Actually, to respond to your question of what the filmmakers could have done to salvage the plot without trivializing the person of Dylan too much, I think they missed the opportunity to portray the dangerous liaison between Dylan and his motorcycle. There were two instances where they showed him riding away on his bike at decisive moments, but, O my, they could have capitalized on where this would lead in the summer of 66.
I answered it obliquely. She was not a sadsack. But this film portrayed her as a ‘woman scorned’. Even if she felt that way about Bob, she was and is so much more than that and what she has achieved Therefore, I find it sad to limit her and Dylan’s relationship to a mutual hissyfit. I hope this helps clarify.
Knowing that the film would not be able to say anything insightful about Dylan, I wasn’t particularly disappointed about the weak story or the non-enigmatic ambience the film creates. But, I think positive. The film is a higher tech version of a photo- journalistic glimpse at young Dylan by Life Magazine. The portrayal of the person of Bob was mediocre, but the treatment of Joan Baez was just sad.
In what way could they have improved their interpretation of Baez? Or was it "sad" in the sense they got it right--that she lacked insight into herself?
It was sad in the sense that they turned her into a spiteful drama queen without recognizing Joan’s commitment to activism that went well beyond Viet Nam. Also, while the actress has a nice voice, she’s no Joan Baez. The film also failed to recognize the self-possessed confidence of Suze Rotolo in the slightest— an artist in her own right. But, my 29 year old nephew liked it, so maybe I’m too much of a Dylan fanatic to view the film objectively.
Actually, to respond to your question of what the filmmakers could have done to salvage the plot without trivializing the person of Dylan too much, I think they missed the opportunity to portray the dangerous liaison between Dylan and his motorcycle. There were two instances where they showed him riding away on his bike at decisive moments, but, O my, they could have capitalized on where this would lead in the summer of 66.
So a little foreshadowing? But you didn't answer my question about Joan Baez.
I answered it obliquely. She was not a sadsack. But this film portrayed her as a ‘woman scorned’. Even if she felt that way about Bob, she was and is so much more than that and what she has achieved Therefore, I find it sad to limit her and Dylan’s relationship to a mutual hissyfit. I hope this helps clarify.
Knowing that the film would not be able to say anything insightful about Dylan, I wasn’t particularly disappointed about the weak story or the non-enigmatic ambience the film creates. But, I think positive. The film is a higher tech version of a photo- journalistic glimpse at young Dylan by Life Magazine. The portrayal of the person of Bob was mediocre, but the treatment of Joan Baez was just sad.
You lose yourself, you reappear
You suddenly find you got nothing to fear
Alone you stand with nobody near
When a trembling distant voice unclear
Startles your sleeping ears to hear
That somebody thinks they really found you.
In what way could they have improved their interpretation of Baez? Or was it "sad" in the sense they got it right--that she lacked insight into herself?
It was sad in the sense that they turned her into a spiteful drama queen without recognizing Joan’s commitment to activism that went well beyond Viet Nam. Also, while the actress has a nice voice, she’s no Joan Baez. The film also failed to recognize the self-possessed confidence of Suze Rotolo in the slightest— an artist in her own right. But, my 29 year old nephew liked it, so maybe I’m too much of a Dylan fanatic to view the film objectively.