Bob Dylan

I saw the Bob Dylan documentary Don't Look Back a few years ago as part of a documentary class. While I liked the film a lot, I came out of it thinking that Dylan was a bit of an ass. I expressed this opinion to a classmate who didn't feel the same way and attributed it to either him having seen the film before or my age. The latter seemed unlikely and still does as I'm only about two or so years older and I can't attest to the former because I haven't revisited the film.

However, I have watched another Dylan documentary: Martin Scorsese's No Direction Home (which I expressed an enjoyment of here). Having watched this, I think I can finally put to rest my issues with Dylan from Don't Look Back.

Much of No Direction Home is comprised of talking heads reminiscing about Dylan (or Dylan reminiscing about himself) and while that's interesting, they are all done through their own experiences. As a result, you don't learn so much about Dylan as you do about the person talking. An example, Joan Baez tells a story about being on tour with during his '65 tour (the one featured in Don't Look Back) and how she regrets it now, but at the time just wanted to be a part of the scene. It's nice insight, but all we learn is that Dylan was smoking pot and drinking. Nothing really new there. Baez' story is really about Joan Baez.

The rest of No Direction Home is archival footage taking from a myriad of sources (again, Don't Look Back is featured prominently). This is far more interesting from a voyeuristic point of view and an editing point of view. In the first part of the documentary, Scorsese cuts the growth of Dylan as a folk singer with his electric performance at the Manchester Free Trade Hall. It's all pretty nifty, but the really enlightening stuff happens in part two.

The first half of part two is talking heads doing what they do. Then Scorsese lets the images take over. Dylan has pretty much moved on to a full band and his tour is comprised of half acoustic, half electric sets. Amidst all the backlash and overreaction (because the music is damn good), Dylan went through a crazy promotional blitz being interviewed constantly by throngs of people. In Don't Look Back, it's the interviews where Dylan comes off as a prick. He doesn't give straight answers and he treats the interviewers with disdain.

Now here's the part that eluded me the first time around: Dylan is 25 years old. All he wants to do is make music and do it his way. He's got loads of fans spewing vitriol at him because he's had enough folk/acoustic music for now. His artistic interest is with his band. On top of that, the press is trying to anoint him as some type of deity. He's being asked all sorts of questions that don't have anything to do with his craft. He's right to question reporters if they would ask The Beatles the same questions. In isolated incidents, it seems like he has an attitude problem, but Scorsese shows several interviews all in succession of the same sort of asinine questions. It's no wonder Dylan rejected the questions so flippantly.

Dylan's life was in flux. Split between fan bases and musical styles. Young, but a god to many. A musician people are trying to hoist meaning on. I'm not suggesting that he's a cipher that can't be defined or anything like that (like a certain movie might), just that he was young and facing a considerable amount of stress. I get it now.