home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Ian & Stuart's Australian Mac: Not for Sale
/
Another.not.for.sale (Australia).iso
/
no need to argue
/
dont_look_back
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1994-07-20
|
54KB
|
1,143 lines
<HTML>
<HEAD>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<p>
BOB DYLAN: FRAT-RAT OR ANARCHIST?<BR>
A Look Back at *Don't Look Back*.
<H4>By Ira Blitz.</H4>
<p>
"But what is to be done if the direct and sole vocation of every
intelligent man is babble, that is, the intentional pouring of
water through a sieve?" (1)
<p>
"[R]ock is blunt, rude , and popular. Rock disdains polite or
correct diction and rejects refined theorizing about society and
politics. 'We are the white crap that talks back,' say the Fall.
In describing themselves, they describe all rockers. Everything
Horace abominated in the profane mob finds its glorification in
<H4>rock - noise, passion, profanity, populism." (2)</H4>
<p>
METABOLISM
<p>
A friend of mine once said, "What comes out of your mouth is
shit. What flows out your ass is almost pure in its simplicity,
its conciseness, its inevitability. Your words testify to your
sickness, your bowel movements proclaim your health."
<p>
At the time, i was somewhat offended. Now, after several times
having viewed *Don't Look Back* (3) (DLB), a documentary film
chronicling Bob Dylan's acoustic tour of England in the spring of
1965, i wonder if i can't at least provisionally see the point my
friend - through treacherous words - was trying to make. Dylan,
more than being the subject/object of truthseeking documentary
dissection, dominates the landscape of the film like a billboard
advertising linguistic distrust; the only time he seems to really
drop his guard - or change it - is when he is not engaging in
reciprocal interaction (e.g. conversation); i.e., particularly,
when he is onstage performing his songs (his bowel movements).
<p>
The Bob Dylan singing and playing on a stage seems to me a
different character from the Bob Dylan playing throughout the
various non-musical scenes of the film; moreover, as a singer he
to a larger extent characterizes what the film itself should
perhaps embody - what Samuel Fuller has described <as> cinema :
"Film is like a battleground. Yes... Love. Hate. Action.
Violence. Death. In one word... <emotion>." (4) I hope to
resolve by the end of this paper whether or not DLB, for this
spectator, could in any way be seen as implicated in such a
battle, as part of a war between words and sensations.
<p>
CINEMA MENDACITE
<p>
What is the nature of the methodology through which documentary
cinema, following the death of God the narrator, seeks to
substantiate its ability to - like a polished mirror - truthfully
reflect the world?
<p>
The immediate giveaway, paradoxically, is a conspicuous <lack> of
any discernible polish: adornment, embellishment, any form of
beautification of the image is anathema; such qualities are seen
as indicative of manipulation, manufacture, falsity; i wonder,
also, if a basic distrust of money is not involved here - if you
have enough of it, you might simply buy exactly the kind of truth
you want documented.
<p>
Gritty and grainy black-and-white footage, shot on the run,
leaving a trail of overdue bills, is the veritable stamp of
authenticity. Pauline Kael offers the following assessment:
<p>
"Cinema verite is a fast way of shooting made possible by the
development... of lightweight cameras and sound-recording
equipment. Two men (or even one man) can walk (or run) with the
camera and the synchronized tape recorder. This has liberated
camera reporting, but, technically, the results are not all that
might be hoped for. The sound is generally poor or inaudible,
the images are dark... the footage tends to be visually
monotonous, with a lot of arbitrary motion as the cameraman
whizzes around focusing on pointless details, because he loses or
cannot find what is interesting in a situation. Good editing can
clean it up, of course... [the cameramen] can later give the
footage shape or reduce it to the moments of revelation. Such
moments can seems like personal discoveries for the audience...
<p>
"There is an element of fakery in cinema verite...[:] The
celebrity subject may - indeed, almost certainly does - control
the reporter who uses the camera; then [it all] becomes just
another form of corrupt journalism..." (5)
<p>
Another film critic, Andrew Sarris, chimes in:
<p>
"The Leacock-Pennebaker school of documentary holds that a
film-maker should not impose his point of view on his material <a
priori>. As the material emerges, its truth emerges with it.<BR>
This entails a passive role for the camera. The truth exists;
the camera must capture it...
<p>
"I don't trust the Leacock-Pennebaker school of documentary.
Ugliness and awkwardness are subtly transformed from technical
necessities to truth-seeming mannerisms. When Leacock came up to
Montreal in 1963 with *Jane* and *The Chair*, the National Film
Board people were skeptical about the crudities in the films. It
wasn't the usual underground problem of money, but something more
insidious, an attempt to con an audience into thinking that
something is more real when it is awkward, or rather that
awkwardness is truth...
<p>
"[However, the] camera can capture only that truth that chooses
to exhibit itself. If there were nothing of the exhibitionist in
Dylan, the camera would register a blank..." (6)
<p>
These comments, apart from drawing attention to the National Film
Board of Canada's uncanny ability to re-channel skepticism into
Challenge for Change policy, serve to outline some of the
concerns adhering to the practice of cinema verite, as well as to
anchor Pennebaker's DLB firmly within this tradition. All the
stylistic mannerisms are present: Handheld camera; energetic
panning and zooming; wildly heterogeneous recordings of location
sound; images awash in grain and shadow: "The cameraman... seems
to have left his lightmeter and his sun-gun in New York." (7)
<p>
Importantly, the film also exemplifies the verite document's
reliance on its (celebrity) subject; i.e., how the free-floating
space in front of the camera lens is appropriated and articulated
by the persona - or, alternatively, the artist - Bob Dylan. Or
perhaps the more accurate statement is that the critical reaction
to the film exhibits the presence of such a perceived reliance in
the eyes of the viewing audience: "What makes Dylan
electrifying," says Sarris, "is that his art is connected to the
wholeness of his personality"; the filmmaker, moreover,
apparently has nothing to do with this: "Jean-Luc Godard put it
well when he said that Leacock was interesting when he dealt with
Kennedy in *Primary* and boring when he dealt with Crump in *The
Chair*... *Don't Look Back* makes me want to fill in on Dylan's
recordings, but not Pennebaker's movies." (8)
<p>
Donal J. Henahan of the *New York Times* also suggests, by
implication, that Pennebaker is not really the artist in control
of the film: "... [I]t is Bob Dylan we came to see, and it is
ultimately frustrating to discern so little of the man beneath
the bushy hair, the dark glasses and the leather jacket. Even in
what appear to be candid shots, the performer's public face is
turned to the camera." (9)
<p>
This specific cinema verite filmmaker's assumed ambition, then -
to expose the backstage behavior of his subject, and in so doing
reveal the saturated, thick truth of Bob Dylan the Man (as
opposed to just Bob Dylan the Performer) - would seem futile.
Unless, of course, the truth is this: Bob Dylan is, in fact,
<always> performing. He never relaxes his front; instead, he
simply switches between different ones. This would at least
partly explain his notorious disdain of reporters: he is loath to
be strapped to any particular chair. What's more, there is some
indication that such a reluctance might be a general character
trait, and not just a practical tool to be employed in public
acts of dodging; witness the following passage, written by
Stephen Scobie in connection with his discussion of another
(though very different) documentary film starring (and directed
by) Bob Dylan, *Renaldo and Clara* (10):
<p>
"After a brief cutaway to the band on stage, the sequence resumes
in scene 97 with Clara [Sara Dylan, Bob's wife] and The Woman in
White [Joan Baez, Bob's former lover] comparing notes. 'He never
gives straight answers,' says Clara, accurately enough.
'Evasiveness is all in the mind,' protests Renaldo [Bob]. To
which both women reply in unison, 'Horseshit.' 'Has he always
been like that?' Clara asks, and The Woman in White replies, 'For
the ten years I've known him.' 'Has he ever given you a straight
answer?' 'Not to my recollection.' (11)
<p>
All right, then; accepting that my earlier distinction, as far as
DLB - between Bob Dylan singing and playing on a stage, and Bob
Dylan playing throughout the various other scenes of the film -
may not hold; accepting that Pennebaker - not necessarily through
any merit of his own - does offer some insight into his subject's
character, I will now attempt to examine some possible aspects of
this character's life. My guiding line of inquiry will be as
follows:
<p>
Who is this Bob Dylan, anyway? And now really, what's it to me?
<p>
PLEASED TO MEET YOU
<p>
"If you have not telephoned, you are trespassing." These were
the words on a sign greeting photographer Daniel Kramer as he was
approaching the Woodstock, New York home of Albert Grossman for
his first-ever meeting with Bob Dylan. The year was 1964;
"Everything was bright and still on this warm August morning,"
recalls Kramer. "It was a perfect place to separate from the
world." (12)
<p>
I am interested in his articulation of this meeting, as well as
in the elaboration of the later development of their
relationship, to the extent that his account offers some
information about what Dylan's character was like in the eight or
so months prior to the tour that Pennebaker covers in DLB. The
latter part of this period also constitutes the germinating phase
of (one of) Dylan's lamented shifts in performance style - from a
"folky" acoustic guitar strumming to an electrified rock wail;
DLB contains references throughout to how his latest radio track,
"Subterranean Homesick Blues," (13), is doing on the English
charts, as well as some first intimations of fan confusion about
the raucous, ostensibly radically new sound in evidence;
moreover, the film, which was released <after> Dylan's now
canonized trio of electrified rock albums, actually opens with a
kind of one-take video of "Subterranean..." (an almost
full-figure Dylan is staring into the camera and throwing down,
more or less in sync, big cue cards containing, more or less, the
lyrics to the song), which, being a paradoxical and open
invitation to ignore the film's title, can perhaps be seen as a
celebration of Dylan's defiance in breaking with his "folk"
persona (and, by extension, in his subsequent discard of his
eventually celebrated rock persona in favor of a non-smoking,
sweet-voiced country troubadour). Some more on this later.
<p>
Kramer elaborates Dylan's attitude in the following manner:
<p>
"People are usually eager to place themselves at the disposal of
the photographer in order to make the pictures as effective as
possible. They want to know how they can be helpful... They are
willing to construct artificial situations. Dylan did not do
this... He... never seemed to acknowledge my presence. This set
the pace. Apparently he was not going to do anything especially
for the camera.
<p>
"...Dylan is a restless man. It is difficult to pin him down...
It was also obvious that he didn't like to be photographed. He
said that photography was a waste of his time and that he didn't
want to pose... I wanted him to cooperate so I could document
who he was and what he was doing, and, I hoped, the pictures
would eventually find their way to the public. He let me know he
understood this and that he was willing to cooperate, but that he
wanted the pictures to come from the things he did and not from
things we would arrange for him to do. So I suggested
photographing him doing the things which seemed most natural for
him - working, writing music, or playing the guitar.
<p>
"Dylan... told me that the pictures I wanted wouldn't work out,
since he is always alone when he writes, and that it would be
silly to make a picture of him posing at the typewriter. As for
the guitar, he almost never played except when performing..."
(14)
<p>
Already, then, there is a tension in Dylan between the unease at
being in any way solidified, defined, pinned down - the
threatening power of the camera - and the seductive power
inherent in controlling the content of the actual image. This
power is both expressive and economic in character: nothing sells
like a well-constructed image; if your image is loose and
mysterious enough to sustain intrigue, you might even survive the
fate of the average 15-minute fad persona.
<p>
Dylan seems to me endowed with an awareness of the magnetism of
mystery. He certainly handled Kramer masterfully, insisting on
documentary accuracy while, in fact, systematically controlling
every aspect of the photographed situation. The result on the
part of the photographer seems to be a certain faith in some
naturally present essence of character, a belief that overshadows
a fundamental awareness of this character's expression as
<construct>:
<p>
"Pictures are always occurring and coming together in the natural
environment and course of events. If the photographer can
anticipate the actions and reactions of his subject and the
subject's movements, he can bring together all of the elements
before him to form his pictures. When pictures are made this
way, they are often better than the posed variety. Certainly
they are more truthful. Except for the making of album cover
pictures [e.g., the cover of *Bringing It All Back Home*] and one
rare studio sitting, all the pictures I took of Dylan were made
using this method of anticipation... it made the pictures a
little more meaningful. Once we began to communicate and he
realized that I was not out to alter him but was searching for
interesting and significant pictures, he worked along more
easily, allowing himself to enter into a number of situations
that could lend interest to the photographs..." (15)
<p>
The photographer's (unacknowledged) conundrum here is one also
facing the cinema verite filmmaker: once an effort is made to
render things more meaningful, interesting, and significant, the
process at work is no longer a straightforward recording of
"reality," but rather one involving - at the very least - the
kind of interpretation and translation that a painter might
employ when doing a portrait.
<p>
What i want to stress is how favorable the above slippage in
perspective can be to a shrewd subject - especially one aided by
the added business acumen of Albert Grossman. Nine months after
his great unease at being put in front of a camera lens, Dylan is
touring England, accompanied day and night by an entire
documentary motion picture crew shooting a film partly financed
by his own manager. As mentioned earlier, the problematics
adhering to DLB as a <verite> document are ultimately seen as
taking a backseat to Dylan's central (sincere) persona ("...as
uncertain as any gray pundit... a hero to some, a sellout to
others and a vaguely unsettling enigma to most people over 30"
(16)).
<p>
In other words, he is still mastering a situation in which he
enjoys, all at once, freedom, power, and - in the eyes of the
audience - the approval stamp of authenticity. Kramer wraps it
up succinctly:
<p>
"As I drove back to New York, I thought about the five hours I
had spent with Dylan. They seemed to reveal some essential part
of his personality. It was evident that he was a man who set his
own marks and did not allow himself to be manipulated. He acted
from his own convictions and took a stand. He knew what he
wanted to do and what he wanted to produce... He presents
himself as he presents his work. He doesn't sell - it is up to
you to meet it and extract from it." (17)
<p>
IT WAS EVIDENT THAT HE WAS A MAN
<p>
Time, now, to extract some images of Bob Dylan. There are four
or so scenes in DLB which i find particularly pertinent to the
preoccupations of this paper.
<p>
One of them, taking place at night in Dylan's hotel room, starts
with a close-up of Joan Baez singing Dylan's "Percy's Song." The
sound of a typewriter overlaps her playing; she is looking frame
left. There is a cut to a close-up of Albert Grossman, who is
looking frame right. The camera then pans right, while zooming
out, to reveal Dylan seated at his desk with his back to the
other people in the room, typing. Here, then, a kind of triangle
<UL>
<LI> or, if you will, an abstracted pyramid - is established, with
(the enigmatic) Dylan positioned at the apex. The form of this
pyramid is echoed, and its subtle hierarchy thus reinforced, when
the scene as described so far continues with a cut to another
close-up of Baez, which then develops into a pull-back followed
by a pan left to a left-profile view of Dylan. A girl is seated
at the wall in the background, silently watching Baez play.
After another pan and zoom, this time back onto Baez' face, the
girl exits frame right. In the succeeding wide shot, a reframing
has taken place: Dylan is now seen at a three-quarter angle,
almost facing the camera; Baez is seated behind him; and,
finally, in a mirror behind her again, the exited girl is still
present, keeping the basic triangular pattern intact.
</UL>
>From my viewing of this series of shots, the insistence on Dylan<BR>
as an authority figure is inexorable. This authority may be
grounded in some personal aura of artistic ineffability, but it
is certainly greatly enhanced by the curiously dramaturgical
tricks of Pennebaker's trade: not only is Dylan established as
the diegetic center of (natural) attention - the audience is also
offered the dramatic curve starting at his back and building
slowly to the revelation of his contemplative visage. I beg to
differ with Pauline Kael's assessment of this scene - "Sequences
that in a Hollywood movie would have been greeted with snickers -
like Bob Dylan in the throes of composition - got by because of
the rough look" (18) - and would like to suggest instead that it
gets by precisely <because> of its affinity with Hollywood
mythmaking: its dramatic construction becomes a potent (if,<BR>
arguably, profoundly fragile) force of persuasion (and this is,
perhaps unfortunately, only slightly less true with the knowledge
of Dylan's earlier assertion vis-a-vis Kramer: that he is always
alone when he writes, and that it would be silly to make a
picture of him posing at the typewriter).
<p>
This could indicate, then, that Pennebaker may not be as
powerless or hopeless as the critics as well as my own previous
statement would have it. However, i must point out that his
power here does not coincide with any success in exposing the
myth, the face behind the mysterious mask: his treatment of Dylan
is not much different (if rougher in look) than the kind that is
afforded any Hollywood lead man. Dylan's star image is
everything; he's just playing to a different (hipper) audience.
<p>
Another correlation with dramatic structuration is found in the
way sound functions in the described scene to further anchor the
authoritative point of reference: Even when Dylan himself is not
seen on-screen, we hear his song being sung, as if it were
transcribed or transposed directly from the ubiquitous hammering
of his typewriter onto Joan Baez' vocal cords. Consider the
possible effect of this in light of the following lines,
concerning a famous car scene in a certified Hollywood film noir
classic, *The Big Sleep*:
<p>
"...[T]he privilege conceded within one code (presence in the
image) is overthrown in another (presence in the [sound]
belonging to each shot). We have already noted that while
Marlowe alone speaks in shot 3 where he is alone in the image,
Marlowe and Vivian both talk in shot 4 which shows Vivian alone,
an opposition which is continued in shots 5 and 6. The shots
which follow accentuate this imbalance in accordance with a
progression which is at the same time inverse, similar, and
different to that of the image- presence progression. For
Marlowe alone speaks in shots 8 and 9, which show the two
characters alternately, and while he does not speak in shot 11,
where Vivian marks her privilege in the image, she - far from
speaking - is quite silent." (19)
<p>
Ultimately, then, it can be seen that Baez - who is frequently
pictured and constantly heard in the present scene - is really
quite silent; she is, in fact, not really <there>, other than as
a means to further signify Dylan. Moreover, this seems to be her
lot throughout the entirety of DLB; along with other women, she
takes on the gender function later manifested in a number of
"buddy films" of the late 1960s and early '70s - roles in which,
as Virginia Woolf described it many decades ago, "[w]omen have
served all these centuries as looking-glasses possessing the
magic and delicious power of reflecting the figure of man at
twice its natural size." (20)
<p>
Dylan is the active center to which everything and everybody is
referred; in the discourse surrounding the film, Baez's function
as an appendage (a hero's trophy?) is propagated: for Donal
Henahan of the *New York Times*, "[t]he sequences that focus on
Miss Baez provide the film some of its loveliest moments, letting
one see her sad, somewhat weary but still Madonna-like beauty in
flashes of repose and repartee" (21) (the repartee in question
involves her being the butt of - arguably quite innocuous -
sexual jokes like Bobby Neuwirth's "She's got one of those see-
through blouses that you don't even wanna!"). E. C., in *Film
Quarterly*, takes pleasure in Baez's brief appearance(s) and
feels that "her beauty is not entirely concealed by washed-out
photography." (22) And, finally, Andrew Sarris, who is actually
<not> impressed by Baez, bases this dismissal on his view that
"[s]he takes the sting out of everything she sings with her very
professional charm..." (23): in other words, should her shallow
presence (Wilfrid Sheed describes her as "the ultimate
camp-follower" (24)) fail to confer additional respect and
validation onto Dylan, it carries the contrary potential of
watering down his impact.
<p>
Leaving aside the possibility that DLB may in fact have captured
an "accurate" reflection of the operative dynamic characterizing
the relationship between Baez and Dylan - and, moreover, that
Baez might indeed have been quite aware of this dynamic but, for
reasons of her own, actively resigned herself to it (which would
perhaps explain some of the sadness in her "beauty") - the film's
aesthetic formulations, and the critical articulations responding
to them, strike me as (unwittingly) appealing to the protective
practice of male bonding: i find it significant in this respect
that Pauline Kael never mentions Baez at all. Pennebaker's
reliance on traditional narrative techniques undermine the
purportedly radical approach of his genre, and tend to distract
from Dylan's credibility as a potentially confounding rebel.
<p>
The boy's club mentality permeates DLB; it is tempting to indulge
for a few moments the view that macho posturing could possibly
serve as a lightning-rod deflecting men's forbidden affection for
other men. (25) To begin with an extension of my earlier
parallel, the real Lauren Bacall to Dylan's Bogart may in fact
not be Baez, but Donovan - he is referred to in the film as "the
<other> folk singer"; a designation which, incidentally, apart
from being funny, further marginalizes the presence of Baez, who,
inarguably, is also a folk singer (the comment of a British
reporter to Baez upon the entourage's arrival in England pretty
much sums it up: "Streuth! Forgive me, I didn't recognize
you...").
<p>
A slightly condescending but nevertheless affectionately playful
attitude marks the tension set up between Dylan and Donovan as
not-so- equal competitors; not truly equal, because even if Dylan
is obviously enjoying both himself and Donovan when the two
finally meet, the shooting and editing of the event again ensures
the star's overarching authority.
<p>
The Donovan sequence, again taking place in Dylan's hotel room,
consists of two parts; i will come back to the first of them a
little later. The second part takes the form of a scene in which
the two singers perform one of their songs for each other. It
starts on a wide shot (knees up) of Donovan, strumming a sweet
tune, featuring an irresistible chorus that makes Dylan cackle
with delight. After a head-and-shoulders reaction shot from one
of the other people present in the room (an aging beatnik-type
more faded than burnt out), the entire second half of the song is
heard over a wide shot of Dylan listening.
<p>
After the due applause, it's time for Dylan to reciprocate. On a
wide shot of him grabbing his guitar, Donovan says, "I wanna hear
'It's All Over Now, Baby Blue' [from *Bringing It All Back
Home*]." Dylan replies, "You wanna hear that, huh?" The
following zoom-in to a close-up of Donovan draws attention to his
sincere interest in the new directions Dylan's work is going.
Then the camera pans to rest on a close-up of Dylan as he hammers
and wails out the first verse of the song. This is followed by
some reaction shots of the attentive listeners: a close-up of
Donovan's face; a return visit of the head-and-shoulders beatnick
(this second time around i notice that he's sitting at Dylan's
desk, with the typewriter behind him); more Donovan. Dylan again
fills the screen for the end of the performance; then, finally,
as a coda, we get another look at a smiling, but thoughtful,
Donovan.
<p>
The same effect of privileging Dylan is taking place here that
was the case in the scene with Baez. We are never allowed to get
close to Donovan as a <performer> - the wide framing, the lack of
closure in the sense that we see him start the song, but not
finish it, keeps us at a distance; it usurps any lasting control
he might establish over the viewer's sympathies.
<p>
Conversely, when Dylan sings, the formal structuring works to
coerce emotional involvement, not least by way of the realization
that even Donovan - Dylan's "rival," "the other folk singer" (now
a rapt <devotee>) - can't help but admire him: In the face of
such talent, mere frivolous enjoyment is insufficient - we are
not only delighted, we are positively awed.
<p>
NORMAN MAILER
<p>
Entertaining as i do the foolish notion that any serious academic
paper should be open to fateful accidents, the reader will be
presented with one or two sets of portentous circumstances in the
course of the remaining sections.
<p>
First, however, i would like to flesh out my masculinist Bob
Dylan simulacrum by shifting some - though by no means all -
attention away from Pennebaker's machinations and onto the body
of Dylan himself; more specifically, i want to look closer at
some of his interactive behavior.
<p>
At one point, we are thrown in medias res into an escalating -
and by now infamous - confrontation between Dylan and a would-be
(student) journalist, taking place in the backstage caverns of
yet another concert venue. Singlehandedly facing Dylan and his
posse, the unfortunate interloper comes off like a slightly daft
poodle yapping at a pack of snarling Dobermans. The entire scene
revolves around the painfully obvious contrast between the
defensive interviewer and the mercilessly charging Dylan; and,
just to be clear on this point, i suggest the contrast is one
between what it means to be a man and the horror of falling
somewhat short of the realization of this duty.
<p>
The interviewer is seated against the wall. He is saddled with
pimples and a rather dull and unadventurous haircut; the bridge
of his nose bravely supports thick-rimmed glasses, and he wears a
decently conservative suit jacket. Dylan, on the other hand, is
prancing cockily about the room underneath his untamed crow's
nest halo, dressed in black, wearing his guitar and, eventually,
a cigarette. I'm reminded of his statement to Kramer that he
almost never plays his guitar except when he is performing: this,
then, is perhaps one of those almost never occasions.
<p>
Not that the scene does not have an element of performance to it;
we are treated to a bravado exercise of Dylan's ruthlessly sharp
mind, an exercise that aspires to the enjoyment of his supportive
cast. The first line heard is Dylan saying, "Do you think it
would bother me one bit if you dislike me?" His attitude is
antagonistic, and ostensibly the direct consequence of the
(already stymied) interviewer's dissatisfaction with not being
treated respectfully as an equal. Such a showing of
vulnerability seems to be his single but fatal mistake; his
naivete is manifested throughout by his sincere grappling with
whatever Dylan throws at him, an openmindedness that is
definitely not reciprocated: Dylan, like a seasoned improv actor,
takes everything the poor fellow says and spits it back out in
the manner most likely to keep their conflict alive, to keep his
presumptuous opponent scrambling hopelessly in his effort to
catch up with what's up.
<p>
For the viewer, the sense of Dylan's predatory aggression is
heightened by the way the frame foregrounds him: Standing as he
is, he generally dominates the entire left half of the screen -
the interviewer, on the right, is on a lower plane, sharing his
space with a wall, the door, and another one of those pretty
girls watching silently from the back. Frequently the view is
over Dylan's shoulder, as we are viscerally invited to
vicariously bear down on the seated prey. This framing is at
various points self-reflexively doubled in a mirror on the wall.
<p>
Then, of course, there is the guitar - a weapon Dylan
belligerently wields to unnerve the interviewer as he desperately
searches for the right words of appeasement.
<p>
INTERVIEWER: When you meet somebody, what's [intrusive guitar<BR>
picking] your attitude towards them? DYLAN: I don't like them!
No! [general hoots and hollers; some swaggering]
<p>
It's hard to satisfy the demand for manly dignity under such
circumstances. And there is more:
<p>
INTERVIEWER: I'm a science student. DYLAN: Now let's hear that<BR>
again. A what student? INTERVIEWER: If I go to interview Alan
[some British musician, also hanging out with the entourage] and
his mob, they couldn't care less for me. DYLAN: I mean, haven't
you ever stopped to wonder why? [laughter] There's gotta be some
reason, doesn't there?
<p>
Leaving aside the old adage "Never give a sucker an even break,"
one would like to believe that Dylan might be practicing some
form of devil's advocacy, perhaps in an effort to graciously
enlighten the guy; even if this were the case , the process
involved is not one of mutual acceptance - it's more like an
initiation rite, on par with having to imbibe thirty-six beers,
shotgun style, before trophy-hunting for girls' panties. Such
faith is disabled, however, by the obvious fact that Dylan is
very much amusing both himself and the others present at his
guest's expense. There is also apocryphal evidence that this is
indeed not a special performance, but an activity he enjoyed
regularly - evidence I acquired years ago reading some book in
the library of a small town in Norway, and unfortunately have no
way of referencing (I believe it revolved around Sue Rotolo, a
girlfriend of Dylan's from his New York heydays of the early
sixties; just trust me on this one): According to the narrator, a
favorite pastime of Dylan and his pal Neuwirth was to go to this
bar in the Village and pick out some poor schlep to publicly
humiliate; they were positively notorious.
<p>
To be fair, in the present scene, Dylan eventually does show a
flash of a more humane side, when he slows down and appears to
give the science student a chance to redeem himself:
<p>
DYLAN: Don't you ever just keep quiet? INTERVIEWER: The one<BR>
thing that gets me about you and Alan is that you're knocking
from the minute I come in. DYLAN: I just don't think you know
when you're liked, that's all. If we wanna knock you, you
know... We could be putting you on.
<p>
This outstretched hand, however, is really just offering another
catch (number 22): the interviewer's insecurity, for which he has
been relentlessly ribbed, is by now so exacerbated that he has no
way of recognizing a friendly gesture. The punishment is swift
and callous:
<p>
DYLAN: Do you always try to satisfy everybody? INTERVIEWER: No.<BR>
DYLAN: Do you ever once in a while try?
<p>
What we have here is basically a bar fight: You're gonna get
bullied into trouble by the bigger man, and you can't win.
<p>
Taking that as my segueway, i return now to the first part of the
previously discussed Donovan sequence. Here the viewer is
treated to more of the doggedly confrontational Dylan, with this
difference: the despite-it-all, guilty pleasure of observing his<BR>
keen mind at work is no longer a component consideration. I am
fleetingly reminded again, however, of the suggestion that fights
and brawls, along with contact sports and strenuous forays down
frothing rapids in tightly packed canoes, may very well be a way
for men to get physically close to each other without having to
admit it to anyone, including ourselves.
<p>
The scene, then, unfolding during a party in Dylan's hotel room,
starts with a shot of Donovan's face; his time not yet come, he
is immediately abandoned in favor of a more pressing drama:
Somebody has chucked a glass out the window and presumably either
hit or scared witless some unsuspecting pedestrian.
Representatives of the management are at the door, demanding
justice; Albert Grossman, with his great flair for business,
tells them to fuck off. Dylan, on the other hand - slightly
pissed, pissed off, righteously indignant, and no doubt concerned
with being a king in control of his own castle - sympathizes with
the offended envoys. He demands a confession, immediately
seizing on one of the uninitiated local guests as the person most
likely to be in the know:
<p>
DYLAN: Who threw that glass in the street? Who did it? Man, you<BR>
better tell me cause if somebody don't tell me who did it you're
all gonna get the fuck out of here and never come back. Now who
did it? I don't <care> who did it, man, I just wanna <know> who
did it... 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10; you got him here?
<p>
Apart from proffering an interesting distinction, this somewhat
adolescent and a tad embarrassing tirade carries the seeds of
irony - it is later revealed that it was actually one of Dylan's
"own people" who committed the uncouth act (specifically, our old
friend the faded beatnik), and the matter is consequently settled
in all amicability.
<p>
Before this happens, though, a highly significant exchange takes
place between Dylan and the initially suspected culprit. The man
in question is no science student; he has the air of being a
hipster like the rest of the crowd, and is not easily
intimidated. Also, in the present confrontation, he appears to
be the more discerning of the combatants:
<p>
DYLAN: I know a thousand cats who look just like you and talk<BR>
just like you. CULPRIT: Oh, fuck off. You're a big noise. You
know? DYLAN: I know it, man. I know I'm a big noise. CULPRIT:
I know you know. DYLAN: I'm a bigger noise than you, man.
CULPRIT: I'm a small noise. DYLAN: Right. CULPRIT: [with<BR>
pointed emphasis] I'm a small cat. DYLAN: That's right.
<p>
Which pretty well caps this entire section of my argument: Dylan
is the authoritative speaker of the word, the aggressive wielder
of the weapon: he not only looks, walks, and talks like a tomcat
<UL>
<LI> he owns the alley.
</UL>
Witness the workings of accident:
<p>
DYLAN: [to the small cat] You're anything you say you are, man.<BR>
If you say you're small, I believe it. I believe you, man.
<p>
Pennebaker harbors much enthusiasm for these words. Talking to
Robert Shelton, the author of Dylan's official biography, he
cites the above statement and exclaims, "What a marvelous thing
to say! It's the fundamental existentialist concept. And Dylan's
doing it, not like Norman Mailer, writing about it; that's what
the film is about, so it couldn't be left out." (26)
<p>
(Apparently, the inclusion of the latter confrontation had been a
bone of possible contention; in the end, having Dylan look bad
gloriously fighting another battle he couldn't possibly lose must
have been considered a small price to pay for the preservation of
fundamental existentialist concepts.)
<p>
What i find more applicable in Pennebaker's comment is its level
of ambiguity - i'm not sure whether the film is supposed to
celebrate the existentialist ethic as such, or if it is rather a
showcase for Bob Dylan actually doing something that Norman
Mailer is only capable of writing about. Mailer, of course, is
another tomcat; Kate Millet, writing among other things on the
mysteries of masculinity, describes the author himself as a
"prisoner of the virility cult," (27) and one of his archetypal
and recurring characters as possessing, in Mailer's own phrase,
"the cruelty to be a man." (28) She goes on to elaborate
Mailer's hipster attitude in the following terms:
<p>
"Confusing the simply antisocial with the revolutionary, Mailer
develops an aesthetic of Hip whose chief temperamental
characteristic is a malign <machismo>, still dear to those in the
New Left who have fallen under Mailer's spell in adolescence or
continue to confuse Che Guevara with the brassy cliche of the
Westerns." (29) In addition to the obvious hipster correlation,
i ask the reader to consider the prevalence of an outlaw, Western
mythology in the work of Bob Dylan: he might look like Robert
Ford, but he feels just like Jesse James.
<p>
Leaving Millet, further uncanny occurrences soon thicken the
plot. This paper's citations from Pauline Kael are taken from a
review concerning itself primarily not with DLB, but with another
film entitled *Wild 90*. This production is an improvisational,
fictitious construct, directed as well as not-written by Norman
Mailer, who also stars. It was shot in familiar fashion by D. A.
Pennebaker, following his work on DLB. Kael comments: "It is one
of the ultimate fantasies to star in a <cinema- verite> movie, to
show the world 'the truth' about yourself. Norman Mailer not
only took Pennebaker, he took the Dylan look - fluffy halo and
all..." (30)
<p>
I have more: Preceding the cited section of Wilfrid Sheed's book
in which he discusses DLB is an entire chapter devoted to Mailer.
(31) He describes him alternately as "a man whose favorite
metaphor is his fists"; as an actor who "has used the names Pope
and King; but transparently, the one he was groping for shyly was
God"; and, finally, as "[a]n opportunist... Prove to him that
there's anything wrong with that. In personal style... Mailer
is not a primitive... but a conscious follower of tradition. His
old crony, Seymour Krim, recently accused him of introducing
crassness and success-worship to American letters." In a
parallel fashion, Dylan can be seen as having brought crassness
and success-worship to folk music; or, similarly but conversely,
American letters to crass rock music.
<p>
To add it up: People writing about Bob Dylan are often fascinated
by Norman Mailer; people interested in filming Bob Dylan as a hip
counterculture representative are also drawn to Norman Mailer;
Norman Mailer has been associated with prisoners of traditional
masculine sexual politics. Lean Mean Hipster Poets, Man-Size the
lot of them, conquering a world in which women are "groupies
seduced by the masculine Beats, 'who sweetened the snatches of a
million girls trembling in the sunset, and were red eyed in the
morning but prepared to sweeten the snatch of the sunrise,
flashing buttocks under barns and naked in the lakes...' [Allen
Ginsberg]" (32) It <is> a delightful scenario, in a certain
respect; there's a lot of pantheistic pleasure to be had by all;
but as the bard Ginsberg ("who crawled alone from the wreckage of
the Beat Generation" (33)) hints at, you might only have
experienced a partial, distorted and self-(other-)denying
enjoyment of the story so far - you, the illegitimate progeny of
Walt Whitman and his leaves of grass.
<p>
"The pantheist," writes Robert Pattison, "has a natural affection
for grass." (34) Legend has it that Bob Dylan - perhaps
inbetween camera loads sometime during the tour in question? -
introduced the Beatles to the wonders of marijuana.
<p>
If the viewer cares to take a second look, that certain bum with
a cane, serving as part of the backdrop for Dylan's unceremonious
flinging of cue- cards at the opening of DLB, is actually Allen
Ginsberg.
<p>
Coincidence?
<p>
Take it to court, if you dare.
<p>
THE ANARCHY OF PERPLEXED FLESH
<p>
Denouement: We are in a car with Dylan and Grossman and a couple<BR>
of other faces, speeding away from the grand finale of DLB - our
star's first- ever performance at the prestigious Royal Albert
Hall.
<p>
There's a rare kind of mood in this scene, a flash of nakedness
not set up by deliberate stripping: Dylan comments that he feels
like he's been through something. Grossman assures him, almost
tenderly, that he has. Then, somebody mentions an item in one of
the London papers - a piece of news which does not elicit the
usual type of dismissal ("I'm glad I'm not me"). For once, the
24-year-old upstart doesn't protest - in fact, he appears to be
genuinely thrown for a loop. Their latest label for him has to
be repeated aloud a couple of times for it to sink in:
"Anarchist."
<p>
Bob Dylan, at this period of his career - starting with *Bringing
It All Back Home* in early 1965 and ending, after the release of
*Highway 61 Revisited* and *Blonde on Blonde*, with a motorcycle
accident in the fall of the following year - was definitely a man
with contrary attitudes, a rock and roll rebel: about to
"abandon... the coffee house scene and plug... in [his] guitar,"
(35) fueled by an uncanny burst of creative energy and a lot of
"medicine," he would, by the time he ended a world tour (backed
by the Band) with a return visit to Royal Albert Hall in May,
1966, not only have successfully challenged the British Invasion
of rock hoodlums but practically upstaged them by bringing to the
field what could perhaps be called a greater amount of insidious
refinery and sophistication. "[Dylan] is certainly not a great
musician," claims Andrew Sarris,
<p>
"and it can be argued that he is not a great performer. The
value of his lyrics ['a verbal antimacassar on Dylan's threadbare
guitar-playing' (36)] as literature is still debatable, as are
the facile shock effects of electronic noise for its own sake
[which, Robert Pattison would insist, are part of the heart and
soul of rock'n'roll]... What makes Dylan modern or even ahead of
his time is the lack of coquettishness in his despair. What
makes him truly admirable is the absence of self-ridicule in his
arrogance." (37)
<p>
(On the latter subject - somebody somewhere has quoted Dylan as
saying he could write Jagger/Richards' "Brown Sugar" with one
hand tied behind his back.)
<p>
So he's noisy, and supremely contemptuous - but an anarchist?
<p>
The folky crowd he used to be in with abhorred him when he fell
out of his bunk one morning and decided to dress up in different
duds; their righteous rage can perhaps be forgiven, since this
was the very first manifestation of Dylan's recurring commitment
to "the sin... of pantheism...[:] its refusal to be drawn into
the debilitating conflicts between antagonists each possessed of
a partial truth." (38) This is the commitment that is so
exasperating to intellectualizing journalists and anybody else
who might have reasons for at least temporarily pinning him down;
like wife or girlfriends. It is a commitment that could easily
crawl into bed with anarchism: "Any established ideology," writes
Pattison, "has much to fear from pantheism. [It] is a
garbage-pail philosophy, indiscriminately mixing scraps of
everything. Fine distinctions between right and wrong, high and
low, true and false, the worthy and unworthy, disappear in
pantheism's tolerant and eclectic one that refuses to scorn any
particular of the many" (39); "You're anything you say you are,
man."
<p>
This political aspect, though, is merely a side effect - Dylan
has in various formulations insisted that he's basically a
song-and-dance-man: like Whitman, he is content to "celebrate...
the noise of the universe," (40) to sound his barbaric yawp over
the roofs of the world. His protestations have been successful -
the passionate young souls of the world have long since stopped
looking to him for answers. I still remember the general shaking
of my friends' heads on the day following his performance of
"Like a Rolling Stone" on David Letterman's tenth anniversary
show; they had found him pathetic and awkward, and just try
telling them from personally experienced concert appearances that
<no>, you don't <understand>, he <moves> in a very bizarre way to
begin with. Really.
<p>
It's no use. He has succeeded; nobody bothers him with questions
anymore, and his orthodox constituency keeps the money flowing
into his church coffers. As far as this crowd is concerned, he
gets away with anything: when he sings "Girl from the North
Country" to conclude his 30th anniversary Bobfest concert, and
his voice is (believe it or not, uncharacteristically) unable to
sustain the high notes, the performance is later hailed as
"lovely" and "understated." (41) (It is peculiar that nobody is
pointing out how much more sophisticated a musician he has become
over the past few years, as evidenced both here and,
particularly, on his last two albums of acoustic standards.
Can't these myopic critics even catch a glimpse of his going for
the same synergy that Hendrix achieved with his divine
combination of homely voice and cocky axe?)
<p>
He's got it made, or so it would seem. The picture, however, has
been doctored with; the shadows aren't right: nothing succeeds
like success, true - but there's no success like failure, and
failure is no success at all.
<p>
Dylan is a ruse. He's scared. Bergson's eternal duration keeps
him awake at night; Whitman's leaves of grass are inhuman
poltergeists haunting his windows. His pantheism is impure - he
protests too much: Dylan has failed - he, of all people, desires
meaning.
<p>
"The pantheist himself [again, this masculine subject!] often
recoils from the vulgar consequences of his creed and seeks to
escape them by a retreat into what philosophers call monism,
which holds that though the universe is made up of infinite and
equal events, our attention should be directed to the single
mystery that unifies them. This mystery is usually called God.
By emphasizing the single principle that unites infinity, the
monist achieves a kind of transcendence, a single standard beyond
common experience that can be used as the basis of judgment and
discrimination. Monism is the refined version of pantheism, and
before the era of vulgar Romanticism, pantheists from Parmenides
to Spinoza took refuge in it." (42)
<p>
Witness Dylan's recurring religious imagery, and, in particular,
how it reached its apex with the 1979 album *Slow Train Coming*,
which is, more than anything else - let's call a spade a spade -
an exercise in Bible thumping. It offers a little bit of
<something> else, however: the specter of a second ruse.
<p>
Like Parmenides and Spinoza, Dylan is seeking refuge - he is
hiding. Underneath that veneer of slippery existentialism and
aloof monism squirms a vulnerably vulgar Romantic lover, unable
to renounce the flesh but mortally afraid of the stakes involved:
You don't own love - love owns you. Pretending your love is
transcendental is a nice dodge, but it only goes so far. At one
point or another, you have to indulge your physical
sensibilities.
<p>
Dylan, a man having penned many a fine love song, finds refuge
for such indulgence in performance - not in his private,
"backstage" life, but <on>stage. Performing, he is the supreme
monologist, separated, untouchable and invincible, free to
indulge the vagaries of his every emotion: because, hey, after
all, should anyone ask, it's just music, man. I'm no science
student; it's just a song and dance.
<p>
One could perhaps say that Dylan is performing less in
performance, that he lives his life on stage; in a manner, this
has in fact been said: In a fairly recent interview - wherein,
incidentally, she describes herself as possessing the status of
"honorary male" in his universe - Joni Mitchell claims the reason
behind Dylan's neverending touring is that he's "not very good
with people." (43) Leave it to a perceptive singer-songwriter to
collapse this entire paper into a single line.
<p>
If D. A. Pennebaker with *Don't Look Back* sincerely wanted to
enhance Dylan's image as a subversive existentialist, he
ultimately did his subject a disfavor by anchoring him securely
within traditional formal representations. On the other hand, if
he wanted to open up an exploration of Dylan <qua> performer, his
ambition must be seen as more happily realized (even by default).
Judged on the basis of statements he has given regarding his most
recent verite endeavor, dealing with the Clinton presidential
campaign [*The War Room* (1993), co-directed by Christine
Hegedus], any lingering ambivalence might fundamentally stem from
his being drawn in equal measure to politicians and rockers:
"It's not that strange, really. They're all the same -
performers. With my kind of technique, I' limited to those kinds
of people." (44) For once, there is finally consensus between
filmmaker and critics.
<p>
In the end, then, just like he planned it, it all comes down to
Bob Dylan. And he's not telling. I hope to have demonstrated
that he is by no means a political rogue, but rather an
accomplished performer shrewd enough to know the limits of
language while at the same time making effective and sometimes
noisy use of it to secure a place for himself in the world
without ever letting his guard down. Achilles is in the
alleyway, and if he could just get over his desire to want
somebody else there, he'd be home free. His own kingdom is
threatened by the anarchy of flesh.
<p>
Now all that remains for me to figure out is whether my continued
enjoyment of Dylan's music could possibly result from abject
admiration for a ruthless strategist - or, and this would be the
more promising alternative, if it actually speaks to some
wellspring of proper pantheistic pleasure floating around
somewhere beneath my epidermis.
<p>
I'm afraid the judgmental severity of my discursive tone might
betray a basic lack of confidence.
<HR>
<p>
NOTES:
<p>
(1) Fyodor Dostoevsky, *Notes from Underground and The Grand
Inquisitor*. [New York: E. P. Dutton, 1960]; 17. (2) Robert
Pattison, *The Triumph of Vulgarity: Rock Music in the Mirror of
Romanticism*. [New York: Oxford University Press, 1987]; 10-11.
(3) D. A. Pennebaker, *Don't Look Back*. [Leacock-Pennebaker,
1967.] (4) in Jean-Luc Godard, *Pierrot le Fou*. [Rome-Paris
Films/Dino de Laurentiis, 1965.] (5) Pauline Kael, *Going
Steady*. [Boston: Little, Brown, 1970]; 12-14. (6) Andrew
Sarris, *Confessions of a Cultist*. [New York: Simon and
Schuster,1970]; 312, 313. (7) *Film Quarterly*, 20:4 [Summer,
1967]; 78. (8) Sarris, op. cit. (9) *New York Times*, Sept.
7, 1967; 50:2. (10) The footage was shot in 1976, during a
second leg of the extravagant Rolling Thunder Revue tour, and,
after extensive editing by Dylan, released as a 4-hour film
towards the end of the following year. (11) Stephen Scobie,
*Alias Bob Dylan*. [Red Deer, Alberta: Red Deer College Press,
1991]; 114. (12) Daniel Kramer, *Bob Dylan*. [New Jersey:
Castle Books, 1967]; 13. (13) from *Bringing It All Back Home*.
[Columbia Records; March, 1965.] (14) Kramer, op.cit.; 13-14.
(15) Ibid.; 18. (16) *Newsweek*, Sept. 20, 1965; 90. (17)
Kramer, op.cit.; 17-18. (18) Kael, op.cit.; 15. (19) Raymond
Bellour, "The Obvious and the Code," in Philip Rosen, ed.,
*Narrative, Apparatus, Ideology*. [New York: Columbia University
Press, 1986]; 97-98. (20) Virginia Woolf, *A Room of One's Own*
[London: Grafton, 1977]; 41. <Originally published in 1929 by
The Hogarth Press Ltd..> (21) op.cit. (22) op.cit. (23) Sarris,
op.cit.; 312. (24) Wilfrid Sheed, *The Morning After: Selected
Essays and Reviews*. [New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1971];
207. (25) see Joan Mellen, *BIG BAD WOLVES: Masculinity in the
American Film*, esp. chapters 7 and 8. [New York: Pantheon,
1977.] (26) Robert Shelton, *No Direction Home: The Life and
Music of Bob Dylan*. [London: Penguin, 1987]; 299. (27) Kate
Millet, *Sexual Politics*. [Garden City, New York: Doubleday,
1970]; 314, 315. (28) Norman Mailer, *The Deer Park*. [New
York: Putnam, 1955]; 198. (29) Millet, op.cit.; 317. (30) Kael,<BR>
op.cit.; 15. (31) Sheed, op.cit.; 9-17. (32) Leerom Medovoi,
"Mapping the Rebel Image: Postmodernism and the Masculinist
Politics of Rock in the U. S. A.," in *Cultural Critique* 20
[Winter 1991-1992] <153-188>; 168. (33) Sheed, op.cit.; 10.
(34) Pattison, op.cit.; 26. (35) see Medovoi, op.cit.; 173.
(36) Pattison, op.cit.; ix. (37) Sarris, op.cit.; 312. (38)
Pattison, op.cit.; 27. (39) Ibid.; 23. (40) Ibid.; 19. (41)
David Wild, in liner notes to *Bob Dylan: The 30th Anniversary
Concert Celebration*. [Columbia/Sony Entertainment, 1993.] (42)
Pattison, op.cit.; 24. (43) see *Rolling Stone*, Oct. 15, 1992;
167-169. (44) *The Gazette*, Montreal, Feb. 26, 1994; E10.
<p>
<**********************************************>
</BODY>
</HTML>
<hr>
<a href="../dylan.html"> <img src="../images/righthand.gif">
Bring It All Back Home</a>