I'll start my post by clarifying something important. The official title of the film is 'Dont Look Back.' That is, it is WITHOUT an apostrophe in the first word. Many have assumed the original title to be a typo and have thus corrected it. The reason for this, according to director Pennebaker, was "to simplify the language." That being said, there seems to be a connection between Pennebaker's decision to simply the film's title and the way in which he constructs the film itself through the simplification of cinematic language.
People can agree that the digital age we find ourselves in can be seen as constantly employing methods such as extremely fast edits, blatantly obvious handheld camera aesthetics, staged instances of ‘reality,’etc, in an effort to imitate or recreate a sense of ‘rawness’ and ‘fly on the wall.’ We can see this in reality TV shows and even fictional narrative pieces like The Office. This trend is understandable especially when one watches a film like Dont Look Back, a film that is so unique and original in the way it depicts events, moments, and experience in such way that the viewer feels face to face with pure cinematic reality. But I would argue that this experience is made possible because Pennebaker chose to ‘simplify’ cinematic language, as he did for the title. That is, it’s all about carefully thought out ways to be creative, while being faithful to the moment.
Take, say, the scene where Dylan engages in a debate with a science student in a backroom of a studio. Not only does the content of their conversation stand out as something challenging and interestingly out of the box, but the way in which Pennebaker captured it speaks volumes. I was impressed by how he used the mirror behind Dylan to vary shot selection of the conversation and also experimenting with the depth of field made possible by it. Something as simple as exploring different ways to capture reality, as Pennebaker gracefully has, is what makes Direct Cinema so appealing, even if its aesthetic is constantly imitated by modern, ADD oriented, narrative shows and films. And that’s a shame.
All in all, Dont Look Back succeeds in the extent to which, with ‘simple’ cinematic language, offers the viewer what the cinema should be able to create in terms of experience. It hurts to see this film being imitated and corrupted by modern reality TV shows. In any case, great film!
This is Nesha Thompson. I think that don't look back was a good film because the scenes in the film didn't seem to be in chronological order. The different scenes made it look like a journey of Bob Dylon's tour but all of the random scenes pieced together created their own story. The documentary did not have any interviews between the filmmaker and the people in the film, yet we still got a story and a journey. Most of the characters were revealed clearly without narration or words telling us who they were. The documentary overall kept me hooked. It kept me wondering what was going to happen next and it revealed to me the type of person Bob Dylon was and how is music sounded.
I felt the cinema verite style worked very well with this film. The audience got a good sense of the "real" Bob Dylan both in his own relationship with the media and he in is leisure time in the hotel. A thought that crossed my mind was what about Pennebaker made him appealing enough for Bob Dylan to allow him to follow and record him on his tour without constant questioning of Pennebaker's motives as he did with other reporters/interviewers? Did Pennebaker have any motives behind making this film? I love GoodRoger's idea of "simplification of cinematic language" and I feel this is what really lead to Pennebaker's success with the film (including capturing the other side of Dylan that isn't berating the media).
Just to brainstorm off of what Jennifer was saying, one could wonder exactly how much of Pennebaker is in the film, or if it is possible for there be more of Dylan and the naturalistic representation of his touring experience than the artistic decisions made by the director. Dylan is shown as: the performer and the human being. In the music business specifically, fans tend to keep a long distance between the two characters, however, Dylan shows in the film that the line between the two is very thin. On one side, he could be perceived as merely a performer, being that he is the star of the film and the camera literally follows him from one location to the next. On the other hand, perhaps the side Dylan would rather prefer, he is not a performer, just himself. When he goes up on stage, his persona and attitude is exactly the same as he plays in front of very few in the hotel room. Maybe it’s all a performance since it is a film, or maybe it’s just a pure representation of Dylan.
The film also works on the same level of a musical. The way in which the film is edited, it is Dylan venturing through London juxtaposed with concert footage, backstage practicing, and spontaneous guitar playing and singing while sitting around. Unlike most musicals that contain a narrative structure, Pennebaker does his best to just follow and document Dylan.
I'll start my post by clarifying something important. The official title of the film is 'Dont Look Back.' That is, it is WITHOUT an apostrophe in the first word. Many have assumed the original title to be a typo and have thus corrected it. The reason for this, according to director Pennebaker, was "to simplify the language." That being said, there seems to be a connection between Pennebaker's decision to simply the film's title and the way in which he constructs the film itself through the simplification of cinematic language.
ReplyDeletePeople can agree that the digital age we find ourselves in can be seen as constantly employing methods such as extremely fast edits, blatantly obvious handheld camera aesthetics, staged instances of ‘reality,’etc, in an effort to imitate or recreate a sense of ‘rawness’ and ‘fly on the wall.’ We can see this in reality TV shows and even fictional narrative pieces like The Office. This trend is understandable especially when one watches a film like Dont Look Back, a film that is so unique and original in the way it depicts events, moments, and experience in such way that the viewer feels face to face with pure cinematic reality. But I would argue that this experience is made possible because Pennebaker chose to ‘simplify’ cinematic language, as he did for the title. That is, it’s all about carefully thought out ways to be creative, while being faithful to the moment.
Take, say, the scene where Dylan engages in a debate with a science student in a backroom of a studio. Not only does the content of their conversation stand out as something challenging and interestingly out of the box, but the way in which Pennebaker captured it speaks volumes. I was impressed by how he used the mirror behind Dylan to vary shot selection of the conversation and also experimenting with the depth of field made possible by it. Something as simple as exploring different ways to capture reality, as Pennebaker gracefully has, is what makes Direct Cinema so appealing, even if its aesthetic is constantly imitated by modern, ADD oriented, narrative shows and films. And that’s a shame.
All in all, Dont Look Back succeeds in the extent to which, with ‘simple’ cinematic language, offers the viewer what the cinema should be able to create in terms of experience. It hurts to see this film being imitated and corrupted by modern reality TV shows. In any case, great film!
This is Nesha Thompson. I think that don't look back was a good film because the scenes in the film didn't seem to be in chronological order. The different scenes made it look like a journey of Bob Dylon's tour but all of the random scenes pieced together created their own story. The documentary did not have any interviews between the filmmaker and the people in the film, yet we still got a story and a journey. Most of the characters were revealed clearly without narration or words telling us who they were. The documentary overall kept me hooked. It kept me wondering what was going to happen next and it revealed to me the type of person Bob Dylon was and how is music sounded.
ReplyDeleteI felt the cinema verite style worked very well with this film. The audience got a good sense of the "real" Bob Dylan both in his own relationship with the media and he in is leisure time in the hotel. A thought that crossed my mind was what about Pennebaker made him appealing enough for Bob Dylan to allow him to follow and record him on his tour without constant questioning of Pennebaker's motives as he did with other reporters/interviewers? Did Pennebaker have any motives behind making this film? I love GoodRoger's idea of "simplification of cinematic language" and I feel this is what really lead to Pennebaker's success with the film (including capturing the other side of Dylan that isn't berating the media).
ReplyDeleteJust to brainstorm off of what Jennifer was saying, one could wonder exactly how much of Pennebaker is in the film, or if it is possible for there be more of Dylan and the naturalistic representation of his touring experience than the artistic decisions made by the director. Dylan is shown as: the performer and the human being. In the music business specifically, fans tend to keep a long distance between the two characters, however, Dylan shows in the film that the line between the two is very thin. On one side, he could be perceived as merely a performer, being that he is the star of the film and the camera literally follows him from one location to the next. On the other hand, perhaps the side Dylan would rather prefer, he is not a performer, just himself. When he goes up on stage, his persona and attitude is exactly the same as he plays in front of very few in the hotel room. Maybe it’s all a performance since it is a film, or maybe it’s just a pure representation of Dylan.
ReplyDeleteThe film also works on the same level of a musical. The way in which the film is edited, it is Dylan venturing through London juxtaposed with concert footage, backstage practicing, and spontaneous guitar playing and singing while sitting around. Unlike most musicals that contain a narrative structure, Pennebaker does his best to just follow and document Dylan.