We are amidst COVID shutdown, and this 3.5 hr documentary from 2005 is streaming for free. This movie explores the beginnings of Bob Dylan's career as a folk musician (1961-63) as juxtaposed to his decision to abandon folk and move to electric rock/blues (1965-66). I particularly recommend this for music lovers aged 50 or younger who never listened to Dylan's early catalogue, and to anyone who is not familiar with the amazing Greenwich Village folk artists interviewed in the film (Clancy Brothers, Dave van Ronk, Pete Seeger, New Lost City Ramblers). After I first saw this documentary on PBS in 2005, I was able to move back from Dylan's music and better appreciate some of the earlier folk artists.
So, who was this kid from the Iron Range in Minnesota, with a mediocre singing voice, who moves to NYC at age 20 and becomes an international star by age 25? The movie explains how it happened - how Dylan was driven by music his whole life, how he worked his way into the NYC folk scene by improving rapidly and writing great songs, how he keenly observed other artists and could shape-shift to adopt various folk forms, and how he saw the world changing and used his unique talent to capture a moment and catapult himself into relevance and stardom.
It is said that talent hits a target that few can hit, whereas genius sees a target that few can see. What is most poignant in this film are the interviews with musicians and poets who rubbed elbows with Dylan before he was a star, many of whom are no longer with us. The interviews explain the genius of Dylan - that Dylan wrote songs about the moment that could have been written 200 years ago (NYC record store owner Izzy Young), and that his voice was a "column of air" that was part of larger objective truth (Allen Ginsberg). Other interview subjects didn't understand Dylan's not-so-pretty singing voice (like Mitch Miller), while others didn't understand Dylan's reluctance to embrace leftist politics (like van Ronk, Joan Baez). They didn't see that Dylan was a step ahead, focusing on targets that they weren't seeing.
One criticism that I have with the movie is with the disjointed format. The movie explores Dylan's early career, then interrupts the narrative flow with short footage from his later, electric phase (1965-66), when Bob was being heckled for his abandonment of the folk form. Bob's refusal to be pigeonholed as a folk musician led him to explore electric rock (which he did to near perfection), and that's a story worth telling. I just wish that Martin Scorcese has told that story in more linear fashion without interrupting the earlier story.
So, who was this kid from the Iron Range in Minnesota, with a mediocre singing voice, who moves to NYC at age 20 and becomes an international star by age 25? The movie explains how it happened - how Dylan was driven by music his whole life, how he worked his way into the NYC folk scene by improving rapidly and writing great songs, how he keenly observed other artists and could shape-shift to adopt various folk forms, and how he saw the world changing and used his unique talent to capture a moment and catapult himself into relevance and stardom.
It is said that talent hits a target that few can hit, whereas genius sees a target that few can see. What is most poignant in this film are the interviews with musicians and poets who rubbed elbows with Dylan before he was a star, many of whom are no longer with us. The interviews explain the genius of Dylan - that Dylan wrote songs about the moment that could have been written 200 years ago (NYC record store owner Izzy Young), and that his voice was a "column of air" that was part of larger objective truth (Allen Ginsberg). Other interview subjects didn't understand Dylan's not-so-pretty singing voice (like Mitch Miller), while others didn't understand Dylan's reluctance to embrace leftist politics (like van Ronk, Joan Baez). They didn't see that Dylan was a step ahead, focusing on targets that they weren't seeing.
One criticism that I have with the movie is with the disjointed format. The movie explores Dylan's early career, then interrupts the narrative flow with short footage from his later, electric phase (1965-66), when Bob was being heckled for his abandonment of the folk form. Bob's refusal to be pigeonholed as a folk musician led him to explore electric rock (which he did to near perfection), and that's a story worth telling. I just wish that Martin Scorcese has told that story in more linear fashion without interrupting the earlier story.