Part of my lapsed, ongoing musical education continued tonight with my first viewing of Don't Look Back. Pretty enjoyable on first pass, good musical moments coupled with the backstage shenanigans. I was reading some reviews of the movie and was somewhat puzzled by Roger Ebert's comments upon re-reviewing the movie in 1998.



I didn't see this. If anything, in the face of the incessantly stupid and generally pompous questions he was faced with from the British press, I'm surprised he didn't respond with more vitriol. Maybe I'm completely ignorant of Dylan's early press, but at what point did he annoit himself the conduit of all knowledge regarding human behaviour and philosophy? I didn't think it was his mantle to carry. This still presents itself today, obviously. Why the fuck would a goddamn guitar player have some sort of special insight into human history? He stimulates emotions with his words and music. For that we're lucky, I guess. I feel richer for having heard his music, but I'd never ask him Big Picture questions because he's able to construct a meaningful poem set to music.

Overall, very enjoyable. A great snapshot of a moment in time.

agreed, 100%

Immature, self-important, etc.
Was the Rog describing Dylan or himself? And I totally agree with you. If I were in Dylan's shoes, I probably would've cracked about '66 and punched the crap out of somebody in the press. See part 2 of the new doc, No Direction Home, for even more wacky media hijinks. What is the meaning of a t-shirt I was wearing on an album cover? You must be insane.

This may out me in ways it shouldn't, but Ol Bob was either just getting INTO, or OUT OF (can't quite remember the chronology) a massive LSD-25 trip (to outright steal a Thompsonism).

It's rather apparent in the way that they think they are fucking with him, but he is OPENLY fucking with the press, and pretty much everyone else. Its been years since I've seen this. Need to revisit.

I got pretty much the same impression Ebert did. Not necessarily in relation to the press, but his treatment of Joan Baez, Donovan (as funny as that was), and the others around him make him look like a self-important prick. And I don't think that Ebert is saying that we should be able to "ask him Big Picture questions because he's able to construct a meaningful poem set to music" - I think his annoyance comes from the fact that people DID (and still do) treat Dylan this way, and call him a visionary, when in fact all he really had was a sharp tongue and some timely political insights.

I think by most accounts Dylan has always been considered a loner. Mix drugs, gravytrainers, getting booed, being considered a Jesus reborn and all kinds of other absolutely wacky shit. How can anyone expect anything else? Not to mention, his work at the time was pretty fucking ambitious. He wasn't trying to be the beatles. He was aiming way pass that. To create his work, one would have to consider themselves self-important.

But that's not what I get from the film. I see a documentary of unique talent absolutely at the top of his game.

If that's how you feel about Dylan, I guess this explains the man love for Elliot Smith. I know you live in NYC, so driving your car into oncoming traffic may be impossible, so try to fall on the 3rd rail. Soon.

Sounds like that's because you thought that going in. I absolutely disagree that you have to be self-important to be ambitious or important.

And I'm not suggesting Ebert was saying that at all. That's just my opinion and I think Dylan's as well. How many times in the show does he say "I'm just a guitar player". I'm not going to fault him for opening mocking people because everybody does that. Did people expect more of him because he wrote folk songs like Blowin' in the Wind? I think there's way more to him than a sharp tongue and timely political insights. The dude changed music. If he got a feeling of self-importance then it's justly deserved, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he's closer to god or anything despite the fact that it's difficult to imagine that the person who wrote Blonde on Blonde isn't god-like.

I remember reading a Rolling Stone interview with him and the question posed was basically "How did you come up with stuff, Like A Rolling Stone, for instance?" and he replied that he didn't create it, it just came through him, he's a conduit. Keith and others have described it similarly. Kind of a "Why ask me? I'm just a messenger."

Can't wait to see No Direction Home. That's on my list.

Maybe so. I'm not saying you have to be that way per se. But when I guy is setting his aim so high, than most likely he is gonna have a high opinion of his abilities and his self.

]

Confidence isn't the same thing as self-importance, and it seems like you have it backwards. Find something that Bob's said that was meant to do anything but deflate the whole spokesman-of-his-generation bs, and I'll... uh... send you a cookie.

I know the difference, and I'm sticking with it. Being a dick to Joan Baez had absolutely nothing to do with deflating. She was unimportant and he was something. I want my cookie. But like I said, he is/was a loner, on drugs, and living in strange times. All of that contributed to it. He didn't want to be the spokeman for a generation because he views himself greater than that. He thinks spokesmen come and go. He believes he timeless. That's what I've gotten from everything I've seen, read and heard from the man.