The films by or about Bob Dylan are every bit as strange,
unique, intimate & evasive, as he is and Martin Scorsese’s Rolling Thunder Review: A Bob Dylan
Story, streaming now on Netflix,is no exception, blending documentary footage Dylan had
taken during the famous 1974-6 tour with more than a few fictional add-ons from
the likes of Sharon Stone, Kipper Kid Martin von Haselberg, and studio exec
(just not that studio nor that exec) Jim Gianapolus. But as
somebody who has been listening to, close-reading and watching the troubadour of
Hibbing for at least 57 years, the real stars of this paradocumentary are Bob Dylan’s
eyes. They are luminous, blue and often (in the faux Noh white paint that turns
up pretty much everywhere on Dylan, violinist Scarlet Rivera, and even for a
bit Joan Baez, during the tour) green.[i]
Most importantly, they are searching, making contact, commenting on the action
we see and the inner workings behind the mask that are not given to us during
the two-hour, twenty minutes of the film.
In 1974, Bob Dylan had largely been off the road for the previous
eight years following a motorcycle accident before returning to do a series of
stadium and arena-sized shows with The Band, the legendary backup quintet once
known as Ronnie Hawkins’ Hawks. During the interim, Dylan and the Bandhadbeen down in the basement making some glorious music, the group had
become nearly as famous as their front man, and the stadium shows reflected
this with alternating sets. It was a format that had become standard in the
post-Woodstock era, one that lives on today all over the globe, from Coachella
to K-Pop[ii].
But it is also the form that drove the Beatles into retirement from live
performance in 1967 and its fundamental inhumanness is its basic truth. Rolling Thunder Review repeatedly
returns to the fact that the smaller venues Dylan chose for the three-year
traveling carnival he had created to succeed the gigs with the band ensured
that it would never succeed financially.
But touring is an essential economic truth in the music
business, where record companies were sucking up vast portions of any performer’s
earnings long before the rise of the net and the cloud put control of the
product into serious doubt. After a five-year touring career in the early 1960s
and a six-month return before screaming masses of adoring ants, Dylan was
searching for something different. Rolling Thunder was the result.
With the stadium shows, Dylan had begun rolling out his new strategy
of reworking some of his standards, often quite dramatically, and the Rolling
Thunder performances show Dylan’s passion for these new versions of what had already
become familiar classics as well as more recent fare from the records released
during the eight years away from touring. But what is really most notable are
Dylan’s facial expressions, his directness with the audience, eyes rolling when
Baez transposes a phrase, eyebrows arching, registering emotion. It’s not just
that Dylan is having fun, although how oftenhave you seen him acknowledge that,
but that he’s communicating and collaborating with his expressions in ways
I had not seen during his folk and earlier rock periods and never in the course of his Never-Ending
Tour that has gone on now for over 31 years.[iii]
Like, say, Miles Davis (a performer whom at times reminds me of Dylan in his
obsessional focus on the piece at hand), who seldom if ever interacted with
audiences, Dylan often feels onstage is if he were alone with his band. Not so
in these performances.
Which is what gives these shows & this film an intensity
Dylan seldom approaches elsewhere.
Rolling Thunder was also Dylan’s attempt to create an
alternative to the isolating realities of fame and travel that can bedevil musicians.
Anyone who has seen Chuck Berry or Bo Diddley arriving for a concert with some
backup band he has never met, let alone with whom he has practiced, or heard
the exhaustion in the voice of a solo artist like Eric Andersen (who has a bit
role in this film), or who can count the number of musicians who have died on
the road, will sympathize. Dylan’s idea was to put together a small community
of first-rate artists and take them all along for the ride. While the film
returns repeatedly to the figure of the carnival, it’s really the pilgrimages
of, say, Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales that
echo most loudly here. The film’s second billing goes to Allen Ginsberg,
labeled in the credits as (Dylan’s phrase) the Oracle of Delphi, who begins the
tour as a central obsession for Dylan (“absolutely not a father figure” Bob
insists as Ginsberg leads him to the grave of Jack Kerouac, footage everyone
has seen before but given new poignancy by the context offered here ) but
concludes it sharing roadie duties with Peter Orlovsky. Others in the mix
include Patti Smith, Baez, Ramblin’ Jack Elliot, Roger McGuinn and Joni
Mitchell. Oddly missing from the interviews are most of the musicians who back
Dylan up, particularly Bobby Neuwirth, Dylan’s close friend who served as the
functional producer of much that ensued musically on the tour and who proves a reasonable
successor to the great lead guitarists Dylan has had going back to the late
Mike Bloomfield.
If the tour was, as everyone insists – from Gianapolus as
producer to the jowly Dylan of just last year – a failure, it wasn’t
financially[iv]
so much as socially. The dynamics of the road are relentless – Baez, Dylan’s
ex-lover from the sixties quits the tour & her absence as a grounding is
noticeable[v].
What does it mean to have a roving commune in a world so hungry for roots? You
can run away to join the circus, but the circus itself turns out to be a very
circumscribed home. The commune movement, from Ken Kesey’s Merry Pranksters
forward, was as much a seventies’ phenomenon as a holdover from the sixties,
and as the sometimes incoherent pacing of appearances from Richard Nixon, Gerald
Ford & Jimmy Carter[vi],
reflects, the failure of the revolution of ’68 left everyone notalready bunkered down in the
counterculture without many alternatives. The power imbalance between Dylan and
everyone else is something nobody can get past – even Baez, here as elsewhere a
snarky skeptic unafraid of being incorrect, concedes to it. Bob is Bob, but
unlike Charlie, he doesn’t want a harem to kill for him, or – a la Baker-roshi –
to ensconce him in wealth and pussy. Dylan profoundly distrusts power, but his
followers are like iron filings to his magnetic presence. It’s the Gordian knot
he will never cut.
Much, too much in fact, is made of the question of masks as
Dylan’s only plausible defense to this conundrum, and when you hear Hurricane
Carter’s snappy, upbeat chatter about how Dylan is still searching regardless
of his claim to have already found some inner peace, you remember that Rolling
Thunder was Dylan’s last stop before the Bible[vii].
In one sense, this is where Scorsese – Dylan’s friend since at least The Last Waltz – fails as a filmmaker. A
director with some critical distance might have looked with a more jaundiced
eye at the wall Dylan hits at the end of this tour, aesthetically, spiritually,
intellectually. Good intentions will only get you so far. There’s a reason even
Ringling Bros. gave it up in 2017, and why so many other performers have
retreated to Nashville, Branson or Vegas, why the Blue Man Group or Cirque de
Soleil don’t do the road. At 78, Dylan still performs at 100-plus venues per
year, compared with the Stones who do 30 once every five years, and McCartney
something comparable to that. Dylan is driven, albeit not by fame, fortune nor
glory – his fumbling of the Nobel Prize should tell us that. In a sense, he’s
like the secret cylons in Battlestar
Gallactica, who know who they are by the song they can’t get out of their
head, written as it was by Bob Dylan.
[iii]
The credit roll lists every show from 1974 through 2018 and we are talking thousands.
[iv]
Billionaire Sir Paul McCartney and maybe the Gershwins must be the only other people
to come close to Dylan in revenue from covers of their music.
[v]
Their discussion of their marriages, Dylan to the “woman I love” in Sara (not
always present on the tour and not visible here), Baez to Stanford anti-war
activist David Harris (“the man I thought I loved”), is a level of intimacy
nowhere available elsewhere in any film of Dylan I’ve ever seen.
[vi]
How many of today’s audiences will recognize a dazed Lynnette “Squeaky” Fromme
being arrested after her attempt to shoot Ford at the Sacramento state capitol,
or even know that Ford was the target of two assassination attempts in one
month? If Scorsese had been making a film about the period, rather than the
tour, he’d have noted the arrest of Patty Hearst and her SLA compatriots that
same month, prompting one of the network news broadcasts to project its
coverage over the background of the Beach Boys’ California Girls.
[vii]
Where is T-Bone Burnett whose
presence on the tour is sometimes credited with Dylan’s religious conversion?
Or David Bromberg? Didn’t he get together with his wife, artist and Santeria practitioner
Nancy Josephson, on the tour? So many great musicians Scorsese could have
talked to and did not. Indeed, there would seem to be a documentary waiting to
be made of Scarlet Rivera’s presence throughout. Having been “discovered” by
Dylan walking down the street in New York – an event as improbable as Trungpa’s
famous cab ride with Ginsberg – everyone seems terrified of her.Next to Dylan, Ginsberg & maybe Baez, she’s
the most visible person here, still making use of the musical career that
apparently fell from the sky.
On numerous occasions, I’ve made the point that the recognition of community – starting implicitly with the Black Mountain poets & the New York School and continuing explicitly with Langpo – is exactly that which distinguishes the post-avant from its predecessor, the avant-gardist late modern. Having taken community as an antidote to individualism, it is disconcerting to see the category figured negatively either by one’s peers who are not reactionaries (Johanna Drucker is one of writing’s most positive forces, for example) & by those who come immediately thereafter (as were the “new coast” poets of the O●blēk Anthology). What third term might exist that would untie the knot created by conflict between the endless competition that is the hallmark of individualism & the social elitism of inside-vs.-outside of any community? If I have a frustration with the post-Langpo / pre-Conceptual poets of the past few decades, it is largely that no such third term has been forthcoming, merely a sense of alienation toward the two pre-existing alternatives.
Listening to the talks of Poetry Communities and Individual Talent, I’m struck not just by John Paetsch’s use of “ collectivity” or “collective” as a potential third term, but even more profoundly by just how much this conference is not about community so much as it is about credentialing and canonization: credentialing the speakers – all intelligent & well-intended in their work – and canonization of the figures of their work, most often by foregrounding a previously overlooked, misunderstood or controversial aspect of the writing itself. But the core fact of the conference was that of younger academics talking on panels moderated by their elders. Of 22 speakers who presented papers (the one on Prynne is mysteriously absent from the PennSound record), only a few – Damon, Dworkin, Karasick & Schultz – are known primarily as poets. Only a few – Paetsch, Jessyka Finley, Kaplan Harris – fully address the construction of community itself (or, in the case of Spicer, the refusal of same). None of the speakers, moderators included, is him- or herself free of an academic context.
Wise Guys Meet in La Jolla
Clockwise from RS at rear of table:
Rae Armantrout, John Granger, Ted Pearson, Dustin Leavitt
(photo by TC Marshall)
Because I was in California for half of April, I missed the Poetry Communities & Individual Talent conference that took place at Kelly Writers House while I was gone. But the relationship of poetry & community was constantly on my mind, reading at UC (which still fails to treat me to the usual glut of alma mater literature, a mistake that SF State never makes, tho in fact I never actually received a degree from either), going past the house I grew up, the house eight blocks away that I owned prior to the move to Pennsylvania, visiting dear friends, including David Melnick in San Francisco & Cecelia Bromige in Sebastopol. I’m co-editing collected poems for both Melnick & David Bromige and had things I needed & wanted to discuss with each. Plus the primal pleasure of visiting dear friends. I was amazed, at the Prison Law Office in Berkeley, to see that Steve Fama has a pretty good collection of my writings on prisons from my days with the Committee for Prisoner Humanity & Justice (CPHJ), which is to say 1977 & before. Later in the week, Kathleen Frumkin & I sorted through the NY Times to find the crossword puzzle that listed “Pulitzer Prize Poet Armantrout & others” on April 13 (Rae’s birthday – did they know that?), plus the solution the following day, which was “Raes.” It was one of those deeply satisfying psychic journeys in which I traveled more than just geographical distance.
My first event on the West Coast was at the Center for Psychoanalysis in San Francisco, an interesting blend of resonances in my life given just how many psychoanalysts I know, how many therapists & the number of decades I’ve been in therapy of one sort or another. One of the first questions in that informal give & take setting was did I still think of myself as a Language Poet and had my sense of Language Poetry changed since the 1970s. My response was to begin with something I’d written in the foreword to in In The American Tree, that I understood Language Writing as a moment more than a movement, which was true in the early 1980s when I first penned that sentence, and is even truer today, when that moment seems to me clearly past.
Returning to the Bay Area after a gap of a few years away & just under 17 since I moved to Chester County, PA, is a complex, often bittersweet experience. When I left in 1995 UC Berkeley, where I’d once studied poetry with Robert Grenier, James EB Breslin, Jonas Barish, Ed Snow & Dick Bridgman, had yet to invite me to give a reading, so I recall being quite amazed when both Temple & Penn asked me within six weeks of arriving in the Philadelphia region. Not quite two decades later, Berkeley finally caught up, thanks to CS Giscombe, with the aid of co-curator Rosa Martinez, my co-reader Jill Richards (who, as I noticed & several people in the audience made a point of reiterating for me, gave a terrific performance), Claire Marie Stancek (who gave me a generous introduction) & some others (David Brazil in absentia even). Wheeler Hall had not changed all that much in the 41 years since I last took a class there, tho what they now call the Maud Fife Room was a warren of grad student offices back then.
RON SILLIMAN has written and edited 40 books, and had his poetry and criticism translated into 16 languages. Silliman was a 2012 Kelly Writers House Fellow, the 2010 recipient of the Levinson Prize from the Poetry Foundation, a 2003 Literary Fellow of the National Endowment for the Arts, a 2002 Fellow of the Pennsylvania Arts Council, and a 1998 Pew Fellow in the Arts. Silliman has a plaque in the walk dedicated to poetry in his home town of Berkeley and a sculpture in the Transit Center of Bury, Lancaster, a part of the Irwell Sculpture Trail. He lives in Chester County, Pennsylvania and teaches at the University of Pennsylvania.