At the end of class yesterday, we were asked to consider whether the movie and the book provided us with a different sense of Dylan. My immediate reaction to the question was to say yes, but at the time I could not articulate why. After thinking it over, I would like to return to the question to do it a bit more justice.
One thing I noticed about the book (Dylan's autobiography) versus, the movie (his biography) was that the book was, in a way, far less personally revealing than the movie. This is ironic since the autobiography is usually considered to be more insightful. However, in the movie, we are able to see bits of Dylan's personal life, such as his struggles with his wife and children. Unlike the book, the characters in I'm Not There are given names and have faces. Through the plotline of the movie, we are able to witness their family's inner dynamic and struggle. Even though Dylan claims his family is immensely important in his autobiography, he only refers to his family at a surface level. We are not given any information about Dylan's children (their ages, sexes, birthdays, names) nor his wife. Reasonably, this is out of Dylan's desire to protect the privacy of his family at all cost--a wish that is not entirely upheld in the movie. Thus, the lack of personal details included in The Chronicles, in a sense, maintain's the mystery of Dylan's private life.
Stemming from this, we are then left to question Dylan's motives for writing an autobiography if he still desires to keep his private life secret. This ties into another difference between I'm Not There and The Chronicles. In the movie, care is taken to paint a broad perspective of who Dylan is and how he was perceived. It tells the complex stor of his life. On the other hand, in his autobiography, Dylan seems less concerned with revealing the true story of himself and more concerned with revealing the true story of his music. Dylan brings up who his inspirations were, where his rhythms came from, and how his lyrics developed from his thoughts. Thus, perhaps the reason why the two are so different is that one focuses on Dylan, while the other is focused more specifically on his music and the creative process.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I agree with you that the movie and the book focus an very different sides of Dylan. But I think that the book is about much more than just Dylan's music. Music seems to be such a big part of him and a way for him to express himself, that I think for him talking about his music is almost equivalent to talking about his soul. The movie, on the other side, is more about perceptions of Dylan and how other people see him throughout his life.
I find it difficult to accept the movie as an accurate portrayal of Dylan. How can someone who has not met Dylan portray his personal experiences when Dylan has obviously tried so hard to hide them? I think Dylan wrote his autobiography to explain himself and the choices he has made. It is interesting to compare this to other autobiographies that start at the birth or even before.
I definitely agree that both showed a very different side of Dylan. His book was very Stein-like in the fact that no personal details were revealed, just a string of his activities and the people he knew. The movie, on the other hand, was entirely about his persona, the side of himself he showed to the world. Still, between the two, there is a large chunk of Dylan not represented anywhere. Though he expresses some of his thoughts and ideals in the book, I still feel like we don't get a very clear picture of his view on things.
One thing that is important to note on this subject is that while Todd Haynes, with I'm Not There, sought to retell, albeit in a pretty absurdist manner, large portions of Dylan's life, Chronicles was a far less ambitious project. What Dylan reveals is by no means a narrative of his life; rather, it's simply five snapshots of his mental state at different periods of time. Dylan's plan is to add at least one more volume to the existing one, so perhaps it might be better to analyze with a more encompassing look at his life.
In response to what Sara said, I think that the movie may not be a precise retelling of Dylan's life (lives), but there is a lot of truth to much of the film. Almost every Jude Quinn scene, from the hotel to the "Judas" incident to getting high with the Beatles, is based on a pretty well-documented episode from Dylan's life. While the other five Dylans (four if you don't count Rimbaud) are more one-dimensional, they nonetheless bear significant resemblance to phases of Dylan's actual life--as shown in the avalanche of media, from documentaries to biographies, available on Dylan.
The fact of the matter is that the movie focuses on the many aspects and personas in which Dylan was able to embody himself throughout his life. At the same time I thought that the movie closed down way too much on the symbolism and connections between the different characters. I found myself lost between the differences of the characters rather than the actual events (And music) of Dylan's life that could further dig into his mind. I find that the book is a clear and vivid description of some of the most important events in Dylan's life. The people and music surrounding Dylan's life have obviously swayed his persona, but I find that Dylan's spontaneous accounts are in fact helpful in the telling of his life.
An interesting way to compare the two could be to look at the use of Dylan's music in the movie. In his autobiography, Dylan goes to great lengths to explain the inspirations for his music, and makes it quite clear what he has recorded and when others have recorded a song he wrote. In the movie, like we were talking about in class, the music are all Dylan's songs, but the singer is not always Dylan. Sometimes it is a cover by another person; others, a never released studio version. Either way, the movie ties in these different personas and portayals of Dylan's life work and soul. This could symbolize the way others see Dylan-jumping off what Rali was saying-and how many can be given the same words in the song, but still create a different sound and interpretation of the work.
Post a Comment