      |
      |
Beatle myths abound and are regularly debated or debunked on Rec.Music.Beatles, but one myth that seems to escape serious discussion is that of just how far Paul McCartney went in playing the Fool on that French hilltop. Here is an investigation into the "shirt tail vs Macca's wacker" question. Evidence presented is taken directly from the Magical Mystery Tour video available in video stores everywhere but parents may prefer that their children not be exposed to the stills used here. Consider yourself warned as to graphic content! (Of course, if it is his shirt tail, there is no point in this warning!)
In the heady days of the premiere of the Beatles Anthology on TV, rec.music.beatles was inundated with posts from excited fans. Somewhere in that tidal wave I ran across a post from someone complaining about the Free As A Bird video because it contained a clip in which Paul exposed himself. I found it hard to believe that such a film clip existed for many reasons -- not the least of which was the simple fact that I had never seen this mentioned in any Beatle book or on rec.music.beatles in the year or so I had been reading it. It seemed to me that such a "revelation" would be well known among rmb'ers if it were true and the subject would come up (oh, I can see it is going to be hard to do this without constantly stumbling across unintended puns!) regularly as does the subject of John's "attributes" on his nude album cover. Curious, I put my Anthology tape in the VCR and began watching FAAB for moments where this intriguing event could have happened. It was easy to determine that the only possible sequence was the Fool on the Hill clip from Magical Mystery Tour. I was very skeptical at that point, believing it highly unlikely that a feature film would be the source, but switched to my MMT tape and the Fool scenes.
My MMT tape was a pathetic thing copied at fast speed from a grocery store video tape rental. Pause yielded really poor images, but . . . oh my! There was indeed something suspicious about our boy's attire that day on the hill. I watched it over and over but simply couldn't be sure if what I saw was a shirttail, belt or sash, simply artifact, or the real thing. I invited a couple of Beatle friends to watch it with me but the verdict was split. Understandably, the verdicts were rendered more on the "Would he do such a thing?" discussion than on the evidence supplied by the poor quality tape.
On the "No" side were these arguments:
Paul was the one who was so Beatle-image conscious he would never do that.
Even if Britain didn't use censors to mandate morality as in the USA and even if the Beatles did their own editing of the film footage, wouldn't someone on the inside object? Mooning may have gotten by as funny then, but in those pre-streaking, pre-nudity on Broadway, pre-full frontal nudity in Playboy days, flashing was not considered funny.
Even if there was only a small camera crew there on the hill that day, and even if the Beatles did their own editing, there had to be technicians helping them who would have been aware of it. Someone would have talked. Word would have spread like wildfire and it would be a poorly kept secret among Beatle fans.
There are no real reasons to think he would do this (except the video evidence itself, if you accept it) so on the "Yes" side the arguments are even less well supported theories:
Paul was probably at his least inhibited at about that time frame. He apparently didn't object to the use of the nude photo of him on the White Album poster a few months later.
Paul may have been adding a bit of 60's stereotyping to the image of his Fool, portraying him as someone who roamed around unzipped.
Paul may have simply thought it would be a funny stunt to pull, knowing it would be really hard to see in the final version of the film. Streaking and nudity may not have been common when MMT was filmed, but nudity on Broadway in "Hair" was just a couple of years away. Attitudes were changing. Nakedness was beginning to be seen as "natural", nothing to be ashamed of. And unlike today, flashing was thought to be something done by harmless dirty old men - not potentially dangerous sexual perverts. It had more in common with mooning than molestation. Naive and wrong perhaps, but that was the attitude of the times.
Paul couldn't have known that 20 years later fans would be watching MMT at home on a machine that allowed them to freeze frames and examine detail, much less have computers allowing them to capture still shots and zoom in! He could well have assumed that if it wasn't obvious on the film, no one would ever know.
The film I had was definitely inconclusive and the arguments purely speculation, so I posted a request for information on rec.music.beatles. Few people responded. Nearly all said it was just his shirt tail but no one offered any quote denying it or even reported any careful scrutiny of a good quality video using a good VCR and television. I was left uncertain but tending to believe it was another "We will f*** you like a superman" bit of combined overactive imagination, power of suggestion, and quirk of technology.
When I got a video tape editing program for my computer which allows me to capture still shots from any video, you can imagine what one of my first projects was! I went out and purchased a new copy of MMT to work with and ended up with a series of images that seem to best display the evidence. The only editing done to those captured images was to crop away all but the figure of Paul, focus the image to reduce the amount of blur as much as possible, and then use " zoom" on the area in question.
First, a look at what Paul was wearing that day.
This is taken from the Anthology, part 7. White jacket, white dress shirt, black tie which fades to grey/white and darker again at the bottom.
This blurry closeup shows the color of the bottom of the tie and that if he is wearing a belt, it is a narrow black one.
The following images are from MMT, shown in sequence as
Paul crests the hill and moves toward the camera.
View 1
 |
In spite of a lot of motion artifact this clearly shows both the left and right coat tails of the white jacket Paul was wearing under his black overcoat. In the zoom view we see the coat tails, neatly layered with left over right. The right coat tail is smaller, as it is in all the shots. It seems likely that the coat was hiked up a little higher on the left side when Paul was leaping around. No evidence of a belt, tie, sash, or shirt, much less open zipper or anything else! |  |
 |
View 2 This view gives us the first suggestion that we may be seeing a little more than coat tails. The zoom of view 2 is inconclusive. The darker area between the shirt tails could be his penis. Or it could be color shading created by an "S" shaped folding of his left coat tail as it flapped around. The fact that the bottom edge of the coat tail has the same pinkish tone as the the suspicious area leads one to conclude that it is simply a fold of the coat tail. |
 |
 |
View 3 As Paul moves closer to the camera, we see a short run of frames like this. It is not such a difficult stretch of the imagination to see "little Mac" here. It is an especially interesting shot because at first glance, you may think you see the penis pointing to his right at a slightly upward angle, but it is also possible to see it pointing nearly straight up, right along the curve of the flapping coat tail. The zoom view clearly shows the left coat tail billowing up. There does seem to be a fairly clear image of his penis extending out from under it and pointing to his right at a slightly upward angle. The coloring really adds to the impression: the shaft is darker toned than the head which would be consistent with the coloring of the shaft and head (glans) of a penis. (Yes, unlike most British men, Paul is circumsized. See "The Macs" by brother Michael McCartney for a statement on this.) This interpretation is marred by the fact that if light area on the left is the head, then the small wedge of right coat tail clearly seen in views 1 and 2 has disappeared. |
A second possibility is that the light area is the left coat tailait and the penis is pointing upwards. As he was leaping up and down, this angle is very possible. (Yes, I know there are other situations in which this angle occurs, but I doubt that leaping about on a cold hilltop inspires that!) Anyway . . . if it is pointed up, we still have the darker shaft and lighter head. This is a little harder to "see" as it is tucked slightly under the curve of the coat tail. The zoom view is hazy but the size, shape, and coloring is consistent with that in the other views. |
But back to the basic question: Is either of these really a penis? The upward billowing of the coat tail clearly precludes it from being a fold of the left coat tail as appeared likely in View 2. We should be seeing only his black trousers between the shirt tails but it obvious there is something else there. Another shirt? He was wearing a white dress shirt, tucked in, under the jacket. It is possible that it came untucked as he jumped around and is now showing under the jacket. But why would this white shirt pick up so much color while the the jacket maintains its white color?
Another possibility is that it is his necktie. The width is a bit narrow, but it could be turned a little sideways. Working against this possibility is the fact that the tie would have to extend well below his waist to appear here. The outtake film shows it is not nearly that long but it is certainly possible that it came untied or slid through the knot to make one end of it very long? The problem with this "solution" is the color. The tie he was wearing was black and faded to white then grey at the bottom. The object we see is tannish brown.
Could it be a belt? The outtakes show no obvious belt. If Paul was wearing one, it was black, not brown or tan.
"Shadow" is frequently cited as the reason for the discoloration, but this view shows the underside of the coat tail is seen in shadow and the shadow is clearly grey -- not tan or pinkish. The film accurately captured the color.
In looking at the closeup, the coloring suggests another possibility: This "shadow" is simply the bare skin of his stomach revealed as his jacket and shirt both flew up. However, this idea is quickly shot down with a look back at the full picture. The area in question is well below his waistband.
View 4
 |
This brings Paul closest to the camera and several frames from
this segment show the same thing. The position, size, shape, and coloring
- right down to the lighter head - are all consistent with a penis.
The zoom view gives us clearly visible and separated right and left coat tails. The "object" in between appears separate from both the shirt tails, not a fold of one of them. It is possible however that the black areas separating it are heavy shadows. |
 |
Going back to the Anthology out-takes,
we have a few more frames of the Fool sequence to look
at. The Anthology outtakes pick up where the MMT film ends and Paul
moves a few feet further down the hill toward the camera. There seems
to be a gap between the two bits of film, but the first few frames are partly
hidden under the fade-in technique used for the Anthology. This bit
of tape brings Paul even closer to the camera, and should give us the best
shot yet of the mystery object.
View 5
 |
But what the heck is this??? A grey blob! "AHA!" says
I, "Proof positive! They've gone and added a graphic editors equivalent
of a fig leaf to try to cover up the 60's naughtiness with 90's technology!"
Running the frames in slow motion shows that his mysterious grey blob
appears and disappears as Paul's arms move. Could it be a shadow cast
by his arm? Look at the shadow on the ground behind him and note his
arm position. His left arm - the one which could cast a shadow here,
remains well to the side and back and could not account for it.
|
 |
Perhaps it is a flaw in the film - damage to the film itself (unlikely as it would have had to hit the same spot on several consecutive frames) or something picked up during copying or processing. I simply don't know anything about the process and can't speculate there. Is is a pretty amazing coincidence that the blob appears in the same area where the mystery object occured earlier in the segment, however. And if the grey blob is the object, why is the color and shape so drastically different here? There is a color difference between the two segments of film -- the Anthology footage is duller. But none of the color of the rest of the image seems to have changed that drastically. Whites, greys, pinks, browns are all still very distinguishable. Applying color filters to equalize colors of the sky and grass still leaves the blob grey, not the brownish of the mystery object.
Is it a fig leaf? It is hard to believe they couldn't have done a better job of covering it up with the technology available. Heck, I could do better on my home computer. At least the patch would match the black background. Looking at the frames preceding and following the three or so frames with the grey blob, there doesn't seem to be anything to cover up anyway!
The whole idea of a cover-up leads to some wild but fun speculation: "Did they PURPOSEFULLY make it grey to try to lead us to conclude it was his necktie all along?" or "Did they do a patch job to get it past TV censors but do a poor job of it to show they weren't trying to deny it.?" or "Did someone say 'Hey guys, you know that crazy rumor about Paul exposing himself on this? Let's add a grey blob to make 'em think we covered it up!"
**A sane person will by this point recognize that paranoia is taking over. ("Trust no one.")**
View 6
 |
One last image and its zoom, just to befuddle the mind a little
more:
Coat tails. No sign of the mystery object. Edited out? Proof "it" was never there in the first place and all we saw was . . . was . . . what??? A pigment of our imagination? |
 |
My Conclusions?
I feel quite certain it is not a belt (didn't seem to be wearing one), but have to leave room for the possibility it was his necktie even though the tie's length and color suggests otherwise. The possibility that it is a shadow seems weak to me as the light source was to the front and would not cause shadows here. That leaves a coat or shirt tail, but the images seem to show a separation between the white tails and the object.
The "iffy" thing to me is the film itself. I know nothing about cinematography. Throw words like "motion artifact" and "anti-aliasing" at me and I will duck and run! I simply cannot rule out some weird color distortion techno-booboo. The outtakes from the Anthology point toward this -- but are themselves suspect because of the grey blob. Not only is it larger and darker than the tie seen in the same outtake, it definitely doesn't match the color of the mystery object in the MMT images, and is never seen at all in the MMT footage. That leads one down a murky path: If you believe you saw a penis in the MMT images, then you almost have to believe you see a cover-up in the footage aired with the Anthology. That is not totally unbelievable - it was intended to run on prime time TV and logical that they would clean up the act. But that whole scenario gets really speculative and complicated.
If shown the same film of some Mr. Anonymous romping down the hillside, I would would take one look, laugh and say "Heck yes! The dude's undone!" But knowing the man involved, his image-consciousness, the possible repercussions of doing this back then, the unlikelihood of this remaining secret all these years, and I really have to stop and think and think again. The most definite I'll go on record as being is "Yeah, I kinda he might have."
My only real conclusion is that if Paul was not flashing us, this beats the heck out of "We will f*** you like superman" for bizzare coincidence, happenstance, or whatever you call it!
One last thought, not intended as any kind of evidence but just a
funny thought: Was this few seconds of film -- from all of MMT -- selected
for inclusion in FAAB precisely because he IS flashing us? What better
film clip for a song entitled "Free as a Bird"?!?
Quotes from any Beatle book on the subject would be much appreciated. I have received a couple of reports that around the time of the Anthology, the British tabloids where reporting Paul admitted to having done it, but haven't seen a quote from an article. A quote from the man himself (printed in a reliable source) would be considered an end to the matter!
And should a certain person like to have this reminder of his youthful pranks go away . . . there is no need for legal action. If it bothers you to have this out here --- though I am betting you are just glad that someone finally noticed that John was NOT the first to show the world! --- Just say the word and it is gone! Love ya Paul!
Updates:
02/23/98 I had been hoping that someone with both DVD and videocapture capability would be able to settle this with clearer pictures, but it doesn't seem likely. Apparently MMT on DVD offers little or no improvement in picture quality according to this review from Entertainment Weekly, Friday, December 19, 1997
". . . putting out Magical Mystery Tour on DVD makes as much sense as archiving a 10th-generation bootleg recording on a gold-plated CD. DVD only makes the film's grainy, washed-out original 16 mm photography that much more e xcruciating. It's a misbegotten bad trip, a poor excuse to bilk DVD converts eager to feed their new habit.
A Hard Day's Night: A
Help: A–
Magical Mystery Tour: D+ "
Chris from Australia recently responded to my request for images captured from DVD.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
DVD images are a bit blurrier but don't have the striping and color of the video stills, supporting the conclusion that Macca's Whacker is just video artifact. Images 1 & 2 don't appear to show anything other than white coat tails. Image 3 seems to show a dark shadow -- or a penis... Your call! |
12/01/97 Leads to a supposed admission by Paul in a British Tabloid at the time of the Anthology have not been verified. Several people have commented that my statements about the coloring of the mystery object being consistent with that of a penis are inaccurate in this case because Englishmen are not typically circumsized unless they are Jewish. That is true, however Paul and Michael were both circumsized. In Mike McCartney's book "The Mac's" he states " "Although Paul and I were baptised Catholics (and circumcised Jewishly) our parents preferred a non-Catholic education..." (Thanks to d. and Gael for providing the source info for my faulty memory of where I had read that!)
One interesting development is that apparently this site has been reviewed by "Paul's People." I submitted the site as an advertiser for the Webcast of Standing Stone but was told the site was not selected. The person at the web-advertising company believed it was probably because of this section (not exactly the image they wanted for Paul when promoting Standing Stone <VBG>). He also said he heard the decision on which sites to accept was made by the MPL staff and Paul's LAWYERS!! Needless to say, I freaked out on reading that! I expected a "cease and desist" order to arrive any day!! But no correspondence for MPL or the Legal Dept. has arrived. That may indicate they weren't really the judges of sites and therefore haven't seen it. ( It is a little hard to believe they haven't gotten wind of it by way of comments on RMB though. Surely someone in the organization is responsible for at least cursory monitoring of that newsgroup.) Or is it an indication that Paul did indeed do it and they know they have no legal leg to stand on to shut down this page ?
8/20/98 MelIoYeIIo@aol.com sent me the first "in print" confirmation of this story! From page 173 of Ross Benson's "Paul McCartney: Behind the Myth" . . .
| "McCartney's 'flick flick flick on frame at a time approach may have
been allright for a home movie but for a television special it was
a disaster. The only memorable 'flicks' in the whole fifty minutes are during
the fool on the hill when McCartney's penis is exposed as he dances
over the crest of a knoll, though it was not until the advent of home
video and the pause button that the audience was able to share the adolescent
joke. The staff at NEMS urged McCartney to forget it, 'Better to junk it
than be embarrassed by it' Brown advised.
"McCartney wouldn't hear of that, MMT he insisted was going ahead as scheduled. As usual he got his way. He had devoted 15 weeks, day and night, to putting MMT together." |
I am assuming the "Brown" he refers to is Peter Brown but have to wonder if Brown was referring to that specific bit of footage or to the entire MMT project. As written, it implies he meant the Fool scene, but if Benson is from the Goldman school of journalism it could be a quote about the entire film which was taken out of context and used to support the author's statements about that particular scene.
I am looking for opinions on the credibility of the book . The book is out of print so I have not yet found it to read it in its entirety to get a feel for the reliability of the information in it. The one review of the book which I found indicates that Benson is neither fawning nor tearing Paul apart in his book but it does seem to indicate that he draws many conclusions about his character. I am not interested in his opinions of Paul however, only in whether the information he reports is factual. Any thoughts on the reliability of this author (specifically evidence of other information in it being inaccurate or unsupportable) would be appreciated. No Beatle author is infallible, but I would like to know if this is from a book on the Lewisohn end of the spectrum or one more Goldmanesque!
Not proof by any means, but unless Benson turns out to be really unreliable in his reporting and creative in his use of out of context quotes, this is strong evidence!
E-mail me your thoughts on the topic!
08/21/98
