John has always made it clear that the whole Beatlemania image thing was a charade. Sometimes when I watch those interviews they seem just a constant rerun of the same cheeky-chappy persona, and can only be dated by their hair/clothes/pissed off looks on their faces. It's seems just an endless retreading of the same old lines. And when someone did break the mould (sp) - well once actually - it ends up in John having to make an embarrassingly grovelling apology.
I don't know whether to feel sorry for them in being caught up in that big machine, or pissed off with them for going along with the ride and not having the guts to stand up for themselves. It seems by 66 they were embarrased by the whole thing (how could they not be after seeing Dylan live).
Or maybe it was really them, and John saying they wanted to talk about Vietnam but "weren't allowed" (jeez gets some balls guys) is just another case of John reinventing history.
I am aware too that The Stones weren't bad boys, Dylan was a travelling minstrel and The Beach Boys didn't hang out on the beach. Smoke and mirrors

Quoted from Kevin

I don't know whether to feel sorry for them in being caught up in that big machine, or pissed off with them for going along with the ride and not having the guts to stand up for themselves.

Hi, Kevin!

Well, you can feel how you like to feel. For me, the Beatles recognized that they were entertainers. They weren't necessarily doing self-realization in public; they had an act. The act was "natural, cheeky-chappy" and for years they did have fun with it, so I don't think it was a burden. I don't think the act got to them in the end so much as all the nonsense that went along with it-- those ridiculous girls screaming (I still can't figure out that cultural phase; it sounds like one of Dawkins' "mind viruses" to me), the shoddy arrangements for their transportation/safety/performance quality, all that jazz.

I wouldn't want to conflate eager, rising-star John with burned-out, pissed-off John. It had to be tremendously satisfying for them to get that kind of success. Reread the Playboy article if you haven't for a while: http://www.geocities.com/~Beatleboy1/db1965.02pl.beatles.html
They are outspoken, they are having fun, and they're also a lot more worldly wise at this point then the babies from Liverpool.

Whether Brian really advised them not to speak out against the war is up for debate in my opinion; in fact, if you follow their 1966 tour, John and George routinely spoke out against the war during the whole "Jesus" tour. I'm sure irritation was behind it; why try to behave when half of America already hates you? You might as well say what you feel. They got applause, by the way: http://www.geocities.com/~Beatleboy1/db1966.0822.beatles.html

As for the endless retread, every entertainer does this. An author friend has her stock of quips for each book tour because "you never know when you might need to be spontaneous". I think the Beatles were in fact spontaneous a good deal, compared to many others. That's why they were intriguing and quotable. But that's just my impression. Feel free to blast away with an alternative view!

Hello Marie.
I don't really have an opinion on it, or if I do it depends on what side of the bed I got out of. Right now you've convinced me, but who knows what too much sugar and a bad nights sleep will do to me tomorrow. Not sure now what set me of on The Beatle Delusion mode. God, maybe I'm evolving in to some halfwitted Fabfour Dickie Dawkins. It wasn't supposed to be this way.

Quoted from Kevin

God, maybe I'm evolving in to some halfwitted Fabfour Dickie Dawkins. It wasn't supposed to be this way.

Only if the "evolved" Dickie Dawkins outcompetes the Fabfour Times researcher! Quick, reproduce when you're in a good mood! (Although this is always good advice...)

I suppose it's hard not to be cynical, depending on what you read. All the Beatles said some discouraging things over the years; I think they were trying to deal with the mystery of the Beatles as much as anyone else (or more). So they'd try on different viewpoints and, because they were famous, these viewpoints would often be recorded. That's why I felt I had to get an end-to-end view of their Beatles + solo careers, because it was a moving picture. We had public Beatles, but we also had four guys (and Pete, can't forget him) trying to work out what was going on just so they could get an idea of how they were supposed to live. Not always a happy story, but they gave it a good go.

Quoted from harihead

Only if the "evolved" Dickie Dawkins outcompetes the Fabfour Times researcher! Quick, reproduce when you're in a good mood! (Although this is always good advice...)

Oh that made me laugh.

As usual not much to add to Harispeak, but I might add that these guys were spontaneous and witty, it wasn't an act. It's what got their foot in George Martin's door as much as their music did (per GM), and in the early days it's what kept the media spotlight on them just a bit longer than it would have otherwise (I think).

I'm a sucker for footage from the AHDN/mop top days, contrived or not. That's what comes from being shallow and superficial!

Yeah - from reading contempory accounts it seems their personality was as important, if not more so, than the music. Robert Freeman also said  that it was what attracted him to them.
This is probably another of my inglorious non-threads. (When things are slow here I try to think of things, and negative is easier than positive.) I'm not for a moment saying they were contrived. But the whole thing did become a circus and it's as if they were frozen in time. I just wonder that if by 66 they weren't dying to be disdainful, or controversial, or something different from the constant one liners.
After having seen Dylan and others live they must have realised that the whole chirpy interview/20 minute concert routine was becoming very old fashioned and uncool, and surely contributed to their decision not to continue touring.