I don't know if anyone has talked about this, but I thought it was fascinating. This guy wrote a screenplay for the Beatles at the request of Paul McCartney and Brian Epstein. I was watching the bio about the guy tonight.  Interesting. I never knew about this or him, but I'd love to read that script! I wouldn't mind seeing the Jagger film either. Too bad it was never done. Apparently the chauffeur sent to pick him up for a meeting to discuss the Beatles project discovered the bodies of Orton and his lover who had murdered him. Why do the Beatles always seemed to be linked with tragedy?  

Orton was a hot young property in the London theater world at the time, and particularly now that the Beatles were in an experimental art phase, of sorts, Epstein thought he might be the perfect author for the third film. Another reason, actually, is that McCartney was a fan of Orton's work, and had invested a thousand pounds in one of Orton's plays, "Loot." Orton's diary entry for January 12, 1967 notes that Walter Shenson called his agent and said that he had a script, which he characterized as "dull," and wondered if Orton would have a look. Orton agreed, and read it by the 15th, when he wrote in his diary:

"Like the idea. Basically it is that there aren't four young men. Just four aspects of one man. Sounds dreary, but as I thought about it I realised what wonderful opportunities it would give."

He then details some of his ideas of what he would do with the story. After a meeting with Shenson on Jan. 16 (he later met with Epstein and McCartney), he set out to write a new script, which became "Up Against It." Actually, as Carr points out, "Up Against It" used some fairly old ideas: part of it was from a novel Orton wrote in 1953 with Kenneth Halliwell (his lover, who murdered Orton and committed suicide on Aug. 9, 1967) called "The Silver Bucket," and part came from Orton's 1961 novel, "The Vision of Gombold Proval," which was published posthumously as "Head to Toe." He delivered a first draft on February 25, apparently knowing full well it would be rejected. He expected the reason to be that "the boys, in my script, have been cauth in-flagrante, become involved in dubious pllitical activity, dressed as women, committed murder, been put in prison and committed adultery." (Diary, Feb. 11, 1967).

McCartney's assessment, quoted in Carr, was different: "The reason why we didn't do Up Against It wasn't because it was too far out or anything. We didn't do it because it was gay. We weren't gay and really that was all there was to it. It was quite simple, really. Brian was gay...and so he and the gay crowd could appreciate it. Now, it wasn't that we were anti-gay -- just that we, The Beatles, weren't gay."

Once it was no longer a potential Beatles film, Richard Lester was brought in to transform it into a film featuring Ian McKellan and Mick Jagger, but that version of the project was shelved after Orton's murder on August 9.

From Orton:
"I was approached to do a film script for the Beatles. I said it would have to be an absolutely original script. Paul McCartney said do whatever you like. I said that means you'll never be able to do it. He said as long as it's good, that's all right. So I did the script and I was very pleased with it and my agent was very pleased with it and she's not an easy woman to please. Well, we sent it away and didn't hear anything for over a month, then we finally get this little note from Brian Epstein, that it wasn't suitable for the Beatles. Well, what did they want? They got a brilliant script. There were, of course, certain things. Because all teenagers were supposed to imitate the Beatles I mustn't have the Beatles doing certain things. I wrote a story, but actually as it turned out, by page 25 they had committed adultery , murder, dressed in drag, been in prison, seduced the daughter of a Priest, I mean the niece of a Priest, blown up a war memorial and all sorts of things like that. I can't really blame them but it would have been marvellous. I only wrote it because I wanted to, I don't have to be careful about what I write. The fact that Brian Epstein says it isn't suitable doesn't worry me, I'll do it an sell it to someone who will. I mean, I hadn't used any foul language. I hadn't gone as far as I can go if I really wanted to. I was very good on that. Oscar Lewenstein thought it was the best thing I'd written and he has every intention of doing it."

At 11.40am, a chauffeur arrived at their London flat to take Orton to a meeting about his script Up Against It, written for Walter Shenson, producer of A Hard Day's Night and Help! Shenson felt Orton's dark farce style would be ideal for the Beatles, but the sexual anarchy of the script caused consternation; it required the fab four to dress as women and end up in bed together with the heroine. Had it been completed, it would have given him arguably the most remarkable theatre-to-film strike rate of any playwright.

Oh, this is brilliant. Orton writes the first Fab Four fanfic! (I'm responding to Paul's comment 'We didn't do it because it was gay. We weren't gay and really that was all there was to it.")

Fascinating stuff. Thanks for sharing this.

Good story Sandra. Did you know that the press even invented a word for Joe Orton? 'Ortonesque' became a term used to describe something that was outrageously macabre! Also, he and his partner - Kenneth Halliwell - used to borrow books from the local library and alter the dust jackets. They once returned a book of John Betjamin's poetry with a cover showing a photo of an almost naked, heavily tatooed middle aged man!

Do you reckon the Beatles would have enjoyed doing this movie?

Quoted from Kaleidoscope_Eyes

Do you reckon the Beatles would have enjoyed doing this movie?

McCartney said they turned it down because it was a 'gay' movie. So I imagine not!

Prick Up Your Ears is a good biopic of Orton and Halliwell with Gary Oldman and Alfred Molina.  Molina is fantastic.  Frears directed.  

Paul's comments about the whole episode seem a bit odd.  "Too gay," not that there's anything wrong with that.

Yes, but I don't blame Paul if he didn't want to be seen sharing a bed with John for some big orgy scene. He would have to be explaining for the rest of his life that he and the other Beatles are "just good friends".  

I'm sure all the Beatles would have enjoyed blowing up the war memorial, not so sure how happy they would have been being portrayed as adulterists and seducers. The drag thing and the prison sequence might have been okay with them, depending on how it was written. They've done drag before, but that was an earlier "image" and they might have been happy to leave it behind.

Maybe the fake Paul McCartney or "Faul" could have played the gay scenes.

* Fake gay Paul stand in walks in.*

Quoted from adamzero

Paul's comments about the whole episode seem a bit odd.  "Too gay," not that there's anything wrong with that.

Very strange term to use. It's either gay or it isn't. I imagine that Lennon would have quite enjoyed hamming it up though.

Quoted from BlueMeanie

It's either gay or it isn't.

Oh, I don't know about that. I think the Beatles enjoyed acting camp on occasion. But there's a big difference between saying "dahling" in wild clothes and crawling nude into bed with your old mate. I think the script crossed Paul's invisible line about what he would feel comfortable with. And since the Beatles were not really acting (even Ringo claims he never did), I think they would find it hard to play a part. They were most successful when they just did what they did-- be sarcastic or cute or witty or whatever their normal drill was.

Quoted Text

I imagine that Lennon would have quite enjoyed hamming it up though.

I hope so! Even though he said he was disgusted with that image later, I really do enjoy the silly things they did, just as pure entertainment. That's what entertainers should do, so it was spot on for me!

I'm so happy they had the presense of mind (or at least Paul did) to say no to this. They were still expected  to produce a  product for mass world consumption and they would have been crucified for this. It's not as if they were the Grateful Dead or Pink Floyd. Look at the grief they got for MMT.
On a personal note I have a great distaste for 60's psychedelic cinema (which has not influenced the first paragraph one iota, no siree). Films like The Magic Christian bore me senseless with their tricky-dicky camera work and aren't-we-so-clever attitude. Thank god for the 70's and Hollywood and people like Scorcese who showed that you still needed a good plot and decent acting for a good movie.

Quoted from adamzero

Prick Up Your Ears is a good biopic of Orton and Halliwell with Gary Oldman and Alfred Molina.  Molina is fantastic.  Frears directed.  

Paul's comments about the whole episode seem a bit odd.  "Too gay," not that there's anything wrong with that.

He didn't say too gay. He said it was gay and we aren't gay. I mean, that makes sense. It just wouldn't have been comfortable to them and they would have revieved A LOT of mess over it. But I don't know if four guys in bed with a girl is really gay. Unless they're ignoring the girl or something. How bizzare to even think about that anyway! The Beatles were too clean to do something like that! At least their image was. I mean, they probably actually did end up in bed with the same girl on a night or two in Hamburg come to think of it.

I agree, why are four guys with one girl in bed gay?  John described the US tours as Felllini's "Satyricon"--I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't some group sex activity.

When you think of all the scene from AHDN where the Beatles are running from their teenage maenad fans, it seems like Orton was trying to prick that bubble.  Why would guys in their 20s be running away from girls throwing themselves at them (besides not wanting to get crushed)?  

There's something in the Orpheus myth embedded in the whole Beatles story.

Quoted from Sandra

He didn't say too gay. He said it was gay and we aren't gay. I mean, that makes sense. It just wouldn't have been comfortable to them and they would have revieved A LOT of mess over it.

Could have worked against them both ways. 'Straight' people could have seem them as being gay, and gays could have seen them as sending up gays.

Quoted from adamzero

When you think of all the scene from AHDN where the Beatles are running from their teenage maenad fans, it seems like Orton was trying to prick that bubble.  Why would guys in their 20s be running away from girls throwing themselves at them (besides not wanting to get crushed)?  

There's something in the Orpheus myth embedded in the whole Beatles story.

I heard an interview from a member of one of their support bands who said Beatle concerts were really dangerous. There was a feeling they would get ripped apart if they actually got caught. AHDN just played on that, and turned it around to make them a little coy. Sexual promiscuity would not have gone down well - they were the all- dancing all- singing moptops remember, favourites of Her Magesty The Queen. They had a product to sell, and Epstein wouldn't let anything taint their squeeky-clean image

It's pretty simple. Stand still and die, or run, and live!