Can a rock star also be humble? Bono's ‘Stories of Surrender' will surprise you
That same spirit guides the new performance documentary 'Bono: Stories of Surrender,' adapted from the U2 leader's one-man stage show inspired by that book.
Given stark cinematic life by director Andrew Dominik, the film — which streams on Apple TV+ starting Friday, May 30, after premiering at the Cannes Film Festival earlier in the month — features paradoxes worthy of its subject. It is both stripped-down and grandiose, over-the-top and understated.
'Stories of Surrender' was shot before an adoring live audience at the Beacon Theatre in New York and enhanced with filmic touches provided in post-production. While it sometimes struggles with the transition from stage to screen, it ultimately succeeds due to its star's unassuming charisma and effortless storytelling.
'It is preposterous to think others might be as interested in your own story as you are,' the Irish rock star, born Paul David Hewson, tells his audience from the stage. But we know that he knows his story is worth hearing, and it's clear that he relishes the opportunity.
That story is about a rebellious Dublin teen who at 14, his mother, Iris, dies from an aneurysm, and his already-reticent father (or 'the da,' as Bono consistently calls him) grows even more distant. Under the sway of punk acts like the Ramones, dreaming of forming his own band, young Paul rounds up some friends — Adam Clayton, Larry Mullen Jr. and the Edge — and, through force of will and talent, make the climb from sparsely populated pub gigs to sold-out stadiums.
At only 86 minutes, 'Stories of Surrender' makes no pretense of telling the full Bono story. But it picks its spots with artful precision and with keen cinematic instincts.
Dominik (2007's ' The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford ' and 2022's ' Blonde ') and cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt use black-and-white imagery shot with chiaroscuro lighting to set an intimate but poetic tone. At times we see multiple Bonos talking to each other. The occasional blast of pyrotechnics tends to be muted.
The music itself is presented with a minimalist touch. Music supervisor Jacknife Lee, working with cellist Kate Ellis and harpist Gemma Doherty, provide the backbone, with the occasional prerecorded blast of a familiar anthem. The songs provide autobiographical background and heft, as when Bono recalls the sense of purpose and thrill that came with belting out 'Pride (In the Name of Love)' at the 1985 Live Aid benefit concert — then notes ruefully that the $250 million that concert raised for Ethiopia was a mere drop in the bucket of the country's desperate need.
Wearing a suit jacket, pinstriped vest and beads, Bono uses empty chairs and spotlights to recreate key moments of his tale. Three simple kitchen chairs placed in a row represent Clayton, Mullen and the Edge as the aspiring rock stars who try to piece together what would become the early hit 'I Will Follow.'
More poignantly, Bono sits in a plush lounge chair as he imagines the pub conversations he used to have with his father, who would begin every conversation with the same question: 'Anything strange or startling?' One day, well into U2's run of stardom, the son decides to turn the question on the father, only to receive the devastating news that the old man has cancer.
'Stories of Surrender' is a disarming portrait of a self-aware megastar with an authentically personal demeanor, the kind of guy you might want to join for one of those pub conversations. If you do think Bono has a god complex, he comes across here as someone eager to sit down, laugh about it and perhaps tip a couple of pints.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
2 hours ago
- USA Today
Denzel Washington reveals 2 reasons it was time for a Spike Lee reunion
There's been a mix-up. HIGHEST 2 LOWEST in select theaters tomorrow, streaming September 5 on Apple TV+ It has been 19 years since actor Denzel Washington and director Spike Lee had collaborated on Inside Man in 2006. The heist thriller was the fourth project the duo worked on together -- He Got Game (1998), Malcolm X (1992) and Mo' Better Blues (1990) being the others -- and Lee was one of the handful of directors that the Oscar-winner had worked with multiple times. With Highest 2 Lowest debuting in theaters this week, the pair has reunited for a fifth time. The thrilling drama, which also stars Jeffrey Wright, Ilfenesh Hadera, A$AP Rocky, Wendell Pierce and Aubrey Joseph, is a reimagining of the Akira Kurosawa classic High And Low (1963). Record label guru David King (Washington) must weigh his personal and professional morals as he internally battles with what to do after the son of his driver (Wright) gets mistakenly taken in a botched kidnapping where King's son was the actual target. Should he still pay the ransom? What responsibility does he have in this situation? For Washington, now was the right time to reconnect with Lee for two reasons. "It was a New York script, New York story," Washington told For The Win in a recent interview. "The script came to me before Spike [Lee]. He's a New York guy. I'm a New York guy." The second reason was very simple. "Trust," Washington stated before referring to the two other directors he has also worked with a career-high five times. "I trust Antoine Fuqua. I trust Spike and obviously, Tony Scott, God rest his soul." New York City was very much at the soul of this movie, taking place predominantly in the Bronx and Brooklyn. Sweeping establishing shots show Lee's undying love for The City That Never Sleeps. There are multiple Yankee Stadium references and Yankee fans (shoutout to Nicholas Turturro), and the great pianist and Latin musician Eddie Palmieri -- who sadly passed last week -- and his Salsa Orchestra are prominently featured. "It was such a no-brainer for me to call Spike, because it's a New York story. And needless to say, I think he kind of likes New York," Washington added with a laugh. "If the story took place in Kansas City, I might have called somebody else." Despite a slow start, which the story almost necessitates with all the build up, Highest 2 Lowest thrives when the audience gets to see Washington do what he does best. He has been doing this since 1977, and it is truly still a delight just to be able to watch him on screen. Paired with Wright -- and a really fantastic A$AP Rocky -- it's a recipe for success. Highest 2 Lowest, an A24 and Apple Original Films production, is in theaters on August 15.
New York Post
8 hours ago
- New York Post
Quentin Tarantino finally reveals why he ‘pulled the plug' on ‘The Movie Critic' as his 10th and final film
Been there, done that. Director Quentin Tarantino, 62, has finally revealed why he decided to scrap 'The Movie Critic' as his 10th and final film. 'No one's waiting for this thing, per se,' the famous filmmaker began on Friday's episode of 'The Church of Tarantino' podcast. 'I mean, I can do it whenever I want. I mean, it's already written. So okay, let me just not start it right now.' 7 Quentin Tarantino at the 78th annual Cannes Film Festival at Palais des Festivals in Cannes, France, on May 17, 2025. FilmMagic 'Let me try writing it as a movie, and let me see if it's better that way. And I was like, 'Oh, okay, no, I think this is going to be the movie.' And then it wasn't,' he continued. 'I pulled the plug on it. And the reason I pulled the plug is a little crazy.' 'The Movie Critic,' which the 'Pulp Fiction' director announced in March 2023, started as an eight-part series before Tarantino reworked the script into a feature-length film. However, in April 2024, it was revealed that the 'Kill Bill' filmmaker had abandoned the movie for a different project. 7 Quentin Tarantino at the Cannes Film Festival in Cannes, France, on May 13, 2025. AFP via Getty Images 'But there was a challenge that I gave to myself when I did it,' Tarantino continued. 'Can I take the most boring profession in the world and make it an interesting movie?' 'Every Tarantino title promises so much, except 'The Movie Critic,'' he explained. 'Who wants to see a TV show about a f–king movie critic? Who wants to see a movie called 'The Movie Critic'? If I can actually make a movie or a TV show about somebody who watches movies interesting, that is an accomplishment.' 7 Quentin Tarantino at the 78th annual Cannes Film Festival at Palais des Festivals in Cannes, France, on May 17, 2025. AFP via Getty Images Tarantino also dispelled 'bulls–t' rumors that 'The Movie Critic' was a direct sequel to 2019's 'Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood,' which starred Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt and Margot Robbie in the leading roles. 'It's a spiritual sequel to 'Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood' insofar as they take place in the same world and they take place in the same town,' he clarified. 'But there were no crossover characters. Cliff Booth was never in 'The Movie Critic.' That's all a bunch of bulls–t. That never was the case ever, ever, ever.' 7 Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio in 2019's 'Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood.' ©Columbia Pictures/courtesy Everett Co / Everett Collection Before scrapping it for a different mystery project last year, Tarantino revealed that 'The Movie Critic' was set in 1977 California and 'based on a guy who really lived but was never really famous, and he used to write movie reviews for a porno rag.' But unlike his eight other movies, and despite not being a direct sequel, Tarantino admitted that 'The Movie Critic' would have been too similar to 'Once Upon a Time…' 7 Quentin Tarantino in Los Angeles, California, on Aug. 1, 2025. SL, Terma / BACKGRID 'I wasn't really excited about dramatizing what I wrote when I was in pre-production, partly because I'm using the skillset that I learned from 'Once Upon a Time in Hollywood' of 'How are we going to turn Los Angeles into the Hollywood of 1969 without using CGI?'' he explained. 'It was something we had to pull off. We had to achieve it. It wasn't for sure that we could do it,' Tarantino added. ''The Movie Critic,' there was nothing to figure out. I already kind of knew, more or less, how to turn L.A. into an older time. It was too much like the last one.' 7 Quentin Tarantino at the Cannes Film Festival in Cannes, France, on May 13, 2025. GUILLAUME HORCAJUELO/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock Meanwhile, there is a 'Once Upon a Time…' spinoff sequel in active development at Netflix – although the 'Reservoir Dogs' filmmaker is only writing and producing the project. 'The Adventures of Cliff Booth,' which sees Brad Pitt reprise his 'Once Upon a Time…' character, is being directed by David Fincher. 7 Brad Pitt as Cliff Booth in 'Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood.' ©Columbia Pictures/courtesy Everett Co / Everett Collection Tarantino ended the podcast by insisting that he is not worried about releasing his 10th and allegedly final film – and that fans shouldn't be worried either. 'It's a little crazy to listen to podcasts and hear all these amateur psychiatrists psychoanalyze as if they f–king know what they're talking about about what's going on with me, about how I'm so scared, alright, of my 10th film,' Tarantino said. ''Oh my god! Oh my god! I'm so fragile about my legacy. What's going on? I'm paralyzed with fear!,'' he concluded. 'I'm not paralyzed with fear. Trust me.'
Time Magazine
a day ago
- Time Magazine
The Science of Why Humans are Obsessed with Stadium Concerts
August 15, 2025 marks the 60th anniversary of a pivotal moment in live music history: The Beatles' infamous performance at Shea Stadium. What began as an unprecedented attempt to accommodate the Fab Four's overwhelming popularity has evolved into a touchstone of pop culture—the modern stadium tour. Today's stadium concerts are more than just supersized live shows; they have become cultural phenomena and socio-economic markers. Perhaps most intriguingly—at least to me—they are also neuroscientific experiments in mass synchronization. In 1965, pop music's demographic was dominated by teenagers with disposable income and a desire to break the self-imposed boundaries of their post-Depression-era parents. The Beatles' audience at Shea was overwhelmingly young, predominantly female, and distinctly American. In the decades since, stadium audiences have expanded in every conceivable way. Through the '80s and '90s artists like U2, Madonna, and Michael Jackson drew increasingly global, multi-generational crowds. Today, truly global music acts like BLACKPINK and Bad Bunny play to stadium audiences worldwide, reflecting the increasing multicultural appeal of contemporary music. And touring artists like Bruce Springsteen, Paul McCartney, Cyndi Lauper, and The Rolling Stones now draw in new followers aside lifelong fans, with three generations of family members often attending together. Fandom itself has transformed. Where fans once relied on the vagaries of radio play and magazine spreads to engage with their favorite artists, today's fans form tightknit communities on social media platforms like TikTok and Discord. Through these digital spaces, enthusiasts exchange theories, share memes, decode Easter eggs, and coordinate elaborate travel plans and ticket-buying strategies months in advance. The shift from passive consumption to active participation has transformed how fans engage with pop music, turning concerts into global events that have expanded well beyond geography and generations. Yet this evolution has created new challenges, chief among them, the skyrocketing cost of being part of the experience. We've gone from $5.10 to see the Beatles at Shea Stadium to Eras Tour tickets with face values ranging from $49 to $449 reselling for up to $20,000 on StubHub and SeatGeek. When my mother wanted to surprise me with tickets to Bryan Adams' Waking Up The Neighbours Tour in 1992, she lined up at the physical box office hours before opening with other eager fans. She forked over $42.50 for two, side-view seats in the lower bowl. Compare that to last year when I battled bots and refreshed my browser every few milliseconds in the hope of scoring four tickets to Olivia Rodrigo's GUTS World Tour before they soared to mortgage-level proportions. By some miracle, I was able to take my three teenage daughters to their first arena show for a relatively low $600. They're now saving their babysitting money and diligently tracking price trends for Benson Boone's American Heart Tour while I'm (half) considering dipping into their college fund to see Bryan Adams again this fall. At what point does the price of admission outweigh the joy of participation? When it came to the Eras Tour, like many other disappointed Swifties, we had to settle for movie screenings and grainy live feeds. Swift didn't stop in our hometown of Montreal. We considered travelling to Toronto, Boston, New York, or Philadelphia. When calculating the costs—tickets, travel, accommodations, meals—our cheapest option turned out to be Lisbon, Portugal. That three-day excursion would have set us back about $6,000 CAD. While that was substantially less than the resale tickets in any nearby city, the financial cost and complicated logistics of participation were too great. Economists often argue that high ticket prices are simply a reflection of market forces—artists, and resellers, can charge more because demand far outstrips supply. Sociologists counter that this trend deepens cultural divides, turning concerts into exclusive experiences for the financially privileged. Despite the costs, stadiums continue to sell out at record speed, raising the question: what is it about live music that makes us willing to pay such a premium? Is it the music itself, the sense of community, or something even more basic? For 30 years, our lab has been exploring why music moves us—literally and figuratively. Many of our studies focus on memory for music, demonstrating that people have a remarkable ability to recall melodies, pitch, tempo, and loudness with surprising accuracy, even without formal music training, suggesting that musical memory operates differently from other forms of memory. We conducted some of the first neuroimaging studies to map the brain's response to music—showing how it lights up the brain, engaging areas responsible for hearing, memory, movement, and emotion all at once. This is why a song can transport you back to a specific moment in time, evoking vivid memories and emotions. Our studies show that when people listen to music they love, it activates brain regions associated with pleasure and reward, helping to explain why a favorite song can feel as satisfying as a good meal or a warm hug. Music's ability to give you chills and make you feel euphoric is tied to the release of natural opioids in the brain, the same chemicals that help relieve pain. Years ago, our lab showed in brain scans that listening to the same piece of music caused people's brain waves to synchronize. Recent studies conducted in real-time, in concert halls, demonstrate that people enjoy music more when the performance is live and experienced as part of a group. Live music triggers stronger emotional responses than recorded music due to the dynamic relationship between the audience and the performers. The visual cues, collective energy, and real-time responsiveness of live music engage more sensory and emotional systems than listening alone, deepening our visceral connection to the experience. Attending a concert is associated with increases in oxytocin, a bonding hormone, enhancing our sense of social connection. When we move together to music—clapping, swaying, or singing in sync—we engage neural circuits involved in motor coordination, empathy, and social prediction, reinforcing our sense of being part of a group. We're literally on the same brainwave! What ties all this together is the simple but profound idea that music is more than just entertainment. From the joy of discovering a new banger to the comfort of an old, familiar tune, music may well be a biological necessity, a fundamental part of being human, wired into our brains and bodies in ways that shape how we think, feel, and connect with one another. Our innate desire for connection might also, in part, explain why a friendship bracelet exchange (inspired by Swift's You're On Your Own Kid) is trending at modern stadium shows: the simple act of swapping beaded bracelets cultivates a microcosm of human connection within a macro-scale experience. It's a ritual that transforms a crowd of thousands into an intimate community, where strangers become momentary friends, bound by shared enthusiasm and a tangible token of group membership. It's a small, tactile gesture that taps into our deep-seated need to bond, to feel seen, and to belong. In a world where digital interactions often replace physical ones, these trinkets are a reminder of the power of touch, of giving, and of creating memories that extend beyond the concert itself. Music has always been a social glue, a way for humans to synchronize their emotions and movements, whether around a Neanderthal campfire or in a packed stadium. And in an era of increasing isolation, these moments of connection feel more vital than ever. Making friendship bracelets to share with your fellow Swifties may be part of the solution. But today's stadium shows aren't just about emotional connection or even entirely about the music—it's also a masterclass in sensory stimulation. The Beatles may have pioneered the stadium format, but their setup was quaint by today's standards. Early stadium shows featured little more than musicians standing in front of a static backdrop, struggling to project their sound through subpar sound systems designed for sports announcers, not music. By the 1980s, technological advancements had changed the game. Pink Floyd's The Wall Tour in 1980 set a new standard for large-scale stage production, with elaborate sets, visual projections, and theatrical storytelling. U2's Zoo TV Tour in 1992 introduced multimedia screens that transformed the stage into a digital playground. More recently, Taylor Swift's Eras Tour involved 70,000 wristbands pulsing in unison, and stage sets transforming from slithering snakes to whimsical fairy-tale forests to cinematic cityscapes. And Beyoncé's 2023 Renaissance Tour incorporated cutting-edge robotics and high-fashion couture, proving that stadium concerts can be as much about visual effects as they are about the music. While many fans view these advances as improvements, others argue that the intimacy and simplicity of early stadium shows have faded, and been replaced by a commercialized, high-stakes industry. The Outlaws Roadshow stadium tour in 2012 left me feeling as though I had overpaid for a lights and lasers show that happened to include the Counting Crows phoning it in somewhere in the background. In the pursuit of grandeur, has some of the raw, unfiltered magic of live music been diluted? And what does all this mean for the future of live music? If the past 60 years of stadium shows (and tens of thousands of years of human music-making) have taught us anything, it's that music, at its core, is about shared experience. We crave the pulse of the bass beneath our feet, the collective chant of a catchy chorus or killer bridge, the unspoken understanding between strangers who, for just one night, are part of something bigger than themselves. As technology continues to evolve and fan communities grow more interconnected, one thing is certain: the stadium concert will remain a space where we come together, not just to listen, but to belong.
