A commenter, Den, some time back suggested that I watch the movie Give My Regards to Broad Street, put out in 1984, written (supposedly) by “Paul” McCartney.” I say “supposedly” because I have no belief in the man’s integrity, knowing as I do that there are two of them. A lot of great songs have come our way from this pair, but the question I ask is that even if we assume Paul McCartney wrote that stuff, well then which one?

First, the comment:

He’s both right and wrong – that is, I don’t know who is the street singer at the end, but it is not Paul as far as I can tell. However, original Paul appears throughout, does perhaps half the music, and even does what I would call “intakes,” or short cuts where he is front and center reacting to someone else, but not shot as part of the original scene.

To get through this we are going to have to do a short primer on McCartneyism, who they are and how to tell them apart.

That is Mike on the left, Paul on the right. The above photos were taken in the late 1950s, prior to their departure for Hamburg for recruitment and training of potential Beatles. The twins theme seems to predominate, as candidate Stu Sutcliffe (who by my evidence faked his death to become artist Andy Warhol) was, I suspect, a set of twins. There’s also indications of two John Lennon’s, but I could never satisfy myself that the evidence was good enough. Nonetheless, as they say, both Intelligence and show business love twins.

On the left above is the man we know today as Paul McCartney, or Macca. Judge for yourself.

On the right (1959) is the original Paul, the one who sang Till There Was You before an enthralled British crumpets and tea set at the Royal Variety Performance in 1963. It is worth a look.

They do a good job, and Paul is a good singer (as is Mike). One thing to note about Paul, one of the less obvious clues as to which one you are looking at, is that he bobs his head as he sings.

Original Paul would recede to the background in the 1990s but reappear as “John Halliday.”

Paul JimThat is not some of the most convincing of sets of photos, but I had to grab the Halliday photo from a video, and felt lucky to have him look right at the camera. Other photos of him and Paul line up very well, as seen to the left. Most interesting, to me anyway, is that with both photos above, in order to do a comparison I had to tilt them counterclockwise four degrees. I have noticed over the years that when dealing with the same people in different photos, they often assume the same poses, even over time.

Another clue is seen off to the left here – this is a charming family photo taken when the boys were maybe four or five … note the arrow. Mike McCartney has a natural part on the right side of his head, actually, a cowlick. This appears throughout his life. However, in our present situation, a movie where the two are pretending they are only one and where the hair on each has to be alike, I think there a high probability that both are wearing wigs. No cowlicks are seen in the movie

There are two other obvious clues. Paul has an impacted tooth that is forced to the back by his others. Take a look below:

Paul is left handed, Mike right handed, which means that over time Mike has had to learn to play left handed. He does so, and quite well. In the early days when he was in the Paul shoes, they would put him behind a piano.

Those clues are not always obvious, which leads to the most obvious of all. My wife and I sat through Broad Street Last night. It reminded me of Help! in that it had a lousy script that was a vehicle for some very well-produced songs, the only redeeming quality in the movie. I regarded watching this movie as a homework assignment, something I did not want to do. But I enjoyed it. The music and musicians were superb. As I sighed to myself before loading the CD, removing the shrink wrap, I laughed out loud.


Go back to the 1957-59 photos above, and look at the eyebrows. Paul’s wrap around, while Mike’s do not. In this cover photo for the movie, they have deliberately shown us both eye brows. It was hidden in plain sight. They are taunting us! Note that in the early days, their “moptop” hair came down over their foreheads all the way to the eyes, a nice way to hide the eyebrows. Not that anyone noticed.

So, as I said to my wife last night, as we watched we were the only people in the world who have ever done so and been able to say “That’s Paul” or “That’s Mike” to every scene. The eyebrows give it away.

I don’t know when Paul quit performing in public and gave it over to Mike. I would suspect that Wings concerts were both men, but they began to separate in looks as they aged, and it was no longer possible to keep the secret, so one had to go. They chose Mike to be Paul, but in this movie both are polished performers. It could have been either, but I must say, from a man’s perspective, Mike is a little more handsome and less “cute” than his brother, who was perhaps destined to be a crooner. Also apparent in this movie, Mike is good on stage, full of energy, where Paul likes to sit and play. That’s not a rock star. That’s Paul Simon.

Also, in the movie, Paul hits the high notes quite well, while Mike does not. (Example: Listen to Here, There and Everywhere (Paul) and Lady Madonna (Mike). Paul cannot hit those low notes, and they would have to shift keys for Mike to do Here There....

As always, this is fun. Many people are morose, thinking that original Paul died in a car crash and had to be replaced by an impostor. The whole Paul is Dead thing was misdirection. They wanted us to ask the wrong question. That’s how it is done in Intelligence and show business – they don’t lie so much as misdirect. 

But I regard Paul/Mike as harmless fun. I had to concede last night as I watched them perform that both are very good at their jobs. Of course, it is the movies, and we don’t know if they are really playing their instruments or being ghosted or if they have a British version of the Wrecking Crew behind them in the studio. (Probably so, and they may have been used for this movie). However, they are both good singers and sound very much alike. It took a genuinely curious eye to tell them apart in those days, and since no one knew to look, no one ever suspected there were two of them.

Below is a chronological list of the songs performed in the move Give My Regards to Broad Street, and who performed. Other songs are played throughout as background, but these are seemingly live performances.  I learned a lot in doing this task, and will share at the end. [The little white arrows are just carelessness on my part, leaving the cursor in view as I did the scene cap on my computer, and can be ignored.]

YesterdayYesterday is easily seen to be Paul.


Here There and Everywhere

Here, There and Everywhere, again, Paul.


WanderlustWanderlust,  Paul.


Ballroom Dancing

Ballroom Dancing, finally, Mike makes a singing appearance. He is otherwise all over the movie, and seems to be the central character more than Paul. I must say, he is very comfortable in his skin, moves about easily, seemingly very relaxed.


Silly Love SongsSilly Love Songs – the singer is heavily made up, and has wraparound eyebrows, but such makeup is applied to the rest of the performers too. This is, I think, Mike. I’ll explain at the end.


Not such a bad boy

Not Such a Bad Boy, Mike.


No ValuesNo Values, Mike.


ForNo One

For No One, Paul.


Eleanor RigbyEleanor Rigby, Paul.

Street singer at end of movie – it does not look like anyone I know, but perhaps it is Paul heavily made up. He is singing a stepped up version of Yesterday.

There was also a scene where Mike sees a vagrant, and they nod at each other, as if friends. Surely hidden meaning there, but it’s not a great script, so I am going to let it stay hidden.***

Have any of our readers ever attended a Wings concert? I am curious and would like to know, were there several sets, an upbeat and high energy one followed by a slow down? If so, I think it safe to say that this is how Mike and Paul traded off during the Wings era. As seen here, Paul is sitting down for every performance, while Mike is standing, playing in a band, or leaning over a piano. This is why I thought that Silly Love Songs was Mike even though he was made up more like Paul. He was standing over a piano, something Paul doesn’t do, apparently.

Also, every song requiring a high, near falsetto voice was Paul. So it would be easy to go back through the entire Beatles body of work and determine which Paul was the performer based on vocal requirements. Why Don’t We Do It In The Road would be Mike, I Will would be Paul, who is basically a crooner. That is why, in the end, Mike got the gig – he was a better stage performer.

My thanks to commenter Den for bringing this my way. I had no idea it would be so much fun.

*** It just occurred to me that the hidden meaning here could be that both people, the street performer and the vagrant, could be John Lennon. His 1980 death was faked.

14 thoughts on “McCartneyism

  1. Paul is wearing a wig in that video at the top. It doesn’t look close to real and his eyebrows go up under it while not a hair moves. Looks like he’s lip syncing as well.

    Maybe the twin things were done as tests to see how well they could pull them off, as failing would have no consequence and could be spun as something edgy that was all in good fun by the lads.

    Having an Eastman involved may play into it as well, as success could only help the film and camera industry.


    1. I think you’re right about the wig in Till there was You. I said “show business and Intelligence love twins,” but that is redundant. In show business it allows them to get more work done, as the work can be exhausting. Take this movie, for instance – Paul had to show up over two or three days to do the songs he did, while Mike was off relaxing or recovering – some of his songs are very taxing, Ballroom Dancing,” for instance, heavily choreographed. That had to have taken weeks, if not longer. Twins are not uncommon in Hollywood, seen as oddities when shown to be twins in public. Just Google “famous Hollywood twins” and you’ll get an eyeful.

      There are other sites that have investigated the possibility that the Beatles were two groups of lookalikes or more. Just working on Paul alone was exhausting, but the childhood photos at least made it feasible. The other sites that do this stuff are tantalizing, but oddly overlook the Paul business and focus on the others, and play off the Paul is Dead angle, so are misdirection. They also overlook show business reality, that famous people have body doubles and heavy security that does a lot of tricks to keep them safe and out of public view. There was at least one Paul lookalike I ran across that is not him, and who was probably used as a body double. For instance, when a car shows up on the street and a famous person gets out and walks to a building, often you’ll find that to be a body double while the real person enters through a private door, maybe in the alley. Every movie star has a stunt double, even Tom Cruise, who laughably claimed to have done the riding on the wing of a jet aircraft himself in one of the MI movies.


  2. Good article! I would like to see “Give My Regards to Broadstreet” as well as the 2009 movie “Let Him Be” with John. I had never heard that the real Paul appears in Broadstreet.

    One quick aside: As I’ve said, the “Sage of Quay” videos seem to be good at exposing Beatle recording secrets, but he promotes the “Paul is dead” scam. I don’t know if he’s misdirecting intentionally, but it’s possible he may be correct about the replacement brother’s name being Billy. I saw some video footage a while back where replacement Paul was backstage or at some party and a couple of people walked up and said “Hi Billy”. It may have been footage from the Broadstreet movie? Also, here’s a quick 1 minute and 22 second clip of Dana Carvey talking about the first time he met “Paul”, meaning the replacement brother. At the 49 second mark Dana calls him Billy.


    1. Interesting! My wife and I debated and replayed a scene where an older man walks up to a limo and addresses him as “Mike,” but I thought he said “Mate,” so we agreed to disagree. That happened twice. As MM said at one point, we don’t know their names. And there is, in the British peerage, a man named “Halliday Macartney.” But I regard the whole Billy Shears thing as misdirection. There’s some footage somewhere of George Martin sitting with them and “accidentally” calling McC “Billy.” But if it is on film, it was meant to be seen. Same with Carvey, I suspect, an inside show biz deliberate slip up, loving being an insider. But I am not an insider, so how can I know?

      You’d be lucky to get hold of a copy of Let Him Be. I gave my copy away to an Aussie I met through Facebook who I am no longer in touch with. He was researching there being two John Lennons. I wish I’d not done that, speaking of lousy movies. But I’ve no doubt I was looking at John Lennon.


        1. I really don’t think I would sit through it again. I did some screen caps that I still have that satisfied me that I was looking at the Beatle who went by the name John Lennon.

          However, if anyone wants to take you up on your offer, I will (assuming yours is a functional email address) have them contact me via this comment string and relay any requests to you, with you able to act or not act on them at your decision.


  3. Article idea/ request: a new documentary is out about John K of Ren & Stimpy fame, cementing him (it appears from reviews) as preying on underage women and abusive to employees. Obviously part of the ongoing Men are Pigs project. But is it totally fabricated, or just spotlighting a genuine case?

    Mark, I’m guessing it missed your demographic as a 90s cartoon, but maybe Faux or someone? I started to research it once and it had many red flags. Canadian military background in his family and so forth.

    Even the fact that it kicked off a “renaissance” in animation… The crafted(?) image of John K as an iconoclast, insisting on quality in a time of decline… All very curious.

    For those interested, youtube has interviews from dvd extras, where he appeared alongside women who later accused him. Also a Howard Stern show appearance. Wikipedia probably gives an overview of the accusations.


  4. I attended a Wings concert at the Cow Palace the summer of ’76. I was too far away to study faces- and, of course, I was not studying faces with POM in mind back then- but I recall that there was a break in the middle where everyone left the stage and Paul came back solo and played a short acoustic set. Beatle faves like Blackbird and Yesterday. He then left and the stage was empty again and then the entire band, with the horn section, came back out. The energy, as I distantly recall, was fairly consistent. The only place they could have switched was the acoustic set and then an encore. The encore was really lively (Hi, Hi, Hi) so I suspect the only switch would have been the acoustic halftime bit, and the solo appearance would have hidden any height discrepancy.
    Cut to two years ago and a friend of mine saw “Paul” at ATT Park, I think, and he said Paul could hit the high notes but not the low notes. (He was standing about 15 to 20 feet from Paul) He said the drummer sang in synch with Paul the whole night and he was the one buttressing the lower scale. Good place to lip synch with the drummer sitting in the rear with the gear.
    PS- Paul sat for the acoustic set back in ’76.


  5. I don’t see it at all, Mark. You’re right that there is something “off” about the man you’ve identified as Paul. But we have photos of John Halliday not too long after that, and he looks nothing like the man in this movie. In fact, we have a photo of John Halliday from the time of Broadstreet, too, thanks to the following photo, which I’m led to believe was part of the accompanying booklet for the movie:

    Compare the man playing the piano with the reflection:

    Then compare the reflection with a known pic of John Halliday:

    Then for further confirmation, compare both Pauls at 3 different ages:

    In the last photo I linked you can clearly see the same men, ageing consistently as you look at the photos from top to bottom. Trying to insert the “off Paul” from Broadstreet into that timeline would be a jarring inconsistency.

    Anyway, I think the piano photo is the smoking gun demonstrating that Halliday was the original Paul.


    1. That last photo, lower right, is a lulu, but remember, the people behind them are aware there are two of them, and I have seen photos that are a composite of the two faces. That looks to be one. That is for sure Mike’s mouth.

      And remember, we don’t know their names, but I suspect their last name is Macartney. In the British peerage you will find a man named Halliday Macartney. That is just too much coincidence for me that our original Paul chose the name Halliday – randomly?

      Anyway, your other photos are easily seen to be one or the other, Mike or Paul. Nothing difficult there. But that is a very nice catch, the photo with the reflection in the piano top. They are messing with us again, hinting that there are two of them. I love it when they do that stuff. Makes it all fun.


      1. Just to make sure I wasn’t misunderstood, I agree with everything you wrote there other than the last photo being a composite. I’ve seen composites too, but I think in this case it’s more likely that Mike had work done to make him look closer to Paul. His eyebrows absolutely changed shaped from the earlier days and began to resemble Paul’s a lot more. Not sure how they’d do that other than painting them on, but there are plenty of older McCartney pics where he has those eyebrows. I think that’s probably what you’re seeing in Broad Street too – either he’s been made up to look more like Paul or he was still in the process of having operations. In some of those screencaps above alleged to be Paul, the eyebrows look like they could’ve even been painted on (especially Here There and Everywhere). Again though, no-one in this movie looks like John Halliday and since we’ve confirmed him to be the original Paul, that can’t be Paul in the movie (well, unless Paul was made up to look more like Mike of course, but they look so dissimilar that I can’t see that being possible.)

        His voice also isn’t used on the later Beatles Albums, only Mike’s. There are a few good analyses of that on YouTube, including one where they allege that the guy from Klaatu was used as a transitional voice because he was good at impersonating Paul. Could be disinfo, but I do hear 3 voices on Sgt. Peppers, and you wonder why they’d do that if they had easy access to Paul in the studio.

        So my assumption is that they began to look too dissimilar and had to go with only one after ~1966. Certainly I’ve never seen anyone alleged to be Paul after that era that looked like John Halliday, with the one exception of the piano reflection.


        1. I think you’re mystifying here, and over-complicating a very simple matter. You have not gone down the PID route, thankfully, perhaps fearing to tread there, but do stay off that path. All you need do, all anyone needs do is look at the childhood photos. Then it all falls in place, stepping in and out of each other’s shoes, use of Jane Asher as a beard, insertion of what appears to be a “Lennon” (fake name)* relative to play the lifetime role of Mike McCartney McGear. The fake Mike allowed real Mike to step out of his shoes and be the second Paul. The people behind this group, surely gifted at psyops, musical talent along with a song writing team of immense talent, have played with us over time. Do you think it an accident that “John Halliday” appeared and disappeared? No. They were screwing with us. They know that the vast majority of humanity are so dulled by education and media that they will only see what they are told they see.

          I am curious … original Paul probably married, divorced, married again, etc., like the rest of us, and had kids. I wondered if perhaps it was he who married Linda Eastman and gave her babies. There never seemed to be much chemistry between Mike and Linda, and photos of the two together often have “Paul” with the wraparounds. But that is all beyond reach and we will never know. Just content yourself to know there are two of them, they are both alive and well, they both performed on albums after retiring from public (but did not play the instruments or write the songs), and are both gifted performers. In Broad Street, if he is sitting, it is Paul, if standing, Mike. I cannot make it simpler.

          *Mike McGear is his chosen name, and looking at photos I noticed he had a nose that was slightly crooked towards the right, making me think he was a “Lennon” relative, as John has that same trait. John Lennon is a Stanley, I think. His mother did not die when he was young. That was professional backstory to obscure his real mother, probably a Stanley as well, but not the mythical “Julia.” His father, “Albert,” was another actor. Childhood photos of John are probably with his real parents. The one photo of him and “Julia” is obviously a darkroom paste-up. John is as mysterious as Paul. Childhood photos show two young boys. I never made it beyond that.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s