Why are there little wheels over Bonzo's eye in the Earls Court concert program?

[zeptangerine]

Someone out there MUST have an answer. Check out the pictures on the link below. I've seen a copy of the EC concert program up close and personal, and it spooks the hell out of me every time! Any reason why these pics were printed this way? More importantly, how did Peter Grant let these things out of the box?

http://www.ledzeppelin.com/lzprogrammes/75..._programme.html

[One and Only]

that's weird

[Cactus]

Stange indeed. The circle looks like it was photoshopped/airbrushed in, but as it's in the same position in the 2 photos, maybe he was wearing a monacle?

[zeptangerine]

Stange indeed. The circle looks like it was photoshopped/airbrushed in, but as it's in the same position in the 2 photos, maybe he was wearing a monacle?

I thought it was a printer's way of removing red eye before they had software to do it, but it almost looks deliberate instead of a mistake. I've never seen Bonzo with a monacle on stage. Or anywhere. It's a wheel-like little gear or some such symbol. My husband thinks it represents "pennies on the eyes of a dead man" but how could they know to do it in 1975? It's just bizarre!! There's the 'Paul Is Dead' mystery, and now this. Best left... unsolved...?

[Styrbjorn]

Stange indeed. The circle looks like it was photoshopped/airbrushed in, but as it's in the same position in the 2 photos, maybe he was wearing a monacle?

Have you not noticed that Bonham is dressed as a "Droog" from the book by Anthony Burgess, "A Clockwork Orange?" Later made into an iconic film by Stanley Kubrick?

Here's an adaptation of the original artwork:

Try and keep up please...

More information can be found here:

A Clockwork Orange

[No1ZeppelinFan]

I've noticed that in my program before and just thought it was a print error?

[Styrbjorn]

I've noticed that in my program before and just thought it was a print error?

Try looking at the post above yours.

[sam_webmaster]

Have you not noticed that Bonham is dressed as a "Droog" from the book by Anthony Burgess, "A Clockwork Orange?" Later made into an iconic film by Stanley Kubrick?

Here's an adaptation of the original artwork:

Try and keep up please...

More information can be found here:

A Clockwork Orange

Thanks for posting that.

[zeptangerine]

Have you not noticed that Bonham is dressed as a "Droog" from the book by Anthony Burgess, "A Clockwork Orange?" Later made into an iconic film by Stanley Kubrick?

Here's an adaptation of the original artwork:

Try and keep up please...

More information can be found here:

A Clockwork Orange

Great connection. I always thought that was a coincidence- Bonzo looked more like a painter in a tiny bowler going back to his construction roots than Alex DeLarge- but maybe the printers got cute and decided to "implant" a monocle just for that occasion. (Greatest cult film of the 20th century, btw!) Hmmm...DeLarge... Bonzo was looking a bit large at the time... might have something here, but Alex doesn't have a monocle, just long eyelashes drawn on his face (see link below). Still, how could Peter Grant let those copies out of the box? He got all pissy over a few merchandise peddlers in TSRTS, but not this- and over 5 nights worth of shows?

http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0066921/mediaindex

[Zephyrus]

Great connection. I always thought that was a coincidence- Bonzo looked more like a painter in a tiny bowler going back to his construction roots than Alex DeLarge- but maybe the printers got cute and decided to "implant" a monocle just for that occasion. (Greatest cult film of the 20th century, btw!) Hmmm...DeLarge... Bonzo was looking a bit large at the time... might have something here, but Alex doesn't have a monocle, just long eyelashes drawn on his face (see link below). Still, how could Peter Grant let those copies out of the box? He got all pissy over a few merchandise peddlers in TSRTS, but not this- and over 5 nights worth of shows?

http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0066921/mediaindex

I was always led to believe that scene in TSRTS was all an act. anyone know how true that is?

the Clockwork Orange explanation sounds the most believable to me

[Cactus]

I was always led to believe that scene in TSRTS was all an act. anyone know how true that is?

It's all 'documentary' footage, although the footage shown is from a little earlier in the tour (Boston?) and not MSG. It is real.

[zeptangerine]

I was always led to believe that scene in TSRTS was all an act. anyone know how true that is?

the Clockwork Orange explanation sounds the most believable to me

I didn't think it was an act- I can easily see Grant getting huffed over the peddlers 'nicking a few quid, ripping off the band' bit. After all, it was his few quid as well!

What I want to know is if there are any authentic EC program copies without the little wheels on Bonzo's pics. Has anyone seen otherwise?

[Styrbjorn]

Thanks for posting that.

A pleasure Sam.

The irony of course is that Bonham didn't dress as a "Droog" for the Earls Court shows. Where he and Mick Hinton had been regularly dressing up on the USA leg of the tour, that particular outfit had been ditched for the Earls Court shows.

I'll have to dig out my copy of the program to see if I can find any anomalies. I know mine is real as I bought it on the 24th May 1975 at Earls Court.

[zep41]

i have always wondered the same about JB's eye in the program. BUT I think it was just done in a funny/joking way by the printers because he was dressed like a droog in the pictures from the US 75 tour that were used for the EC program.

[Zephyrus]

I didn't think it was an act- I can easily see Grant getting huffed over the peddlers 'nicking a few quid, ripping off the band' bit. After all, it was his few quid as well!

What I want to know is if there are any authentic EC program copies without the little wheels on Bonzo's pics. Has anyone seen otherwise?

well yeah, I can see that too. but what I was told was that particular scene was faked, mostly because Grant wanted it in the movie, and obviously you have to have cameras at a scene like that in order to record it. unless they'd been going around recording Grant's outbursts, no such footage would exist. the thing someone said about it being at Boston makes sense, what are the chances Grant would want a scene like that to be recorded and it just happens to play out for real at MSG, where the rest of the movie is set? I was just wondering if that actual scene was real, that's all.

[zeptangerine]

well yeah, I can see that too. but what I was told was that particular scene was faked, mostly because Grant wanted it in the movie, and obviously you have to have cameras at a scene like that in order to record it. unless they'd been going around recording Grant's outbursts, no such footage would exist. the thing someone said about it being at Boston makes sense, what are the chances Grant would want a scene like that to be recorded and it just happens to play out for real at MSG, where the rest of the movie is set? I was just wondering if that actual scene was real, that's all.

I thought I read the peddler outburst scenes were filmed at what was then called the Baltimore Civic Center in MD; either there, or in Pittsburg, PA. I can totally understand why the band was pissed at the director and his lame cameramen, too, filming those fight scenes back stage instead of the band ON stage!

[Styrbjorn]

well yeah, I can see that too. but what I was told was that particular scene was faked, mostly because Grant wanted it in the movie, and obviously you have to have cameras at a scene like that in order to record it. unless they'd been going around recording Grant's outbursts, no such footage would exist. the thing someone said about it being at Boston makes sense, what are the chances Grant would want a scene like that to be recorded and it just happens to play out for real at MSG, where the rest of the movie is set? I was just wondering if that actual scene was real, that's all.

The scene is real, filmed at a previous show, I'll check which one later. Whoever told you it was fake is clearly full of shit. The crew were conducting camera tests in preparation for the MSG shows. It's probable that other pre-MSG footage exists from the same source.

[Zephyrus]

that's cool, I believe it's real. I believe I read it in a book about Zeppelin, though I can't remember the name. It was not the one that is so famously exaggerated though.

[Styrbjorn]

that's cool, I believe it's real. I believe I read it in a book about Zeppelin, though I can't remember the name. It was not the one that is so famously exaggerated though.

Mudshark!

I think the footage of Grant was filmed at the Three Rivers Stadium, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on 24th July 1973. Where's Steve A Jones when you need him?

[kirchzep27]

Interesting thing...guess it was an artistic statement.

[zeptangerine]

Interesting thing...guess it was an artistic statement.

Either that, or somebody at the print shop was stoned and decided to pull a prank on the band at Bonzo's expense!!

[Cactus]

I can totally understand why the band was pissed at the director and his lame cameramen, too, filming those fight scenes back stage instead of the band ON stage!

That's a stupid statement. The plan, which was devised by Peter Grant, was that the film crew would shoot the final 3 nights of the tour at MSG. They were flown from the UK only days before New York, to allow them to watch a few shows and prepare for shooting the 3 days at MSG. As part of this preparation they shot camera tests of the band on stage, and it was also decided that some footage of the band backstage could come in handy.

All backstage footage was from Baltimore. The reason they shot footage in Baltimore rather than MSG actually disproves your statement. There is no footage backstage at MSG because the crew were all working to shoot the stage show on those nights. So contrary to what you say, they did do the right thing by shooting backstage footage from shows at which they were not required to shoot the stage show.

[zeptangerine]

That's a stupid statement. The plan, which was devised by Peter Grant, was that the film crew would shoot the final 3 nights of the tour at MSG. They were flown from the UK only days before New York, to allow them to watch a few shows and prepare for shooting the 3 days at MSG. As part of this preparation they shot camera tests of the band on stage, and it was also decided that some footage of the band backstage could come in handy.

All backstage footage was from Baltimore. The reason they shot footage in Baltimore rather than MSG actually disproves your statement. There is no footage backstage at MSG because the crew were all working to shoot the stage show on those nights. So contrary to what you say, they did do the right thing by shooting backstage footage from shows at which they were not required to shoot the stage show.

That's rude- who do you think you are calling MY statement stupid? Where did you get your information? The band has been quoted in SEVERAL sources saying they were unhappy with the director because of the lousy film footage, and that's why they switched directors mid stream. That's also why they had to re-create the entire concert at Shepperton studios to fill in the gaps where the first camera crew missed essential stage shots. And you're wrong- not all backstage film was from Baltimore. The b/stage scenes between B-more AND Pittsburgh are basically fill-ins for the MSG camera men screw ups. Nothing is shot in sequence in this movie, especially the song order. You obviously don't have clue one about this subject, so read MOJO Dec. 2007 pages 74-76 for more info.

[Cactus]

The band has been quoted in SEVERAL sources saying they were unhappy with the director because of the lousy film footage, and that's why they switched directors mid stream.

Yes, but they never said it was because of the backstage footage, which was your original point (go back and read your original post if you like)...

I can totally understand why the band was pissed at the director and his lame cameramen, too, filming those fight scenes back stage instead of the band ON stage!

Your knowledge gained from books and interviews is fine, but you are not a film-maker and you are obviously ignorant of some aspects of film production. If they had been shooting what was happening on the stage that night, instead of Peter Grant backstage, their footage would likely not have been usable anyway, for continuity reasons. Also, if Peter Grant didn't want to be filmed backstage, he would have said so, as he was paying for it.

The incidents in that film have played an important role in the myth of Led Zeppelin and specifically Peter Grant as a fearsome character.

But you are correct that the footage was generally not great - I think amateur would be an adequate description. However, it must be noted that the band was very difficult to work with, for both directors, and they certainly contributed to the poor quality of the film. The short notice given didn't allow the director or his crew to adequately prepare. Refer to Martin Scorsese's involved prep for The Last Waltz, for example, which produced a much more polished product. He had a shot list for practically ever moment of the film, with cues sync'ed with lyrics and musical moments...

While you may think they were "lame cameramen", the camera crew on the film included Ernest Day, camera operator on such classics as A Clockwork Orange, Dr Zhivago and Lawrence of Arabia...so I might not know anything about this subject but there you go.

[zeptangerine]

I said NOTHING WAS FILMED IN SEQUENCE IN THIS MOVIE so do you get the point or not??

ps- Q: What does this movie discussion have to do with my topic?