I commented, here.
Lastly, if someone wrote a book about him rather than made a movie, it would be more acceptable. It would have to be done in a serious and in-depth manner, that does not focus on exploiting the subject or glorifying the murderer.
But, who would go out and buy this book? Probably less than a dozen people.
No more than they would buy a book of serious poetry. The bottom line is
that violence sells, sex sells, scandals sell, celebrities sell - but only if there is something unsavory attached to them.
Lennon and the Beatles ahd nothing unsavory about them, and yet they managed to capture the hearts and the imagination of millions. They were innocent fun. That era is sadly gone.
Shame on you filmmakers, writers and producers if you have nothing better than this to offer the public who loved John, and whom for the most part would be too respectful of him to see this piece of crap.
For the above, excuse the numerous spelling errors, etc. Obviously, I was very excited then I wrote this piece. Thanks.
http://www.dearjohnlennon.com
JEAN — Regarding Lindsay Lohan: When I told my actress friend I was going to the screening, she scoffed because Lindsay was in it. I don’t know why people don’t like her. I haven’t seen much of her other work and don’t listen to her music. I have seen her once in person hanging out with her friends at a cafe, she looked friendly and had a good energy. The only other time I have seen her is in this movie, wherein she is the same, good energy, nice girl, believable performance. Her role is not demanding in this movie and it is a small part. If anything, Lindsay adds some positiveness to the movie.
JUDITH — Yes, I agree, there is nothing to be learned from this movie and it serves no positive benefit, hence why I am not a fan. I agree with you that it is “another example of exploitation for Hollywood.”
–”The author of this review deserves praise for how he handled it and the conclusions he drew.” Thank you, and I am a SHE.
–Re: Manson: “truly insane or as smart as a fox… he is both” This is frequently the case as madness and intelligence often go hand-in-hand.
–Thank you for your thoughtful addition, Judith!
Regarding the CHAPTER 27 BOYCOTT, please read author Robert Rosen’s insights:
http://robertrosen.blogspot.com/2007/02/gift-to-dying-movie.html
Tomorrow, Wednesday, April 16, at noon eastern time, I’ll be on the Louie Free Radio Show talking about “Chapter 27,” the movie, my John Lennon biography, “Nowhere Man,” and who knows what else. To listen live on your computer, click on (or paste in your browser) the link below and then click on “Listen Now.” If you live in northeastern Ohio or northwestern Pennsylvania you can listen on the radio at WASN 1500 AM.
http://free.vindy.com/
Louie broadcasts Monday-Friday, from 10 am-3 pm.
Regards,
Robert Rosen
ROBERT — Thanks. Good luck!
“How did you lose the weight? What inspires you as an actor? How do you balance your music career and acting?” Who cares, the best part of the Q & A was while Leto was avoiding actually answering any questions by completely changing the subject to reflect how great he is, he made several comments about how terrible it was being overweight for the movie, all the while the woman interviewing him was much larger than he ever was. Uhh, a little awkward. The movie was a good movie, for late night, CINEMAX’s ‘Made for T.V. Movie’ slot.
My April 16 interview on the Louie Free Radio Show is now archived and will remain in the archives until May 7. On the show I talk about “Chapter 27″ and its connection to “Chapter 27” in my Lennon bio “Nowhere Man.” If you’d like to listen, click on the link below. Then click on “Part 1” under April 16. The interview begins a little before the halfway point.
http://free.vindy.com/archives.php
Judith,
I am sorry but I seem to be having some problems with your review- or “comment” rather since you did not bother to watch this movie. I am not writing this because I want to fight and rant, it is just that I am struggling with the idea of people judging something that they appear to know fairly little about.
I do not consider myself to be of overwhelming epertise in this matter but I am a passionate Beatles and John Lennon fan and I appreciate this movie. I did not find anything in it that I would venture to call disrespectful to the memory of Lennon, nor did anything in it strike me as glorifying Chapman or his actions in any way. Also, I do not get kicks out of seeing violence or sociopaths- I like to think of myself as a fairly regular person of some sophistication (if my use of language seems to deify this, please forgive for I am not an English native speaker) and therefore I do not think that this movie is made to please sensation-seeking sickos who hate John Lennon and find pleasure in the twisted minds of killers.
I appreciate this movie for the following reason: it tries to explain something, maybe, that cannot possibly be explained. Not in the sense of explaining Chapman and justifying his actions (because the movie really does not do that). I think you would know what I mean if you imagine finding yourself crying over John Lennon’s death (which I did not do in 1980, I was not born yet) and asking the simple question “WHY?”. Why would somebody shoot John Lennon? (A question which you elaborated on beautifully by the way). The thing is that there is no answer. Murder is irrational as it is and the murderer being a crazy person on top just makes the thing even more incomprehensible. That is why I appreciate this movie. Because it knows that it cannot possibly explain.
Now seeing as this is a negative attribute to this work (in the sense of its descirbing something it does not do), I guess one should find the positive characteristic of this film. I am afraid I cannot offer one. All that I know is that I did not find it offensive, glorifying Chapman or as being disrespectful to the memory of John Lennon.
I suggest you watch it. Seriously. You can still hate it afterwards but at least, with all due respect, you will know what you are talking about.
And by the way: there were books written about the incident and a couple more than a dozen people read them.
Cheers,
Sair.
Sair — Thanks for adding another perspective to our pot of fun.
jared lostall that weight by fasting. He drank nothing but water for 10 days straight.