American Masters No Direction Home: Bob Dylan (1985– ) Online

Well, it took a director as great as Martin Scorsese and 45 years of recording, travelling, ramblin' and bein' busy bein' born instead of dyin', but at long last Dylan fans from Dharma to Duluth have a glimpse behind the genius in the dark sunglasses. A remarkable film--for so many reasons that it would take at least 3 1/2 hours (the length of the movie) to list them--but the main reasons anyone with an interest in His Bobness needs to view this film are as follows: 1) Scorsese's direction: Almost 30 years after he chronicled the passing of a musical era with his magnificent film The Last Waltz, Scorsese once again captures musical brilliance and history on film as only someone who truly appreciates Dylan's historical as well as cultural influence could. A Master Director chronicles a Master Musician. 2) Archival footage of everyone you never saw before on film, including Gene Vincent, Hank Williams, and early 60's Greenwich Village pioneers aplenty and of course.. 3) Bob. For reasons known only to himself, Dylan actually speaks on record about his least favorite topic, himself. Along with last year's autobiography, this film reveals far more of the portrait of the artist as a young man than could ever have been anticipated given Bob's notorious closed-mouthed history on his own history.

With Elvis, Ray Charles and John Lennon gone, there are few--if ANY--artists whose historical and musical importance even come near that of Bob Dylan. In No Direction Home, we see as much, if not more, than we are entitled to see about how and why young Robert Zimmerman from Hibbing, MN became the most important songwriter of the 20th century.

He's got everything he needs--he's an artist--but just this once, he DOES look back.

In our age of universal celebrity, where we know everything that everyone famous thinks (or, more usually, does not think), it's refreshing to rediscover how interesting it can be to hear from someone whose achievements are great but who rarely speaks about them. Bob Dylan has given an extensive interview to Martin Scorcese for Scorcese's film about his emergence from the folk scene and his subsequent "betrayal" of that scene when he went electric: it's absorbing to watch, although, in the end, Bob doesn't actually say that much specific. However, the interview is complemented by a selection of other distinguished talking heads and most crucially, a rich selection of archive footage, going back to Dylan's very first days as a performer. What one notices is just how young he was: the depth and sophistication of even his earliest music can blind one, listening on record, to the age of the performer producing it. He also comes across as playful, self-confident and quite naturally baffled by some of idiocy going on around him: far from seeming incomprehensibly moody, Dylan actually appears as sane as anyone could be at the centre of such attention. It's the music, though, that is really the key to this film, with a rawness and edge, as well as a cleverness, that is still unsurpassed today (and this comment applies equally to the acoustic and the electric material). Since 1966 when the film ends, Dylan has continued to tour and write occasionally great songs; but the body of work that he produced in the early to mid 1960s stands clear for its amazing quantity and quality. If nothing else, 'No Direction Home' stands as clear testament to that achievement.

I've just watched the first part of 'No Direction Home". All I can say is thank you Mr Scorsese for bringing us such a wonderful document. I suppose the movie has most resonance for people who were there and buying the records and listening to the performances, but I would have thought even a fifteen year-old looking at the footage of Dylan singing "Pawn in The Game" would feel a shiver of wonderment.

I did not actually go to any of the '65 and '66 concerts (something I always regret) but I know many people who did, and many have told me that the cheering was usually as loud as the booing, and I don't know if that will fully come across; but a wonderful document, nevertheless.

And that is why Scorsese must be applauded; the editing was superb, the interviews were well chosen, the music clips were generous and Dylan is wonderfully articulate and revealing.

Yes boys and girls I enjoyed it; and Highway 61 in all its vinyl glory is going on the turntable right now!

I really don't know what to say after viewing Martin Scorsese's mesmerizing three-hour+ made for PBS film except that I am truly impressed. And although it is more of a chronicle of an era (the early 1960's and what lead to Dylan's fame) then a biography of Bob Dylan I was surprised that I enjoyed it as much as I did. At first I was skeptical, I thought it had pretensions of grandeur: Dylan/and Scorsese? I mean come on guys!? But the piece delivered. It was cut in such a way that seemed to create drama out of raw material. Although ponderous at times the film not only held my interest but made me want to find out more about Bob Dylan, the NYC folk scene, Pete, Seger, Woody Guthrie, Allen Ginsberg, Liam Clancy, Joan Baez and many others. The interviews were fascinating, humorous and sometimes truly educational. There is a purpose and a true sense of that time to the film that is unlike most other "rock" documentaries. In one of my favorite interviews in the film Bob Neuwirth explains how in the early 60's money (financial success) was not an issue when it came to the arts. Back then it was about if an artist had something to say. Weather it was Bob Dylan or Ornette Coleman what people would ask was "does he (the artist) have something to say." Money and the "bottom line" didn't enter into the equation. It was a whole different world back then. Neuwirth states this so glibly that you'll wish you had a time-machine to go back and check it out for yourself. I have at least one friend who was disappointed in the film. He felt that it didn't illuminate the life of Dylan enough in that it ends in 1966 with him being "booed" offstage for "going electric." But apparently this is all Dylan wanted to reveal for this film. He (and his people) gave Martin Scorsese specific instructions to only chronicle this period. Scorsese was asked to sort through hours of material (including 10-hours of recent Dylan interviews). The result is amazing considering these limitations. Instead of illuminating the Dylan myth the film uses "myth" to stir a powerful narrative, one that rivals many of Scosese's latest cinematic endeavors. Perhaps another director would have tried to create something more definitive regarding the details of Dylans life and songwriting process but Scorsese has always favored myth over reality in him films. And in the case of No Direction Home I believe he mixes together the perfect combination of myth, mystery and reality. Sure there are great Dylan performances throughout the feature but they are tied together by a larger narrative which is the journey of an artist (at a particular stage in his life). Some of the highlights for me musically and otherwise were Dylan at the Newport Folk Festival where he has trouble tuning his guitar but still comes off as some sort of "folk messiah" to the folkies present ( was that scene even real?! ), Al Kooper talking about how he came up for the organ part for Like a Rolling Stone (hilarious). Dylan performing (if only snippets of, sigh…) "Masters of War," and his "Hard Rain" and the final performance of the film (Like a Rolling Stone) when Dylan summons his band (the Band) to "play it f*ck#ng loud!" in order offset the hecklers booing his electric set in England in 1966. Ironically I recently read a quote from Jim Jarmusch talking about NYC in the late 1970's, he said, "I feel so lucky. During the late 70's in New York, anything seemed possible. You could make a movie or a record and work part time, and you could find an apartment for 160 bucks a month. And the conversations were about ideas. No one was talking about money. It was pretty amazing. But looking back is dangerous. I don't like nostalgia. But, still, damn, it was fun. I'm glad I was there." Be it the early 1960's or the late 1970's perhaps the charm and "myth" of such an era inspired Dylan and company to chronicle only his "golden era" as opposed to trying to trace his entire career ( which could have proved to be less then fruitful ). Instead we get a wonderful slice of life about a great time in American History, about a great artist and put together on film by a great filmmaker. I'm not going to complain.

Beautiful, beautiful, beautiful. Martin Scorcese makes another visually stunning film, and paints Dylan in a way nobody else could have. Instead of being asked stupid questions by stupid journalists, Dylan has a camera put in front of him and he just speaks. He's got a bit of a schedule, but he does what he wants with it. I really don't have words for how this movie made me feel. The sheer passion behind it just fueled my fierce love for Dylan even more.

The live bootlegs and behind-stage clips give a wonderful insight into Dylan's world. He is a man who just emanates coolness like it was the way he was born. It seems like nobody can ever have the upper hand on this man, and it's truly a delight to watch.

Beautiful.

........ ........... ....................................from Pasto,Colombia...Via: L.A. CA., CALI, COLOMBIA and ORLANDO, FL

No Direction Home is, without a doubt, the very best music-themed Documentary I have ever seen in my life! For anyone who considers themselves someone with a special interest in pop culture, music, sociology or even contemporary history, this mesmerizing Martin Scorsese documentary not only is a "Must see", but I would say a "Must have"! (As in "your collection"!)

Here we gain the most fascinating insight into many aspects of Dylan's early career, his creative process, his relationships with other artists and music industry insiders, (particularly with one time love interest, Joan Baez) and the general interaction of Bob Dylan, his music, his growing popularity and the overall effect of these on our culture in the 1960's!

Some of what is covered I think I was previously aware of, some of it, I wasn't, and quite a bit of it had simply been forgotten, owing to the half a century that has passed! What surprised me most in DIRECTION HOME? Well, Joan Baez is interviewed extensively and has perhaps the most on-screen time other than Bob Dylan himself. In the 60's and 70's, I always admired Baez as a very talented, outspoken and highly principled young woman …But, quite honestly, never considered her as being very attractive. She has to be, what?...Like mid-to late 50's when she was interviewed for this documentary.

To see her now, so mature, articulate, radiant, overflowing with self- confidence…Well, let's just say that all of this made it EXTREMELY HARD for me to overlook her on screen appearance! Well, I certainly hope this review did not contain too much information!

9*....................................ENJOY!/DISFRUTELA!

Any comments, questions or observations, in English o en Español, are most [email protected]

In this 3.5 hour documentary I learned more about Bob Dylan and the atmosphere around his music than I ever thought I would. The setting starts in his home town, moves to the Village in New York and then into history around the world. Bob Dylan's comments are interspersed throughout as he remembers and describes all the influences in his music and life. All my assumptions about Mr. Dylan were wrong and now I have renewed respect for him. I always liked his music but now I am seeing it in a new light. Throughout the movie Mr. Dylan just wanted to make music. Yet, the musical press kept categorizing and labeling him. The most humorous part was during the press conferences when Bob Dylan kept being peppered with questions about interpretations of his music that even surprised him. The movie ends right where it begins, with the music. Thanks to Mr. Scorsese and his associates for the great job they did.

I felt thoroughly happy while watching No Direction Home on BBC 2 over the past two evenings - lots of video and audio footing I had never heard or seen before and precious insights into the workings of Dylan's poetic mind.

I have been following Dylan for over 40 years now and have always been a fan, except during his Christian period. I found it illuminating to learn that, when Joan Baez had just delivered to him a deep-going analysis of one of his songs, Dylan said he was curious to see what other reviewers would make of it. Himself he didn't know what the hell it all meant. He just wrote beautiful texts without worrying too much if all the combined lines would make coherent sense.

Dylan uses words like an impressionist painter uses paint. Those paintings can confer a sense of beauty without necessarily offering a clear idea of what is actually presented. Dylan's songs are collections of beautiful phrases and words. Don't ask him to explain the meaning of existence to us. Just enjoy his unique songs and magical voice. In his own words, he is "just a song and dance man". And a sublime one at that!

Profound thanks to Scorsese for making this picture. A 10 out of 10. (And thanks to Philconcannon for his excellent review.)

There's good about this. It is extremely well done. It is endowed with a breath as film, and I suppose we can credit Steve Jobs with assuring that only first class talent was used. Among that talent was Scorsese, a master, certainly in the act of shaping something with a natural rhythm.

That competence makes this absolutely essential viewing. I am not putting it on my essential films list because as a film it doesn't merit it. But if you, dear reader, were not there, actually there as part of the events depicted, you need to see this as a social document. The world then was as different to now in the flows of energy than any other time in the past 500 years is from now,

And this man was every bit as powerful as this hints. More, and that's part of the problem.

The problem is that Scorsese decided to make an understandable story. So he pruned and pruned and pruned until what was left depicts a recognizable arc with extreme clarity, so clear it appears as if the life were invented for this telling.

And sure enough, we get a crisp story about a man who insinuated himself into a Greenwich Village crowd, and absorbed the poetic beat flavor of the time but not the fecklessness. He adopted the guise of a protest singer to get his foot in the door, then assumed the role for many years as our premier poet.

Martin brings us three acts: boy to New York and maturity, Bobby to eminence as a folksinger, Dylan's adventures in rock in spite of adversity. Perhaps the first act isn't as clean because the footage feels more like real history instead of a scripted life.

No mention is made of drugs, or his family (though "Visions of Johanna" is featured). Nothing of his well known exploits with multiple mystical cosmologies. No sex at all. No Beatles or Brian Wilson. All elided in the name of clarity. Well, fine.

And the thing only addresses the first couple really interesting years and avoids the next six or seven where he pounded us with changes and challenges far exceeding those depicted here.

I am reviewing everything there is of Dylan for the upcoming "I'm Not There: Suppositions on a Film Concerning Dylan" which will feature both Cate and Julianne. It should be something special, something challenging and not artificially straightened like this is.

Until then, view this not as Scorsese intended, or as the confused audiences he goes to extremes to depict. Try to view this as someone who was engaged at the time, someone who knew that stronger constructions than "we shall overcome" would be needed to negotiate a way through the world of human brambles and flowers. Try to actually submerse yourself in the art and forget the story of the artist as he would have had it at the time.

It could still save you.

Or if not, look at this as a film which presented Scorsese with a huge problem. Here we have a brilliant young man of whose singular brilliance all the interviewees attest. And then we have recent interviews with the man himself, dull, inarticulate, even stupid. The conventional shaping of the thing would explain by saying he destroyed his gift through drugs and related excesses like fundamentalist religion.

That would be the obvious route, but it complicates the story Scorsese wants to tell. It complicates it simply, because Marty has another image in mind. And it would complicate it indirectly because then you'd have a simple success, drugs, redemption storyspine that you'd have to escape.

So what to do? The solution is to build in a long, otherwise irrelevant stream of press interviews where stupid questions are asked over and over. Stupid, always stupid ones and when faces are shown, it is clear they are those of dolts. Then the recent interview footage of Dylan is tied to that. Surely we don't expect answers to similar questions. It is the choice of a master storyteller to channel our curiosity so. It makes for a clean, Scorsese-type character map.

But if you weren't there, it will cheat you out of the ambiguities and complexities of the real story and that you can find in any Dylan song from "Tambourine Man" to "Lily and the Jack of Hearts."

Still, watch it. But do so lucidly. We can only hope that Jobs wants to tell the rest of the story.

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

Having been a casual listener of Bob Dylan, I found this documentary rather insightful and well-made. Narrated by Dylan, director Martin Scorsese basically interviews friends, colleagues and family of Dylan (as well as Dylan himself) and gets to the roots of his inspiration and upbringing.

As I said above, I'm not a huge fan of Dylan insofar that I'd be able to tell you all of his songs, albums, etc. Some of my personal favorites are "Like a Rolling Stone," "The Man in Me" and of course "Knockin' On Heaven's Door." The film's soundtrack uses Dylan songs which is a nice addition as well. It's four hours long and when screened on TV comes in two parts, so you may have to see it in two viewings. But I found out a lot about Dylan that I didn't know before and I think that's the point.

Well-made, well-documented.

First, the obvious: Dylan and all his non-relationships. He is and always was an artist who couldn't relate to the forces swirling around him. His "fans," critics, management, the media. The music industry altogether. This is well-illustrated by the archival footage of Dylan challenging his interviewers, even to the point of hostility. It's more subtly instantiated by his apathetic attitude towards honoring the wishes of his fan base. Dylan's musical impetus is so detached from the music industry it jars. There are no ulterior motives to his art, he is one with his music.

Scorsese ostensibly believes that he understands this art-vs.-commerce struggle enough to tackle the subject head on here. He is considered, after all, the most notable of all living Oscar snubs. That is the tale he has chosen to tell here. That a true artist must engage in a clash of sorts to repel the influences of the very machine which sustains him. (This oblivious disposition is punctuated by the airing of this film on PBS even before its DVD release, free for any to view.) Given that task, it makes sense that Scorsese's story culminates with Dylan on stage in re-invented form, being verbally assaulted by fans who paid the price of admission just to do so.

Scorsese's comprehension of these matters was surely key in convincing Dylan to involve himself in this project. Bob has always avoided the topic of Bob. A viewer can sense the discomfort inherent in turning attention towards himself to this day.

Other reviewers commonly think there is some message in there somewhere about Dylan's overarching influence on world culture. In fact, the only influence documented here is the reverse. It's not about what Dylan meant to the world, but what the world meant to Dylan, a truer measure of an artist. Every last clip included is there to detail how Dylan came about. What inspired him. The origin of a single artist.

After the concert depicted at the end of this film Dylan went on to reinvent himself multiple times, a fact that would have hammered Scorsese's point home, but he is married to conventional narrative too much to resist the temptation of using that dramatic concert as his climax.

This film should be viewed in conjunction with 'Don't Look Back (1967),' which discloses Dylan's aloofness to an even greater extent and in a verite' manner to boot.

The majority of people who watch a 200 minute documentary on Bob Dylan are more than likely going to be Dylan fans so I thought I would give it a try despite being rather on the fence in regards him. Some of his music lives up to his reputation whereas some other songs find me leaning towards those who (unfairly) just dismiss him as a nasal singer without any real talent or coherence. The film does little to change your mind because it pretty much tracks his career up till 1966 without providing a lot of insight or debate about his talent. Of course this is not a surprise and it is only right that the film charts more than debates, because this is not the place for the latter.

However for the casual viewer what is there to justify 200 minutes? Well, first of all I must admit that it is a bit of a job to get through some parts of it but generally what the film does is set Dylan in context. Those not raised during the period will usually struggle to understand the fuss about Bob Dylan because they (I) can't see him in the context of his surroundings and it is this that the film does well. By using lots of archive footage and memories from talking heads, the film presents the history well even if it could have done a better job of really explaining how important he was in the period, rather than just telling me that he was there.

In fact this lack of insight was a bit of a problem for me because, although there is much of interest, it is more of a record than a documentary. The footage will please fans and it is interesting but I must admit that I had hoped for me. Certainly the presence of Scorsese only comes through in the use of his voice once – with so much stock footage I could not understand what the role of the "director" was in this case. I don't wish to completely dismiss the film but just to highlight that fans will certainly take more from this than those with a casual interest. However even fans might struggle with the lack of substance here because, with so much footage to cram in, there is little time for investigation. One very good example of this is the famous cry of "Judas" – it was once the subject of a 60-minute radio documentary but here it is only played; understandable perhaps but it is unfortunately typical of the film. Dylan himself doesn't seem too bothered by the whole thing and his modern interviews at times resemble the footage of the interviews in the sixties where he looks bored and bemused by the inane questions.

Overall this is an interesting film but it is less a documentary and more a record of Dylan in his period. To this end it will please his fans but will probably provide little enlightenment for the casual viewer. Given that the film runs to 200 minutes, it should have done better to deliver plenty of archive footage but yet still have insight and real interest. It is a shame that, although it is very strong in the former, it is rather lacking in the latter.

I was really disappointed in this most promising movie for a number of reasons.

First, I found the entire production nothing more than antecdotal information shared without a true perspective on what Dylan meant to the music scene of the 60's. We jump from one scene to another of people reminiscing about Dylan, followed by what felt like rebuttals from Dylan himself. "Dylan did this, and then he did this, and then we laughed." For example, Baez moans about how she didn't feel like she should have gone along to England with Bob, and really thought he'd put her on stage, because she did that for him -- followed by Dylan saying he would hope she'd understand why that happened and how he hoped she'd be over it by now.

Second, there was no context to draw from, and no structure to instruct viewers on what they were seeing. I didn't know who half the people in the movie were until I looked it up later, and so I didn't understand the importance or relevance of their comments. Further, they didn't describe enough about the context of the culture of the sixties to help us understand how revolutionary Dylan was. Looking back from today's music scene it doesn't seem that amazing. It was very frustrating to have to research this movie, simply so I could get some value out of having spent four hours waiting for some kind of understanding or insight.

Third, the movie ends at 1966 as if that was the end of his most important years, yet its really the rest of his life that is a testament to what he believes...that he just keep doing what he's doing, because that's what people do.

Finally, In the interview between Charlie Rose and Martin Scorsese I got the sense that Martin completed this project off the corner of his desk, in the midst of other huge projects, and that Dylan was a complete stranger to him. I felt like he was taking credit for throwing some film footage together that he hadn't even looked at. I wasn't impressed. I don't know any more about Dylan now than I did before, and I think this film does him a real disservice.

Fascinating, but when the film was over I didn't really understand Dylan's genius to any greater degree than I had before. How did he go from being just another musician on the folk revival scene (as Paul Wilson observes, "(Dylan) wasn't the best, he wasn't the worst", and he had the same basic repertoire as his contemporaries) to writing songs like 'Masters of War', 'Mr. Tambourine Man', and 'Like a Rolling Stone'? And how did it happen so quickly? Probably this is as much of a mystery to Bob Dylan as it is to everyone else. Documenting honest-to-God inspiration of the type that Dylan received in those years--and understanding why he, rather than Joan Baez or Phil Ochs or Tom Paxton, received it--might well be impossible. But "No Direction Home" is utterly engrossing anyhow. Martin Scorsese does a fantastic job of documenting Dylan's emergence from the cold, dreary Midwest, the time he spent honing his craft in the folk clubs of Greenwich Village, and his rise to superstardom. (Yes, the audience at the Newport Folk Festival really *did* boo Dylan when he played a brief electric set there in 1965!) Of particular interest are the interviews with Allen Ginsberg and Dave Van Ronk, both of whom departed this life well before the completion of Scorsese's film. Obviously this is a must-see if you're a Dylan fan, but "No Direction Home" should--despite its length--hold the interest of more casual viewers, too.

The definitive film on Dylan is still D.A. Pennebaker's 1967 documentary "Dont Look Back," parts of which are integrated into this Martin Scorsese look at the ambiguous musical genius. But this documentary is on target also, looking at Dylan from his beginnings till the time he became a pop music icon and a darling of the anti-establishment pseudo-intellectuals. To Dylan's credit he was able to stay clear of ideological labeling and crass commercialization. His mock interviews were quite the opposite of Elvis' choir boy type imaging, although in truth Elvis was as much a rebel as Dylan and the two obviously admired each other. How far the press would go is well illustrated in "No Direction Home" when a shallow media mind virtually orders Dylan to suck his sunglasses while he shoots the pose. Not to be nonplussed, Dylan pokes the sunglasses in the news hound's face indicating he could suck them himself.

PBS divided Scorsese's film into two parts on separate weeks. The first part is strong on the roots of the folk revival movement in the United States, a climate that made Dylan possible. Archival footage of these early folk singers show much talent and much amateurism. One of the best clips highlights the Clancy Brothers and Tommy Macon at the height of their popularity in their turtle-neck sweaters with Tommy warbling the mournful "Butcher Boy, aka Railroad Boy," one of their best selections. Dylan at The Newport Folk Festival is emphasized, especially the time he shocked his fans by going electric.

Part 2 of the documentary then focuses on Dylan when he reached the height of popularity with "Like a Rolling Stone," from which the title "No Direction Home" is derived. In an interview on PBS following the showing of Part 2, Scorsese explains that he knew nothing of Dylan personally until "Like a Rolling Stone" began to dominate the airways. So much of what is shown in the documentary is new for Scorsese as well as for many of the viewers: New discoveries of one of the seminal musical figures of the 20th century. Basically, the time-frame of "No Direction Home" ends with Dylan's legendary motorcycle wreck which led many a fan to believe their idol was dead.

There is much raw concert footage of Dylan in London and elsewhere that alone is worth the viewing. This is an especially entertaining look at Dylan for his fans who liked his music from the start. For others, it shows what they missed but can now enjoy vicariously.

On a personal note: I was in college when Dylan began to ooze out of the vinyl. I remember strolling through one of the dorms at Arkansas State and hearing "Talking World War III Blues" meandering from one of the rooms. The first song I ever heard Dylan sing was "Blowin' in the Wind" on a compilation album released by Columbia that contained only one Dylan song plus his harmonica accompaniment on Carolyn Hester's "Swing and Turn Jubilee." There were plenty of liner notes to help introduce me to folk music. From hearing Dylan, I thought he was an old man. His voice seemed shaky and unsure of itself. I reasoned maybe he had been re-discovered from the 20's or 30's like Mississippi John Hurt. Once becoming a Dylan junkie, I stayed with him and still like his music.

The thrill of seeing him in person in Memphis around 1979 is hard to explain. He did a full show with his band. The part I loved best was when he came on stage with just his acoustic guitar and harmonica and did some of his early sounds. I also remember someone in the audience who was stoned throwing a bag of reefer onto the stage. Dylan sashayed over in a nonchalant way, still singing and playing, and kicked the bag off. When I went to the privy, several Dylan fans were ODed on the floor. The pot smoke encircled the crowd but I don't recall any incidents with the police or otherwise. Dylan put on a great show.

First of all I adore Bob Dylan and think he is the greatest songwriter of all time! Bob Dylan's simplicity is sheer perfection, nothing fake at all! Amazing his consistency to write great songs thru every decade. As well as I equally love his voice, his voice and music are the perfect marriage...all with no ego or a front as a star!

However I did not like this film, it was boring as I was only interested in Bob Dylan and not the others sorry..I'm a focus person, so my focus is Bob Dylan and that's all I wanted to see. Yes I understand it's important to show one's influences but Scorsese failed to present it properly. Scorsese is a talented technical film maker but he lacks in the air and magic why he has been overlooked many times: ( However a couple of his films were perfect. He is so grand that the smallest imperfection shadows his grand talent...

A bit of personal disappointment is that nearly every film maker and writer does not mention how Bob Dylan influenced Jimi Hendrix. This film mentions other's that covered his songs but no mention of Jimi Hendrix

Like the singer's own movie,"Renaldo and Clara" ,"no direction home " is a very looong movie (210 min);there the comparison ends : you do not need the fast forward button here ;every minute of Scorcese 's movie is absorbing ;it might be the best movie dealing with rock ever made.Although it only covers Dylan's first years (it stops in 1966 with the motorcycle accident),it is so dense, so well-documented that it seems to depict an entire life;everyone says ,anyway,that those years were the best in Dylan' s career:there were great things afterwards ("blood on the tracks" ) but who could claim that his music was more ground-breaking than in the 1963-66 era?

"North country blues" ,for instance ,is not heard ,but when Dylan talks about the miners in his hometown ,and he tells us about their plight and the fact that they did not think of rebellion ,it's impossible not to think of the heroine who "married John Thomas a miner".

Although it's linear ,the movie includes scenes of the " rock" period even when Dylan is still a folk singer and has not yet made an album.this may puzzle people not familiar with Dylan's biography but are there any in the people who watch the film?

Scorcese displays a sense of humor which Dylan possessed in those years :for instance "when the ship comes in" (Joan Baez had already told the anecdote in her "and a voice to sing with" autobiography ) was written because Dylan was denied a room in a hotel;it became an anthem in Washington with MLK!

When we see Dylan playing in public (and there are plenty of live songs) we say to ourselves that all these versions are much superior to the studio recordings which sound often like demos :this is confirmed by the singer in the movie.

When asked if he prefers to be acclaimed or booed (he is booed several times in the movie),Dylan hints at Billie Holiday's impressive "strange fruit" after which the audience was silent .

A lot of people ,from Dylan's legend (with the exception of Maria Muldaur)play a big part in the movie:the women, Echo,Suze Rotolo and Joan Baez of course:I'm sure that many people will think that too much is given over to Baez but I personally think that her contribution is vital to the story.Early in the movie,Dylan said that she opened a world for him.Her new cover of "love is just a four-letter world' is moving.Also of great interest are Pete Seeger's ,Dave Van Ronk's ,Allen Ginsberg's and Mike Bloomfield's contributions.Much to my surprise ,an important musician such as Robbie Robertson is not interviewed whereas he's often on the screen.

Minor quibble: the interaction between Dylan and the Beatles (and to a lesser degree with the other groups of the British invasions ) is almost passed over in silence .

Dylan made history: the events depicted in parallel to his-story (Kennedy,MLK or the cold war when he was a teenager) are reflected in his works ,not only the protest song (the prophetic " a hard rain's gonna fall" and the universal "only a pawn in her game" ) but also in the "surrealist" ones ("desolation row")

Bob Dylan was the greatest American songwriter of the twentieth century: he's got the movie he deserved.

Like this ... try these .... None of these movies come close to " No direction come" though....

"Renaldo and Clara" (1978) for fans only;the others should try the DVD which includes all the live performances ONLY.

"Hard Rain" (MTV 1976) unfairly overlooked ,this concert includes fine Dylan/Baez duets as well as a heavy metal "shelter from the storm" version.

"The concert for Bangla Desh" (Saul Swimmer 1972) 5 songs with Harrison,Starr and Leon Russel;youtube offers an outtake ,a Harrison /Dylan duet , "if not for you" .

"Don't look back" (Pennbaker,1967;Scorcese 's movie includes many extracts of this excellent documentary)

"The last waltz" (Scorcese 1978) made when the Band split;Dylan's songs include an exciting version of "baby let me follow you down" .

"Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid " (Peckinpah 1973) Alias who? Best avoid.

People ask, but why did they boo when Bob Dylan started playing electric guitar? Surely it wasn't THAT big a deal??

I was alive then. Believe me, it was. People got VERY upset about it. I think it was something to do with investing so heavily, in an emotional way, with his folk persona. He symbolised every teenager's dream of righteous rebellion. Audiences were far less fragmented in those days. People staked a lot on believing in him (or rather, believing what they wanted his lyrics to mean). You could cut the air with a knife when you asked someone, "if they liked his electric stuff".

Bob Dylan reached the height of his fame after three or four albums of (largely) protest songs. He accompanied himself on nothing more than an acoustic guitar and harmonica. Some were simple stories. Some were deep reflections on man's inhumanity to man. He's had no singing training and his voice was rough. But his lyrics captured the imagination of a generation. It was the time of mass protests against the Vietnam war. The Beatles. The Rolling Stones. Boys wearing their hair long was an act of defiance. Revulsion against the values of their fathers, against a world 'gone wrong'. When I took a Bob Dylan record home, my father told me, "Get that music out of this house!"

The only problem from Dylan's point of view was, he wasn't into being a figurehead for the antiwar movement or anything else. He just wanted to write his poetry. And sing. It's all he did. Many organisations were already on knife-edge over his refusal to 'lead the parade'. Dylan just kept on writing. Albums went platinum. And Dylan kept on writing.

One day he put some of the new poems to music with electric guitars and a backing band. In retrospect, they are easily seen as the same kinda stuff. More sophisticated maybe, but still protestin'. Yet his fans didn't see it like that. The wandering minstrel image was gone. He looked not like a humble folk artist but like a rock star. It all aroused incredible animosity, especially when the technical limitations of some of the sound sets meant people couldn't hear the lyrics properly.

Dylan didn't believe in pandering to his audience, although at one point he observes that he can't get in tune if they're booing. There is a concert where they boo continuously (Why did they buy tickets? he wonders . . . But with no thought of going backwards). The only break in the crowd's response is when he plays a song they recognise cos it happens to be near the top of the charts.

These were kids that really listened to his lyrics. He could fill the Albert Hall and well-behaved, thoughtful teenagers had sat in rapt attention as he intoned Masters of War or Blowin' in the Wind. They wanted his poetry. But more than that, they wanted a hero. When he 'went electric', the volume seemed to crash through the genteel folk stage like a blasphemous typhoon wind. No Direction home is no idealised portrait of Dylan. Meandering through several hours of archive footage, interviews and concerts, Scorsese presents him not as a hero but as a man. The sound quality on some of the electric sets really is abominable. The pre-fame Dylan is accused of stealing some rare records and of telling lies if it was necessary to get on. But this seemingly rambling biopic eventually drives home a point that baffled his audiences at the time: Dylan, in all his guises, just wrote poetry. If people used it for anything else that was up to them.

No Direction Home is not the gripping viewing you might expect for a portrait of one of the most famous recording artists of all time. But it gets to the heart of the man in a way that even Dylan's own (much later) autobiography hardly got to. For those who have read the biography, those early years are beautifully sketched out in the film. Kerouac, Alan Ginsberg, even Woody Guthrie. Talking heads include Joan Baez giving her recollections, and the old man himself, looking back on his early rise to fame with an openness that few have witnessed before. It is a very different film from Pennebaker's Don't Look Back. A more complex portrait than the earlier film set out to achieve, No Direction Home is Bob Dylan deconstructed.

One day someone will make a fictionalised movie of Bob Dylan. And Scorsese's documentary film will be a major historical resource.

I won't say - Thank you Scorsese, I'll say - Thank you Dylan. I wasn't aware you had all that humor as a young man (and still): - How many protest singers? - 136. And this reporter don't get it, even though people are laughing: - Do you mean exactly 136, or ca 136?? And so on.

Of course I love Dylan's music, his singing voice, his words (I've read his poems, and the novel Tarantula, no wonder he has been suggested for the Nobel Prize in literature more than once).

But this film, then, it's not just about Dylan, it's about how humanity evolved on this planet in the decade we call the sixties. There's so many voices in this movie, I learned so much: - Who is she? - Who is he? - What was that? .. and so on. And searching the internet I found out a great deal, and so got inspired to find out even more.. and so on..

..I'm glad to be alive, thank you all, thank you Scorsese, thank you Zimmerman, Gunnn, Dylan, whatever...

Ola, Norway

I loved this movie! Especially the footage of Bob Dylan in the UK on the first electric tour - and his youthful, dilated eyes! Had no idea so many audience comments had been captured, and really wish I had seen young Bob back then before anyone really got what he was trying to do. One can't remember Bob Dylan without remembering the times - civil rights, the cold war, Vietnam, and psychedelia and Scorcese captured all this without banality. I gave a speech on Dylan in college, a discussion of his influence on the Beatles. My sister had the poster from Blonde on Blonde up for years. I can play almost every Bob Dylan song on guitar - something I think a lot of my generation can say. I saw him at least 20 times over the years, with the Band, the Grateful Dead, his son backing him - every show an adventure. How many coffee houses and bars had Dylan wanna-bees back then? I was fortunate enough to see Dylan do Mr. Tambourine Man with the Byrds at the Roy Orbison tribute - he was a great influence on me musically. So particularly great about the movie was that it captured the excitement, the controversy, and the crescendo of 1966. This film is worthy of the subject and the director! A really nice job.

Things I learned from this great film: people still speak of Dylan's practice of making cryptic or sarcastic public comments as if it were an independently formed behavior on his part. The film clearly shows how they were provoked by his interrogators. It's easy to see this in our era when we, educated by him and the great artists of that and following generations, hear the amazingly benighted questions of the mainstream press of the 60's, their stiff, sexless style and their obvious confusion at the changes sweeping through that generation. Dylan, to me, looked endearingly young and innocent, not really cynical, more astonished than irritated by the cluelessness of his questioners.

Another point: what some imply to be his "commercialism" is revealed as a deep and high-intentioned gift for "theatre." We hear his comments about the difficulties some other artists in the Village had communicating to their audiences. He also remarks that "a lot of things happen between the audience and an artist." All his affectations served the goal of hypnotizing us, forcing us to surrender to the charisma of the character he had created. But that goal in turn was subordinate to his desire that we listen to the fabulous lyrics he poured out on us and the seductions of his voice and guitar work.

Another (rather obvious) insight I had: the great irony of the "rock vs folk" controversy was that while so many thought he had sold out to pop, in reality he was dragging pop up onto a higher aesthetic level, where prior to him, it was the folkies who considered themselves the aesthetes. As for the civil rights and peace movements, would his attaching his art to them have made any difference? Wouldn't everything have happened just as it did? Wouldn't we all have gotten high and tripped into psychedelia anyway? Wouldn't America have killed Bobby and elected Nixon and Reagan anyway? Of course it would have. Wouldn't the hippies have sold out and become yuppies? You bet. Meanwhile, Dylan went on to "Lay, Lady, Lay" and "All Along The Watchtower" and "Long Train Coming."

In Scorcese's wide-lens view of the era, we see that, at a critical moment in American history, Dylan possessed both the opportunity and the talents to transmute beat poetry into musical form, infusing it with his unique vocal inflections, his evocative chording and rhythms. His voice seemed outrageously bad in the conventional view of 1965, but considered in the context of his poetry and social comment and musical lineage (Woody), it was perfect. He sang in tune, only straining for high notes, and even those worked emotionally. Understand his sound as you would the uncompromising purity you hear in the tone of John Coltrane, whose voice was also seen early on as unbeautiful. People thought Coltrane's sound was harsh, but it was simply modern, stripped of the excessively sweetness of earlier players. Dylan did this too. His sarcastic lilt, tonally appropriate to the sentiments of what would become the white counterculture, could be equated to Coltrane's eventual wildness, which fit so well the black anger of the day -- though ironically Trane's was conceived as the opposite of anger. Similarly, from today's vantage point, Dylan's strange coloration speaks less of social protest and more of a personality simply standing outside the mainstream, totally possessed of his own individuality.

His is also the most purely rural voice of the rock era, the most deeply evocative of the history of the land, more than country music

musicians proper, who conformed to the commercial styles of the period, each artist aping the other to some degree.

Thanks To M.S. for this gem.

I never "got" Dylan. Never cared for him or saw what so many from my generation seemed to see in him. Now I do.

I'm not here to tell you that Dylan was great or that he "had his finger on the pulse of a generation" or anything predictable like that. Just to tell you how effective this particular movie was in revealing whatever good there is to know about the Dylan phenomenon of the early 60's.

It started surprisingly with Dylan's famous performance in which he was booed incessantly from fans who felt his pop demeanor and use of a full electric rock band (The Band) to back him up were a betrayal of the archetype he had created. In my opinion they were right. I lived back then but as a child only discovering Dylan slightly on the surface through others covering his songs just as his show was ending, although no one would have thought it at the time. Turns out he had a very short career where he really did anything worthy of the accolades. I think the film shows that he was very human and very fallible. He had no grand plan but had more talent than even he could realize. Such gifts make it easy for someone to take them for granted and view having to support an established identity as a burden to be shrugged off as soon as possible. Bob Dylan used Woody Guthrie for his inspiration and borrowed from all kinds of contemporary and traditional music and experience to create almost a caricature no one can really be. But it was very believable and very authentic and seemingly very simple and honest if you really look at it. And a lot of people saw it just that way. Then for no apparent reason he moved way off the creation he made of himself--in the process making it all look like a sham to the discerning--not seeming to know or realize that what he had already achieved might be all he would ever be valued for. I cried at the end of this movie--not because I was moved to tears by Dylan, although I feel I now have a way to get my mind around what was good about him and listen to his body of work with new appreciation--I was moved because the film didn't tell me what to think or try to insist that I like Dylan's music or his character. It let me see what there was to seen in the time it ran and make of it what my values and insights tell me. This film is art at it's best. And one of Martin Scorcese's finest achievements. I can't imagine a better effort--the hand of restraint allowed me to totally connect on many levels with nuance not usually present in someone's tribute film. Excellent. Don't miss it on American Masters on PBS.

The first time I heard the name Bob Dylan was at a party in Los Angeles in 1962. Someone put on a record of some guy with a twangy voice strapped to a harmonica. He was singing songs about death and dying and I wondered why a young folk singer would be singing songs about dying at age twenty. But it really moved. It didn't just sit there. It got up and moved and I remarked to people at the party that I never heard of this guy but it was really going and I didn't know where it was going to take me. He was singing "I'm a Man of Constant Sorrow" and how could a boy of twenty be a man of constant sorrow, but I felt it deep in my being. Martin Scorcese's documentary No Direction Home brought it all back home and allowed me to relive those heady days when the world seemed ready to turn the page on the fifties fallout shelter mentality and embrace a new morning.

No Direction Home follows the career of Bob Dylan from his childhood in Hibbing, Minnesota to his motorcycle accident in 1966, highlighting the most creative years in his life and offering previously unseen footage of Dylan as a young man. It brings to life the promise of that period that belonged to us and Bobby and Joan Baez, and Pete Seeger and Dave van Ronk, and Woody and Cisco and Leadbelly too and it also brings back the sting of its failure. There is great music in the entire film and it is uplifting and wonderful but may be remembered only for its opening act, the act in which Dylan called us to greatness. He challenged us to wake up and look around and we did and for that brief period, our word was law in the universe. Through it all, he articulated our dreams and our sense of loss at the world that was rightly ours but had been temporarily taken away from us and in the jingle jangle morning we came following him.

When we gathered to protest the war in Vietnam, we could hear him telling us about those that "fasten the triggers for the others to fire", those that "set back and watch when the death count gets higher". We marched to call attention to those that would hide in their mansions "as young people's blood flows out of their bodies and is buried in the mud". He asked, "how many roads must a man walk down before you can call him a man?" The answer may have been blowin' in the wind but, until then, few had dared to tell it and think it and speak it and breathe it. We knew that the times they were a changin' but we had not seen the direction they were headed in until the civil rights movement exploded and Martin Luther King told us about standing up tall and people dared to talk about peace at a time when our leaders seemed determined to blow us all to smithereens.

During that time when young people began to open themselves up to the possibility of a more meaningful existence, he looked out and saw "ten thousand talkers whose tongues were all broken, guns and sharp swords in the hands of young children", and he knew that a hard rain was gonna fall and we knew it too but didn't want to believe it. He was the spokesman of a generation. He now says that he never wanted to be the spokesman of a generation, but he was and nothing else seemed to matter. Who cares if Shakespeare wanted to be the soul of the age? He was and that's all that counted. But a hard rain did begin to fall as Dylan had said and claimed John as the first victim, and then Martin, then Bobby and the country began to lose its soul. Dylan followed after that, perhaps a victim of too much, too soon, a young man without a strong sense of self who seized the opportunity to reinvent himself but lost who he was in the process.

Though he gained new converts along the way, he crashed and burned until he finally became a man who would stop at nothing to convince us that it was all a mistake. At first it was the language of rock 'n roll, which at that time meant the language of commercial "success", the language of the top twenty hits, agents and producers and big record sales. And we noticed the hour when his ship came in. We understood but we couldn't relate. We smelled sellout. We felt a sense of loss, though we knew deep down that whatever he touched he would raise to a new level. He did but reached the heights without us. Like A Rolling Stone was a great song, perhaps the greatest rock song that's ever been written, but it wasn't our song. It didn't speak to us. Dylan had been a poet of people who cared, now he reflected a world grown cynical, people who wanted to go it alone, who looked to get in while the getting was good.

He broke new ground and was great at what he did, but if Ghandi had become the greatest university professor India had ever known, we would have looked on in admiration but it would not have been the same Ghandi that inspired us. For me Dylan will always be forever young and when he dies his Country period, his Las Vegas period, his born-again phase, and his other numerous phases will all be forgotten. He will be remembered as a man who challenged the status quo when it was not fashionable to do so, who tried to deny his own greatness but couldn't because we all knew better and when he is buried they will lower him down like a king.

This documentary is precisely what we wish for when someone dies young. Seeing Bob Dylan tell his story was breathtaking. Jimi Hendrix, Janice Joplin, Jim Morrison, Elvis, John Lennon, Buddy Holly, Richie Valince (sorry) never got to tell their own story. Oh sure we know their stories, but actually hearing it from the man himself, had a greater impact. My whole music listening life, Dylan has never knocked my socks off. My mother thinks he mumbles too much. Martin's film made me laugh, cry and even made me catch my breath during Bob's singing the song about Medgar Evers. "Only a pawn in their game." Why isn't that song taught in schools? The "pawn" recently died, I wonder if somebody has written that on his headstone yet. What a special gift Martin and Bob have given us. It breaks my heart even more seeing this, wishing I could see more of others gone too soon.

This biography of Bob Dylan traces his life from leaving his home in Hibbing, Minnesota until his motorcycle accident in 1966 at the age of 25. I came away from this with a renewed appreciation for just what a phenomenon he is. I can't think of any other artist who has given us what he has. There are other folk singers and rock stars, but nothing like Dylan.

If you think of a poet as someone who strings words together to produce powerful images and strong emotional reactions, then Dylan is your man. I admit that a lot of Dylan's songs don't make complete sense to me, but they fascinate and afford many interpretations, and just the flow of words is captivating. The first scene in Part 2 provides a great insight. Dylan is seen on the street reading two signs, one saying, "Animals & Birds bought or sold on commission," and the other, "We will collect clip bath & return your dog/ KN1 7727/ Cigarettes and Tobacco." Dylan takes these words and goes on a spontaneous riff for a minute making sentences from them. Clearly he is a man who delights in words and has a great facility with them. You can see from this clip how he can come up with his songs. Could anyone but a poet come up with lines like: "The morning breeze like a bugle blew/ Against the drums of dawn," and "The ocean wild like an organ played/ The seaweed's wove its strands." The film traces the roots of Dylan's early musical interests; it would have been interesting to see how early on he became facile with words.

It is amazing how many inane questions Dylan was asked by a largely ignorant press. Questions like, "Why do you sing?" and "How do you explain your popularity?" It's no wonder he could get frustrated and annoyed. Clips from a current interview are interspersed throughout the film, so Scorcese was able to get more meaningful comments out of him than any of the questioners shown here.

As any good artist Dylan keeps changing. When he went from acoustic guitar to electric with a backup band many people felt somehow betrayed, but he was just moving on. The variety of his output is quite amazing, from poignant songs like, "Lay Down Your Weary Tune," to biting social commentary like "Only a Pawn in the Game," to wistful love songs like "Girl From the North Country," and then all the classics that were the soundtrack for a generation. This film seems to imply that Dylan's career ended with his motorcycle accident, but far from it--he has continued to write and record, having released a new album as recently as 2006.

Another topic of interest covered is the artist/businessman relationship. Most artists want to reach as large an audience that can appreciate them and this usually means that there must be agents, promoters, and investors in the picture. Dylan seems to have navigated this precarious situation successfully while still preserving his integrity. He was not above embellishing his background and you have to feel that he has to have some business sense to have wound up where he is. But he appears to come from that breed of artist whose main goal is to practice his craft rather than achieve fame.

I found parts of the film not completely successful. The interviews with some lesser knowns as Paul Nelson and John Cohen were of questionable value to me--it was not clear just what role they played in Dylan's career. The interviews with Alan Ginsberg are interesting, but his importance might not be understood by one not of his generation. It was frustrating to have songs interrupted or cut short, but I suppose that was necessary in the interests of keeping this under four hours.

Of course the archival footage of, and current interview with, Joan Baez are highlights. I had forgotten just what a pure voice she had, a voice that seemed almost too perfect to be of this world. There is some great archival footage of Johnny Cash, a great performance by Odetta, and fascinating clips of John Jacob Niles, Peter LaFarge, and the Clancy Brothers.

Put Dylan's poetry to music together with his musical talent and distinctive voice and you have a complete package. Of course not everyone appreciates that package, but as Joan Baez said, "If you're interested, he goes way, way deep."

This is an ambitious biography of a complex man and even at almost four hours one feels that much has been left off the table. The work of any artist must remain a mystery.