User reviews

Perhaps I'm biased -- Bob Dylan is quite possibly my favourite performing artist in the world. This very cinema-verite look at Dylan's 1965 tour of England offers both a serious justification of the man's genius and a very unflattering look at the costs and results of that genius. This was clearly not a happy time for Dylan, who rushes through most of the songs included here like a man who clearly wishes he were somewhere else. Not that the performances are poor (quite the contrary) but the heart and sincerity are quite obviously missing (note how "The Times they are a-Changin'" speeds up gradually but unmistakably throughout the film). The backstage material (the bulk of the film) shows Dylan being generally nasty to everyone around him, including Joan Baez (well, he's not nasty precisely, but he never really even acknowledges her presence), a newspaper reporter (the "science student") and basically anyone he comes in contact with.

In other words, this is not a portrait of the artist that I happen to like, but it is the truth (or at least it was at that time). In addition, Albert Grossman, Dylan's manager, is shown in possibly the least flattering light possible. A bonus is that the film begins with the brilliant 1965 promotional clip for "Subterranean Homesick Blues", and watch for the scene in a hotel room when Dylan and Bob Neuwirth sing "Lost Highway" - it's worth the price of admission.

Do you know that feeling when a song captures you completely? One minute there's all these thoughts running around in your head and the next minute someone switches the radio on and it's kinda like it screams, STOP!

You can feel it. You let your whole being be absorbed by it. You're on a high. Then you catch your breath . . .

Bob Dylan, as depicted in Don't Look Back, is the kind of megastar that can grip you emotionally and intellectually. While their neighbours joined screaming mobs that bayed at the Beatles, Bob Dylan fans listen in rapt silence, taking in every word.

"How many times must the cannon balls fly - Before they're forever banned? The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind, The answer is blowin' in the wind."

He inhabits a hallowed quality. Anti-war protesters, educated and disenchanted youth, all see him as their hero. An emblem of hope. Dylan inspired people. Made them feel they could make a difference. Somehow make it a better world.

It was also the Swinging Sixties. Music videos hadn't been invented. In cinema, TV commercials director Richard Lester had kicked off a style of pop musical with the Beatles in A Hard Day's Night (1964). Andy Warhol projected live footage of a band to heighten a live performance (The Velvet Underground and Nico, 1966). Whereas for the opening scene of D.A. Pennebaker's film, Don't Look Back, a deadpan Dylan simply discards one large white card after another. They contain random words from the overlaid soundtrack song, Subterranean Homesick Blues.

That scene has been copied and parodied. Like the kiss-on-the-beach-at-the-edge-of-the-waves in From Here To Eternity, far more people know of and recognise the scene than have ever seen the film. Words are deliberately misspelt. Alan Ginsberg haunts the background as if he's wandered in from another film lot. The scene became one of the first 'music videos'. And the film became one of the early examples of fly-on-the-wall cinema.

Don't Look Back is one of the important movies of the decade for its development of cinema verité, a documentary style with many offshoots but at that point made possible with the new lightweight cameras and sound recorders. These were less intrusive and meant that events could be recorded in a way less staged, the filmmakers having opportunity to follow subjects down corridors or seemingly eavesdrop on conversations.

Don't Look Back follows Bob Dylan through his most iconic phase, dark glasses and leather jacket, on his 1965 UK tour at the height of his fame. (He is about to dispense with a rustic folksy style and upset fans by embracing rock and roll and electric guitars.) It is the Bob Dylan so cryptically emulated by Cate Blanchett in I'm Not There. This is the legend. And the man who became a legend in his own lifetime, constantly reinventing his poetry. He would one day be awarded a special Pulitzer Prize for his "profound impact on popular music and American culture, marked by lyrical compositions of extraordinary poetic power." Not to mention an honorary degree from the prestigious St Andrews University in Scotland.

The follow-the-tour format is a little like In Bed With Madonna. But the immediacy of the film foreshadow movies like Control. Stark black and white photography and a personality that dominates the screen without even trying. Joan Baez (who was near the end of an affair with Dylan) is singing in a hotel room. Dylan looks up with rapt attention (and obvious admiration) for the shy young folk singer Donovan. And clips from his sell-out Albert Hall concert. Throughout – and in sharp contrast to almost everyone else captured in all their bygone sixties primness – Dylan still looks cool and self-assured in his own skin even by 21st century standards. Somehow his image hasn't aged.

There was something almost mystical about Dylan at the time. Press conferences in the film (that would also be re-staged later in I'm Not There) show journalists nonplussed by the youngsters response. News stories marvel at how thousands of well-behaved youngsters are packing concert halls – in essence to listen to several hours of one man's poetry. His lyrics, ranging from poignant stories to stream-of-consciousness collections, were emotionally resonant with metaphors and phrases that could be appropriated to every person's private suffering, every cry of pain behind anti-establishment (and particularly anti-war) sentiments. Dylan never claimed to be any other than a poet and a guitarist. "I got nothing to say about these things I write – I just write them . . . I don't write them for any reason. There's no message." His almost angry 1960s disclaimer in the film will still be uttered almost 40 years later at great length in his Chronicles biography. No-one wanted to believe he was only interested in writing poetry. But his openness and honesty in facing down critics is disarming.

For non-music fans and people not specifically interested in the period, the film has slightly less to offer. Poor definition on many hand-held shots gives a lack of visual elegance. The lack of any voice-over means the viewer has to work out many details themselves. And, while it is a remarkable and very vibrant portrait of an esteemed artists at one of the most famous and influential periods of his career, there are maybe too few songs for fans.

Dylan would go on to win Grammy, Golden Globe and Academy Awards and receive several Nobel Prize nominations for literature. The film stops long before he had achieved such mainstream critical acclaim. It never features him singing the credits song, Subterranean Homesick Blues, or the song from which the title is taken. Ironically, it looks back to a period he himself had abandoned by the time the film was released.

This is the documentary that gave meaning to the term "cinema-verite";

a term used to describe films that looked as if they were happening in real time. This is one of those films. It is a gritty black and white documentary that follows the legendary Bob Dylan during a tour in England. This is not a conventional rock documentary where we are shown endless concert footage and interviews with musicians talking about their philosophies and the meanings of their songs. Instead, the camera follows Dylan in a frenzy capturing every detail of social interaction with his fans, entourage, and the press. Dylan appears arrogant but it is no surprise when Pennebaker allows us to see the hypocrisy and greed of the outside world. A memorable moment in the film involves a fan whose invited himself backstage to meet Bob Dylan. He asks him absurd questions such as "what is your attitude on life?" Dylan decides to tease him and the conversation gets pretty ugly. Nevertheless, it is an important scene to the film because it shows us how difficult it is for a superstar such a Dylan to keep a smile and act nice to everyone. Do we gain sympathy for Dylan? We do because we see how alienated he feels among even his closest friends. We also feel a sense of envy for his ability to be so unapologetic and rebellious about his attitude. He is honest but he also has to protect himself from the public. After a Time magazine reporter asks him whether or not he cares what he's saying . Dylan attacks him and then tries to give him a straight answer . "Do you think anyone who comes to these concerts is looking for anything other then entertainment?" The next day, Dylan hears a quote from the papers that describes him as an anarchist. The sequence of these events show clearly how Dylan is at a loss with the public's perception of him. He can't just be himself. He wants to come across as a guy like anyone else but his sarcastic and meaningless interaction with the press only makes things worse. The film also includes appearances with Joan Baez, Donovan, Allen Ginsberg, and Dylan's sleazy manager Albert Grossman. I've seen this film dozens of times and I still see something new with every viewing. It is a true masterpiece.

Before it became necessary to narrate documentaries (with rare exceptions, a sign that they truly SUCK) this one was dialogue-free. It was a floating camera that followed Bob going from venue to auditorium, from speaking to reporters to meeting ...Donovan.

Right from the start you can tell Dylan is sick of being on tour, either that ir he's sick of people(note how he rolls his eyes in the very beginning when he explains to a woman why he's carrying a lightbulb) so we become accustomed to the way he answers questions; sometimes rude but always originally, many times hilariously. He was afterall, still a very young guy in a foreign country. It didn't matter how he spoke with people, though, because he communicated enough-as we can see in Don't Look Back through his music.

When you watch him play, it's amazing to see the stillness in the audience, the entranced eyes, fixed in concentration, minds in fear that they may miss a word of one of Dylan's songs. I love how, right at the beginning when he gets asked "When did you know you wanted to become a performer?" and he seems to think for a minute...and it cuts to: Dylan about 6-8 years prior..playing in a field surrounded by a bunch of African Americans...seemingly singing about (an)African-American...and when the camera pans close to his face, you can see tears rolling down his cheeks! It made me cry...........

The good thing about it is you see a little bit of everything...Dylan on stage in his element, Dylan f*ked up;), w/his pals, p***ed off, and Englanders...

We also get to see a very young Joan Baez( whose voice I had never even heard before watching this)- an innocent, beautiful woman who despite this had morals and a voice that would also be heard....like Dylan she was way ahead of her time.

In short, I cannot say enough about this documentary-it gets better everytime I see it, and I don't say that about a lot. I still cannot hear enough of his music or his lyrics...

Long live Dylan and Baez... -Heidi

The documentary starts off well enough, Bob's famous alley video of "Subterranean Homesick Blues" in which beat poet Allen Ginsberg is seen gesticulating in the background. Then we see Bob and company arriving at Heathrow airport in London, prophetically singing "London Bridges falling Down" as they walk in. During this scene we see the first contradiction of the movie's main character. A passer-by who lights one of Bob's smokes asks him about what is different about him this tour, why is he so popular this time around in England. Bob brushes it off by indicating that he has no idea he is so popular and sort of indicating that he does not keep up with those mundane things. He then spends a lot of time in the film doing exactly that, stopping conversation to ask where he is placed in the charts and in reading his press.

It's hard to know how to take Bob Dylan in this documentary. Many of the interviews shown are ones given on the fly just before he goes on stage, and a certain amount of pre-show jitters and nervous reaction is probably to be expected. I would not want to interview a musician just before they are set to perform on strange stages in a foreign country. His interviews come across as a person who has been doing way too much of what we, in fact, see Bob doing all through the film, reading his own press clippings and being very impressed with what he finds. He comes across as a person who thinks he understands all, but is too deep to be understood in turn. So deep, in fact, that mere mortal reporters are not even worth taking the time to explain things to. He wastes the reporter's and the film audience's time playing verbal games, quibbling over choics of words in questions and in general coming across as far more self-important than he really is. This can be seen as anti-establishment, it can also be seen as being a plain old pain in the butt just because you can, to entertain your buddies.

Donovan is there, and is a presence from the start of the film. Bob is very aware of him, has been told that Donovan plays better than he does. Donovan was the British version of Bob and, at times, sold better than Bob did. They finally meet and trade songs, Bob sarcastically choosing to sing "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue" right at Donovan. Joan Baez is there for a portion of the movie, beautiful and ignored by Bob and his entourage. Albert Grossman comes across as a bull in a China shop in England where the genteel older gentlemen who still handled promotion were absolutely no match for Grossman's New York tough guy ways. We see him on the phones, milking every last dollar he can from promoters.

Highly recommended documentary. For what it is worth, besides his music, this is about as close as anyone ever got to Bob Dylan. The film makers were wise in not asking any questions or directing anything, but just in letting Bob talk.

This is a look at one of the greatest minds in modern music during his most prodigious period. It does a great job of capturing the character of Dylan and placing it within the context of the events happening in the film. It's fascinating hearing him ask about electric instruments and talk about folk music when we know, in hindsight, that his shift from folk to rock would be one the most important artistic shifts in music history. The footage gathered and the way it's presented are good for allowing the subject to be seen as it is but I think a little more direction could've been used at times. That being said, I appreciated the honesty that the film treated Dylan with. We don't see him as anything close to perfect. He's not as wordy as you'd think, his logic isn't always sound and he's rude to the point of meanness but the viewer is still witness to his genius. This is a must-watch for any fan of music.

Filmed in 1965, this documentary follows Dylan and his entourage on his British tour. There are some concert scenes that give a feel for his performance persona. There are scenes of his manager and British agents making deals for him to appear at various venues. But most of the film concerns Dylan backstage.

Shot in black and white, the film shows Dylan to be very mercurial. He is at times charming, communicative and seemingly open about his feelings. Other times--in fact most of the time--he is confrontational, condescending and self-contradictory. He is about 24 years old and these scenes remind me of discussions I had when I was that age with other college students. His arguments are circular, as if he enjoys arguing more than he enjoys communicating.

He embraces the poet's privilege of not explaining the meaning of his lyrics (which is fine). One gets the feeling that he is tired of dealing with the media and others who want to pick his brain. Why did he give them audience, then? On the other hand, he is generous with fans who have no questions for him, merely seeking his presence or a glimpse of the man.

While some of his songs do seem somewhat shallow, others are undeniably deep with meaning about issues that are very timely. Regardless, his songs often have a hypnotic effect, with their sing-song cadences. This film might raise more questions than it answers, but it is fun to watch. The presence of Joan Baez is a plus. Her voice was always special. We don't see much of her, but enough to see her react to teasing and to make silly faces in return.

Dylan's songs feel mostly declarative. They are assertions and observations. They usually don't extract the emotional responses of, say, Joni Mitchell, who invites listeners to her inner world. Dylan asks his listeners to regard the outside world with him.

To get this window into Bob Dylan on tour in England in 1965, at that specific time, and with such a high level of access, makes this documentary fascinating. Dylan was the voice of a generation, a true poet, and the film was made after a string of albums changed popular music forever (including Freewheelin', The Times They Are a-Changin', and Bringing It All Back Home) but right before he "went electric" to great controversy at Newport, and released Highway 61. Throughout his career, he defied boundaries and labels others tried to constrain him with, and deliberately tore himself down in one genre in order to explore another as an artist. We see some of his frustration here, with the British press baffled about how to approach or analyze him, and Dylan going from earnestly trying to answer questions early on to getting antagonistic with them. Combined with concert footage, and moments like Joan Baez and Dylan singing in his hotel room, it's a true gem.

Towards the end of Don't Look Back, a reporter asks a babbling, pretentious, possibly stoned Bob Dylan how much of what he says he actually means. While Dylan blows up at the reporter, the question is central to the movie, which portrays a young, arrogant, brilliant folk singer playing music and arguing with people.

At times it all seems like a put on, with Dylan poking and prodding people just to see how they'll react. He let's everyone know that he doesn't really care what anyone thinks, yet at times you can see how concerned he is with his own image.

Dylan is contrary, but he has something to say, both in his songs and in moments like a weird argument with some guy about whether Dylan should take an interest in this guy.

The movie also has his posse, most notably a young Joan Baez who seems like a lot more fun than her woke-Madonna persona lead me to believe.

This is cinema verite, which means it just tosses a bunch of stuff at the viewer and lets them sort it out. Dylan pontificating, Dylan's manager negotiating payment, Dylan on stage, singing almost invariably with less passion than when he's singing offstage.

It's an interesting movie, although I'm not sure how interesting one would find it without a preceding interest in Dylan.

Amidst the morass of irrationality, antinomianism, and sanctimony that is The Sixties (celebrated, for example, in "Hair" and "A Hard Day's Night"), "Don't Look Back" is refreshingly, almost cathartically, lucid and morally serious. There isn't a conversation that isn't intelligent on at least one side. Dylan's discussions with and about musicians and poets sparkle with a thirst for poetic and musical expression. The music is passionate, serious, and enjoyable.

About the competitive and business aspects of music, Dylan is game and reasonable. His manager, without screaming or hostility, tries to hold the BBC to, apparently, previously implied promises they are backing away from on the grounds of a contrary general policy. There are no implausible pretenses to asceticism.

Dylan never attacks anyone weak or who does not deserve it. Members of Dylan's entourage who do things that are dangerous or wantonly destructive, such as throwing a glass out the window, are sought out for reprimand. A hanger-on who tries to coopt Dylan to the idea that the two of them are superior for, well, I'm not sure for what, is well flustered by Dylan's Socratic questioning of that superiority. Young fans are put at ease, treated gently, and, in a way that obviates their awe, probed for reactions to his music.

Two instances reflect badly on Dylan. He is suddenly hostile to a Time magazine reporter, and insists that he should not be called a folk singer. The reporter is taken aback and exasperated (notwithstanding that the claim is accurate for sufficiently narrow definitions of "folk"). He doesn't argue, but behind the eyes you can see a quick mental retrenchment. The reporter gingerly tries a new tack, and salvages interesting and perceptive impressions. Talk about a bravura performance. More troubling is a member of the Animals going uncriticized for opening a bottle with a hotel piano. Does Dylan let pass from a star what he would justly rebuke in an ordinary person? It happened behind Dylan's back. Maybe he was unaware of it.

Too bad this dreadful documentary didn't show a lot more of young Joan Baez and a lot less of Bob Dylan. Baez casually and unselfconsciously sings a couple of songs, relaxed, strumming her own guitar and reminding us of what a miraculous voice she had as a youngster. Bob Dylan, the star of the film, reminds us -- unfortunately -- that while he is a brilliant writer of songs and music, he had a voice like chalk on a black board and a manner that was thoroughly obnoxious. While he may have been joshing several of his interlocutors, the conversations had a distinctly unpleasant and confrontational tone and displayed Dylan at his absolute worst as a human being. One can forgive him his youth but his exaggerated opinion of himself and his hostility toward people just trying to do their jobs are disagreeable in all respects. Since Dylan's manager was involved in producing the film and it clearly had Dylan's blessing, it's evident that they were oblivious to the impression it leaves of Dylan as a callow youth with no interest in anyone other than himself and his crew of friends and supporters.

It is my understanding this is one of the first, and in my opinion easily one of the best rock-umentaries ever made. This film is about, possibly the most brilliant and enigmatic pop icon in the last 100 years, during one of the bravest and most dynamic phases of his career. An absolutely wonderful film. I understand that every frame needed Dylan's approval before being released. I applaud him too, as this is not the most flattering portrayal I've ever seen. Actually at times he comes off as a genuine jerk, and I am a monstrous (bordering on irrational) Dylan fan. This is an honest look at a brilliant man, without descending into simple glorification or spin-doctoring. The film has the same sort of "this is how it is, take it or leave it" sensibility that I find Dylan to exemplify. An unrefined gem about an unrefined gem.

If you're a Bob Dylan fan, do yourself a favor and rent the DVD version of "Don't Look Back." It includes an optional audio track of commentary from director D.A. Pennebaker and Bob Neuwirth, Dylan's pal and "tour manager" who was along for the ride on the '65 tour of England this film documents. Their thoughts are interesting, often insightful, occasionally hilarious and shed some light on the movie's more esoteric moments. For example, I never realized the extended hotel room scene of Dylan playing the piano was Bob actually _writing_ a piece of music. You'll probably learn something even if you've read all the books (Benson, Heylin, etc.). Oh, and it turns out Albert Grossman _loves_ the way he's portrayed in the movie, according to Pennebaker. Plus there's a fun alternate version of the "Subterranean Homesick Blues" video (which, for the kids out there, was copied in the '80s by INXS for their "Mediate" video) that was shot in a park somewhere, in which Dylan has even less control of the cards than he does in the final cut. Ginsberg is in the background of this one, too.

The movie follows Dylan on tour throughout England. The beginning of the movie starts with a Dylan song in the background and a famous cue-card scene depicting the words of the song. Here we get an interesting visual and are drawn into what is going on in the film. We then travel with Dylan on the road and in the studio, meeting with fans and other musicians to make the full spectrum of what he does as an artist. We are able to understand all sides of the music for him and by seeing him interact with his fans and make music we see a side of the artist that most never get to fully understand. The movie is never has a true time line, it is a stream of images from one concert to the next. Because of this, we are able to see Dylan as a person who stays the same no matter where he is and that what he is truly about is the music and performing.

The whole movie focuses on Dylan and has a constant influx of other characters. We see the press, fans, his manager, and other business people. Throughout the movie, we never really know whom those people are, making the movie completely about Bob Dylan and his life. These other people are merely characters in his life, but he is the real important person. D.A. Pennebaker, the documentarian, is never a character either, showing that the movie is all about Dylan and not about the other people around. This allows for a deeper understanding of the singer and lets the audience see who he is for themselves, without riddling their opinion with interviews with other people.

D.A. Pennebaker has an artistic flair for music and introducing people to the deeper meaning in it. He has done other works about John Lennon, Jerry Lewis, and Jimi Hendrix. This shows that he understands the music genre and it is a place that he has delved many times. He is known for having the direct cinema style to his work. He just allows the camera to roll and it is a natural and true look at what is going on with the people he is documenting. The whole movie is an easy flow of life, combining scenes of travel and life on the road with songs of Dylan's to capture to true mood of the tour. The music is key because to truly understand Bob Dylan, you must understand the music. He writes very personal music and by using that in the documentary we are able to gain a better understanding of the man himself. Even those that go to see him understand that his music is important and something that is changing people and the way people think. So to have all the music be Dylan's allows the viewer to understand both Dylan and the impact that he had on the people during his tour. The editing of the film is consistent with the direct cinema style. There are no real cut aways or a narrator; rather there are sequences of people talking all together that then go into Dylan playing. Whenever music is being played, there is no interview or audio being used over it, it is just Dylan playing in concert or with his group of friends. Because it was edited this way we are able to hear the music and realize how important it is to the film and to the life of Bob Dylan. It is edited to seem as one constant period of time; we never see the real change as time goes on. The tour continues but it is never edited to seem as though things change from place to place. The great editing combines with the interesting cinematography that Pennebaker uses in the documentary. The film was done all in black and white and has a mix of shots that were used. The black and white is generally grainy with a balance of black and white. Pennebaker shoots the time backstage, in hotels, and in concert as if we are there. It is as if we are naturally sitting there with Dylan and all of his managers and others that tour with him. There are close up shots that show Dylan playing either on stage or behind the scenes and this gives the viewer the sense of how much he thinks and works on his songs. Most of the camera work is very controlled, though there are times where they are walking backstage, or trying to escape from a concert hall that the camera is very shaky. However, the shaky camera work allows the viewer to feel as if we are part of the tour and that we are there with them. Overall, the film Don't Look Back shows a side of Bob Dylan that most are unable to see. We see the person behind the songs and are able to understand Dylan as a person. We see that he is somewhat cocky about himself and tends to want things done his own way. We see all the chaos that follows touring as a famous star and how someone like Dylan deals with that. He is outspoken and passionate about what he believes. Pennebaker is able to give us this in depth look at Dylan and let the fans become more a part of the artist. It is a great look at Dylan and frames his life and music in a way that makes it more accessible and understandable to the general public. Looking back now, over 40 years later, we can see how Dylan started and translate that into his fame that continues today. We can see why he is one of the best artists of our time.

OMG what can I say about this documentary that hasn't been said already? This is an outstanding film for fans of Bob Dylan, Joan Baez and Donovan. Of course the main focus is Bob Dylan and his 1965 tour of England.

There are quite a few funny moments that had me literally laughing out loud, some moments that are intense, other times it's very peaceful just to kick back an listen to the beautiful songs.

I knew I would enjoy this film - but I can't believe just how much I thoroughly enjoyed it. So much behind the scenes footage that I felt I was right there with them. The concert footage had me feeling like I was sitting in the front row.

This is well worth watching if you like Dylan, Baez and Leitch. Highly recommended.

10/10

History only matters to the living at least, and among them to those who can consume the packages we devise to understand what happened.

Sometimes I really do believe it requires elite skills, a term used by people without the training and discipline. But most of the time, its just about cultural wrappers, and this is such a case. I can imagine a young person, say a 25 year old, watching this and wondering what the big deal was. Why is this pretentious gnome at all interesting?

I think you had to be there, which is another way of saying that you had to be culturally tuned to accept the possibility of major change. For whatever reason, we were, from say 65 to 70, a hundred million in the US and countless others elsewhere. And where we invested our hopes was in these artifacts of the popular culture. In films, yes, but more so in the music. It was religious, with the artists serving more as receptacles for what we sent them than as creative geniuses. Well, yes they were that too, but we have many of those today but miss this huge investment.

When Dylan made records from about this period on, each of them (until, say he was lost to Jesus) — each of them anticipated where the poetry we were imagining was going. It was open, liquid, sexually ideal. Powerful stuff, because we felt power. Collective because we did most things collectively then, not just purchasing as now.

This little film is so imperfect that its embarrassing that it is all we have to cling to. It just happens to be rare.

It has three parts. One is some stage performances. These aren't interesting at all, in large part because he had already changed but hadn't told us. This same period is covered by Martin Scorcese's rather precious "No Direction Home: Bob Dylan," which at least tells a story for those who weren't there.

It also hangs around in hotel rooms, interviews and backstage and hears Dylan rattle on. Its embarrassing this, because we still have this notion that great art comes from great men and women and that they know what they are doing. He's basically a twit that we chose, and we see it here. The only really interesting element of this is a glimpse of Sally Grossman. You'll know her from the cover of "Bringing It All Back Home." She's an important woman in the transformation of our poet. She's perhaps the key, a mystery, a poetical story we still can fill after all these years, because it still carries things we accept. If not power and change and better futures, honest politicians and ideal government, enlightenment, at least love from a wise woman who transforms a willing soul.

A third part of this really is great and is something you really should see. Dylan's first electric song was "Subterranean Homesick Blues," originally inspired by Alice in Wonderland meets a Guthrey "dream" song, but loaded and transformed with the sort of open images that would characterize his best work. He hadn't started performing it in shows yet. Alan Ginsberg decided to make a text — a residue in words — of the song, introducing puns and annotations of the already open lyrics. These were put on large sheets. Then, while the camera and record were rolling, Dylan flipped through them as the lines appeared, Ginsberg in the background.

Its wonderful, a film of a poem of a song of a life of an imagined future revisited from that future.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

Documentary covering Bob Dylan's 1965 tour of England, which includes appearances by Joan Baez and Donovan.

I confess I know very little about Bob Dylan. I know his real name is Robert Zimmerman, and I know some of his bigger hits. But this is the first time I ever really saw him interacting with anyone... and it is a very strange sight.

You might presume that this documentary would be trying to show Dylan in a positive light. And in a way, it does, because we get to see his intelligence and talent. But he also comes off as incredible rude and confrontational, as well as a bit of a braggart, saying he can sing better than Caruso. How much is this an act and how much was the young Dylan sort of a jerk?

Don't Look Back is one film that will go down in the canon of groundbreaking documentaries. But while there are many interpretations of what D.A. Pennebaker attempted to accomplish (besides an experiment in early cinema-verité and initiating the 'rockumentary' genre), it would be a grave mistake to watch this film and come to any conclusions about Dylan without considering his entire musical body of work. Truly this film is less about Dylan the person and more about his art. Don't Look Back demonstrates how all the factors of Dylan's life came together to form his stylistic influences, and specifically to defend his departure from folk music and his sequential embrace of electric rock.

Dylan's artistic motivations were not so much the social issues of his time, as many believe. It is worth noting here that Martin Scorcese's excellent follow-up documentary No Direction Home demonstrates this clearly: in one British press conference, a reporter asks Dylan if he'll be attending some widely publicized protest later in the week. Dylan replies coyly, "I think I'll be busy that day." Rather, his musical influences, his poetic abilities and the nature of folk music were a natural musical direction for Dylan to explore. But Dylan saw himself as more than just a musician – he much preferred to be considered an artist. In Don't Look Back, Dylan even lashes out at one reporter (albeit unfairly) for branding him a folk musician. He also claims not to have the answers to social problems that people desperately wanted him to provide: he repeatedly goes into tirades throughout the film about there being "no truth" and that he is merely "painting portraits" of life.

Dylan's relationship with Joan Baez is another indication of the aforementioned. She's ever disapproving of his disregard for the issues she believes are important. In future interviews, Baez admitted that she couldn't get Dylan to see the value of correcting the social ills which Dylan arguably could have done, considering the almost divine influence he had over the masses, but Dylan merely ignores her. He even allows her to be ridiculed by his band mates without coming to her defense. It might be warranted as cruel on Dylan's part, but the truth was that he cared about other things more: his art.

These clips help Pennebaker demonstrate why Dylan abandoned folk music. He became weary of the negative press during his British tour and is impressed with alternate forms of music he hears along the way. His band mates Michael Bloomfield and Al Kooper opened Dylan's eyes and ears to the beauty and intricateness of electric rock. Many other clips demonstrate this throughout the film: Dylan's complete awe with the electric guitars in the window of an instrument shop; the piano improv from Alan Price (a former member of The Animals), etc. One telling scene is the final clip of Dylan leaving the tour in a limo while Albert Grossman reads aloud a recent article accusing Dylan of being an anarchist for presenting problems in society but not providing solutions. Dylan's parting words trail into the credits as he stares out the window: "It can't be good to be an anarchist…" If there was ever one defining moment when Dylan made the decision to allow his art to evolve, this may be it.

One might also argue that Dylan's obvious apprehension to Donovan was due to a mix of jealousy and disgust, ultimately because Donovan was really just another Dylan. Had Dylan truly cared about the message rather than the medium, he'd be content with Donovan's solidarity to help get that message to the people. Instead, Dylan saw Donovan as an artistic competitor and hated that many compared the two. Many Brits at the time even gave Donovan more credit as a guitarist, a title that was destroyed after Dylan turned to electric rock and developed his style as an improv guitarist. He even takes a shot at Donovan on stage during a song ("I looked in the closet/there was Donovan"). It was likely a reference to Donovan's attempt to emulate Dylan's musical style, though it may even be a jab at Donovan's masculinity – or lack thereof.

One final note: Dylan may claim in the film that he doesn't care about what the media thinks of his work, but like most historical artists, he undeniably did. He ribs into reporters (both justly and otherwise) and tries to laugh off his rudeness to others in an attempt to make up for it. Had he been passionate about fixing the world, it should not have mattered to him what others thought. In the end Dylan never cared much for the issues, but about the music.

And as with any artist, his work would evolve – for the better or for the worse. Watch No Direction Home to see a wonderful clip of Dylan and his band showing up at the Annual Folk Festival and shocking the crowd with a frenzied version of "I Ain't Gonna Work on Maggie's Farm No More." There's no better display of Dylan's total disregard to folk music, insulting the entire genre and its fans by declaring his estrangement to the 'music of the people.'

When the entire tour experience was over, Dylan left Britain with a new perspective on his style – and much to the chagrin of his early fans, he didn't look back.

I just FINALLY watched "Don't' Look Back", and although I'm glad I finally plowed through it, I can't really recommend it UNLESS YOU'RE A BIG BOB FAN. The songs (all just snippets) were great as expected, but would it have hurt Pennebaker to let a few play all the way through? Granted, the idea of a rock documentary 51 years ago was pretty much unprecedented, and the fact that he had unlimited access led to some interesting scenes. But maybe I'm just numb to the constant onslaught of reality TV in 2016, so even seeing some from over 50 years ago (which wasn't really "staged" like so much of it is today) just doesn't hold my total interest for 90 + minutes.

Best clip: Dylan singing "Only a Pawn in Their Game" on July 6, 1963, at a Voters' Registration Rally in Greenwood, Mississippi (shot by artist and experimental filmmaker Ed Emshwiller). NOW THIS WAS SOMETHING I HADN'T SEEN BEFORE , nor did I know it even existed.

2nd best clip: the groundbreaking "Subterranean Homesick Blues" video. Often imitated, and never quite duplicated, this is still AWESOME a half-century later!

Although Dylan, on the whole, still scares me somewhat, and I can't still quite get into his music, I do like D.A. Pennebaker quite a lot, and decided to finally see this. Much like my favorite "concert" film of all time, Depeche Mode 101, Pennebaker doesn't really focus on the music (in this case, Dylan was on tour of England at the time), but focuses on the inner-workings of the tour, and most importantly, on the man himself. Dylan doesn't hold back, and seems comfortable with the camera in front of him as he goes with the day to day operations of being Bob Dylan. There are some nuggets here, Dylan's feelings about Donovan, Dylan gets into a loud argument with an unidentified person about throwing a glass off the hotel balcony. And you also get to see a lot of Joan Baez. Ack. lol. What I dug about this is the whole 60'sness of it all, look at the kids arriving to the concert in their shirts and ties! Such well mannered blokes! Fun film that I wouldn't mind seeing again,

Raise your hand if, like me, you think Bob Dylan is a great songwriter but you'd rather hear Pete Seeger sing his songs? All right, put down your hand. What makes you think I can see you? I'm not sure how cinema verite this documentary actually is. But it is a frequently entertaining, almost invariably watchable record of.... aspects of Dylan's 1965 tour of Britain. You can't convince me that Dylan is never, ever, not aware that he is being being observed.