Opinion: Adam McKay’s hot take on 'white liberals' Beatles obsession

Director Adam McKay recently criticized what he perceives as excessive adoration for The Beatles among "white liberals." His remarks, shared on X (or what cool people still call Twitter), coincide with the release of the new documentary Beatles ’64 on Disney+. In his evil turn, McKay suggested this cultural fixation is "lifeless and flat," equating it with a performative need to celebrate universally accepted icons, a sentiment he labeled as "neo-liberal."

He acknowledged the band’s significant tracks, like "Happiness is a Warm Gun," but expressed disdain for revisiting their work repeatedly past adolescence, implying that such obsessiveness might limit human development.

When challenged by a fan, McKay clarified his stance was not political but cultural, calling the persistent fascination with The Beatles as adult fans "a bore." He emphasized his broader love of music, which he values for its unpredictable evolution, contrasting it with what he sees as a repetitive obsession with the band; "And my love of music is a constant source of joy. It changes and grows in ways I can’t predict. But good lord, to watch a Beatles doc every year? Shoot me dead now."

It's true that there are many Beatles-related movies, such as Peter Jackson's 2021 documentary The Beatles: Get Back, so one might understand where he's coming from. Of course, some question the value of such concerns anyway. As one Twitter user argued: "Such unfailingly fabulous political instincts from the left. 'If you like the music of the most popular band in history, you’re part of the problem.'"

Are too many Beatles films making culture and music more boring?

Though he probably doesn't expect to be taken that seriously, I still think McKay offers an interesting topic, albeit not limited to The Beatles: Is obsessive fandom holding is back culturally? Speaking personally, I understand obsessive fandom, even though I like to think of myself as a diverse music listener.

Still, I think of it like this: If someone's got a boring job in an office (or they're flipping burgers or pushing mops), spending 30-70 hours there a week, and have a family life, and a few other obligations and hobbies...they probably won't be out there expanding their musical horizons in every stray moment, and are more likely to intensify their pre-existing fandoms. Right? If it isn't "Beatlemania," it'll surely be something else.

Does that make people more boring or just more average (which aren't necessarily the same things)? Of course, McKay also overlooks the fact that one can have multiple intense fandoms simultaneously, or that one can be a Beatles fan while also listening to something substantially different, like Butthole Surfers. And hey, The Beatles have non-white superfans, and probably also non-liberal ones, too.

So, at best, I have to say McKay's engaging in oversimplification; at worst, he is just trolling for media attention (and that seems to have paid off a bit). At the same time, though, let me be the first to say it: There's also something sad about saying, in so many words: "How dare you criticize my Beatles!" I say let his critique be food for thought, and not something to take very seriously. More than likely, it was intended humorously., and therefore not worthing popping a blood vessel over.

The documentary in question

The timing of McKay’s critique coincides with heightened attention on Beatles ’64, directed by David Tedeschi and produced by Martin Scorsese. The film revisits The Beatles’ historic 1964 U.S. debut, documenting their arrival in New York and performances that marked the beginning of Beatlemania. Featuring never-before-seen 4K-restored footage by the Maysles brothers, Beatles '64 includes iconic moments like their Ed Sullivan Show performance, which captivated over 73 million viewers.

Audio restoration by Giles Martin adds to the appeal of Beatles ’64, offering audiences an unprecedented audiovisual experience. The project also includes fresh interviews with Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, and fans who experienced the era firsthand.

Still, McKay’s comments highlight an ongoing debate about the cultural weight assigned to classic acts like The Beatles. While their historical significance and artistry are widely celebrated, McKay’s frustration underscores a broader question of when and how society (America and beyond) should expand its cultural focus. Meanwhile, Beatles ’64 aims to recontextualize their impact, spotlighting both the band’s creative innocence and their transformative effect on young fans in 1964.

Though they were British, The Beatles quickly, and perhaps oddly, became just as much a part of "Americana." As producer Margaret Bodde explained: "The fact that they came to America so soon after the assassination of a beloved president and there was a country grieving and in a place of hopelessness, they came in with their personalities and their music. Maybe there’s always times like that — America right now is in a similar place of division where no one can agree on one thing. But when The Beatles came, they were the one thing people could coalesce around this ray of light and their humor and their hopefulness that they brought through their music and their humour and personality."