Review: Like a Rolling Stone: Bob Dylan at the Crossroads by Griel Marcus

In 1965, Bob Dylan wrote his greatest and most memorable song, "Like a Rolling Stone." It was his first major hit, which peaked at #2 on the billboard charts. It ran for nearly seven minutes, something unheard of at the time - or even today. The book puts the song in its historical context and asseses its continuing influence on American history. Marcus's writing takes some getting used to with its improvisational style that seems to mimic a Dylan song. Nevertheless it is a fine homage to a remarkable time period.

1965. The British Invasion had conquered the airwaves. The Beatles were at the peak of their powers. The Rolling Stones mix of blues and sarcasm gave a new edge to rock music. At the center of it all stood Bob Dylan. In early 1965 Dylan released Bringing it all Back Home, his first foray into electronic music. He then toured England where he grew continually bored playing his old material on acoustic guitar. According to Marcus, Dylan considered retiring from music to write novels. In June 1965, he assembled a amazing set of musicians and recorded "Like a Rolling Stone." The song redefined Dylan's sound and pushed the boundaries of popular music.

Marcus reflects on the song's influence on American culture and its connection to American history. He also discusses its effect on Dylan's career and how it became the song that defined him. Dylan still performs the song and is always a highlight of ongoing "Never Ending Tour." For the listener the song takes on a different meaning every time it is played. It is simultaneously an angry song about alienation, but also a celebration of freedom and liberation. Dylan fans will enjoy this book, but I would recommend listening to the classic 1965 album Highway 61 Revisited to make the book easier to understand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSyPHcwHHlU

First ever live performance of "Like a Rolling Stone" at the 1965 Newport Folk Festival.

Film Review: "Why We Fight"

Perhaps the great paradox of this age it that more information is available to more people than at any time in history and yet the nature of power remains a mystery. Eugene Jarecki's documentary,Why We Fight, is an attempt to understand post 9/11 foreign policy. It is on one level an examination of the military-industrial complex and on another level a critique of the American empire. The right questions are raised but it takes on a little too much - not necessarily a bad thing.

The title is a play on the Why We Fight propaganda series produced by Frank Capra during the Second World War. America's contribution defeating fascism is celebrated as the last "good war." Because every war since remains shrouded in moral ambiguity - to the "Forgotten War" in Korea (1950-53) to the Vietnam War (1965-73) all the way up to current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan - it is a relevant question. The Iraq war and reasons for the invasion are the film's primary focus. While never straying into Michael Moore Fahrenheit 9/11 territory, it is highly critical of the Bush administration (2001-09). And that may date the film somewhat since Iraq appears to be heading towards stability. Few will remember the imbroglio over weapons of mass destruction, but the film dwells on it. History will be kinder to Bush and Company, as is often the case with polarizing presidencies.

But it's all part of a much larger and complex story. Let's start with the military-industrial complex. On August 6, 1945 the United States dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima and the world changed. The use of a weapon with the ability to destroy an entire city marked the culmination of America's transformation from an industrial juggernaut to a military superpower. Historians refer to this as the birth of the National Security State, a nation on a permanent wartime footing, ready for war anytime, anywhere, or anyhow. So far for five decades America competed with Soviet Union and pushing the world to the brink the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis - that was the Cold War.

Dwight Eisenhower, 34th President of the United States, is the film's unlikely hero. Unlikely in the sense that in the 1950s Eisenhower was viewed as the incarnation of bland conformity of that decade. Cultural critics, most notably the historian Richard Hofstadter, ridiculed Eisenhower's apparent lack of intellectual curiosity in his classic book Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. Hindsight has proved his critics wrong on most counts. For eight years he kept the peace and negotiated an end to the Korean War. In 1957, Eisenhower ordered the 101st airborne to enforce school integration laws in Little Rock, Arkansas, a milestone in the Civil Rights Movement. In his farewell address he issued a warning about the growing ties between the military and financial establishments and their influence on congress.

Now to jump ahead to 2010. The Cold War is over. We now live in post-Cold War age and no one really understands it. At millennium's end American seemed untouchable and at the height of its power. Then came the 2000 election, 9/11 terrorist attacks, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and finally economic collapse. So, what happened?

Why We Fight blames the Neoconservatives for just about everything. To their credit, they interview prominent Neocons like Richard Perle and William Kristol to give the opposing view. So, just what do Neoconservatives believe? In a nutshell, American foreign policy must foster the spread of democracy - even through war if necessary. They were the primary advocates of the Iraq war and were later blamed for the chaotic months after the downfall of Saddam Hussein. That angle may date the film since the situation in Iraq has changed dramatically in the past five years.

Despite its somewhat biased viewpoint the film raises some pertinent questions. The viewer hears multiple viewpoints from a diverse group of people. Jarecki calls for a more informed public that is more engaged with politics as the only way to preserve democracy - and that is sound. That is preferable alternative to falling into the abyss of conspiracy theories that only confuse people by their easy answers (but I will admit they are creative). It remains unclear, however, just what the film sees as America's proper role in the world - leave everyone alone? Despite all the anti-Americanism prevalent at home and abroad, America will always have its ideals and it is troubling to imagine a world where no nation carries those values.

Movie Review: The Sorrow and the Pity

The Sorrow and the Pity (1969) is about the elusive search for the truth in the midst of history and memory. Marcel Ophuls 4 1/2 half hour documentary is about the German occupation of a French town during the Second World War. Produced in the late 1960s, The Sorrow and the Pity brings a level headed approach to the past. 

The history of France during the German occupation is tragic. The First World War (1914-18) made a wasteland of their countryside and killed off a generation of its young men. In four years of war they fought the Germans to a stalemate, with the aid of their British and American allies. In the interwar period the French built the Maginot line, a series of fortifications along the German border designed to prevent another invasion. Before its completion the Second World War began (Sept. 1 1939) and the German army and forced the French to surrender, thus beginning an occupation that lasted from June 1940-July 1944. 

After the occupation ended a mystique grew about the heroics of the French Resistance and that the majority of the French, except for a minority of "collaborators," bravely stood up to the Nazis. The reality was far more complicated. In the 1930s the French people were bitterly divided over politics between extremists on the left (communists) and right (fascists). The polarized political situation led to mass apathy and cynicism about their system - and democracy itself. The Germans installed a puppet regime based in Vichy under the leadership of Phillipe Petain (1856-1951), the French hero from the First World War, an octogenarian who was only worked a few hours a day. The film suggests a majority of the French people supported the regime and turned a blind eye to its anti-Jewish laws (the most explosive charge in the film). But many also joined the resistance.

Marcel Ophuls, the film's director, conducted several probing interviews. His long interview with a German officer of the occupation who still wore his service medals provided the occupier's viewpoint. Anthony Eden, Churchill's foreign minister, is asked difficult questions about British policy during the French downfall, most notably on the infamous attack on Mers-El-Kebir. On July 3, 1940 the British destroyed the French Mediterranean fleet to prevent the Germans from capturing it - killing 1200 French sailors during the bombing.

Ophuls most moving interview were with two French farmers who bravely fought in the resistance - their quiet dignity is the backbone of the film. They saw injustice and crimes against humanity happening around them and decided to do something about it. The Sorrow and the Pity brims with a fierce moral purpose, revealing much about human nature that can tell us much about today (the parallels with Republicans who are terrified of criticizing Trump is striking).

The Sorrow and the Pity tells us history is mess. And that's a refreshing departure in an age of the condensed, user-friendly history fed to the public by the History Channel. The textbook versions of history are no better and are usually misleading, ephemeral, and bland. In the end such an approach does a disservice to the public. Evading the complexity of the past serves no one well. A first rate documentary.

Review: The Weather Underground (2007)

Terrorism was on everyone'e mind this past decade. It began with the attacks of 9/11 and ended with the failed airplane bomb plot on Christmas Day 2009. The award winning documentary, The Weather Underground, is a somber look at a group of 1960s radicals that resorted to violence. Their rage at the government's persecution of the Vietnam War and frustration with ineffective anti-war movement led to go underground and "bring the war home." In time, the Weathermen hoped radicalize all young people, overthrow the government, and inaugurate a new Utopian society. A tall order indeed. The film combined narration, archival footage, and interviews with former members. At the heart of The Weather Underground is the question of how citizens should express dissent with the government and no clear answers are given. Unfortunately, the film rests on the myths of the 1960s and and a not so subtle commentary on the Bush administration (2001-2009)

The Weathermen were a splinter group of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), the vanguard of the campus revolts of the 1960s and 1970s. Created in 1962 in Port Huron, Michigan, they advocated for a new "participatory democracy" and non-violent resistance to war and racism. They spoke directly to a younger generation frustrated with the complacency of their parents towards the Cold War and the struggle for Civil Rights. But it was the Vietnam War that defined them. As the war intensified and the draft calls cut into the middle class the anti-war ranks increased. Some members of SDS favored a more confrontational approach towards the government and they broke away to create the Weatherman (they took their name from the Dylan lyric from Subterranean Homesick Blues, "you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows").

Several figures from the group were interviewed and all have differing views of their past actions. Some have regrets and some do not. From 1969-1975 the Weatherman were responsible for several bombings on government buildings. In 1970, a bomb accidentally went off in Greenwich Village and killed three of its own members. After the incident the group decided to take every precaution to avoid civilian casualties, but they still considered those that disagreed with them complicit with the government. A dangerous line of thinking when one believes they have all the answers, that is a pure terrorist. As the Vietnam War slowly came to an end the Weatherman fell into obscurity.

The film did a fine job of presenting the Weathermen's viewpoint, but is lacking in historical context. They relied on the myths of the 1960s. The first myth is that most young people opposed the war, when in fact most did. More young people went conservative in the 1960s; membership in the conservative student group YAF (Young Americans for Freedom) were higher than SDS. Furthermore, the film gives a superficial depiction of the Vietnam War. It never explains why America was there in the first place, but that it was just a war that most people were against. Another flaw is its depiction of Richard Nixon, showing cherry picked clips with Nixon sounding angry and intolerant. Must every 60s themed film fall back on Nixon as the ultimate bad guy?

At the documentary's heart is the question of dissent in a democratic society. How far should it go? If you disagree with the administration in power, what is the proper course of action? There are no satisfactory answers to those questions, at least I have no answers. From a historical standpoint, America was forged in a violent revolution and rebelling against tyranny is always an admired American trait. Then there was the Civil War (1861-1865), but that was a war to prevent secession, as the South did want to conquer the North. In recent history, there was the 1995 Oklahoma City attacks by a right wing fanatic that despised the government. Dissent is only successful when it has a large following, otherwise they remain on the fringes. Acts of violence on innocent people rarely win people to your cause.

By the end The Weather Underground has the feel of a depressing class reunion. None of them seems too proud of their past actions. One former member, bar owner, Brian Flanagan, regrets his involvement with the group. He sees no honor in the use of violence to make a political point, especially in the wake of 9/11. Others remain committed to various causes and believe that violent change may be necessary. For students or anyone viewing the film, however, perhaps it is better to understand the nature of power before deciding how to dissent. Isn't the entire point of having a democracy?

Review: "The Battle over Citizen Kane"

The PBS documentary "The Battle over Citizen Kane" from the acclaimed anthology series, The American Experience is a compelling snapshot of cultural history. The show depicts the clash between the media mogul William Randolph Hearst (1863-1951) and actor/director Orson Welles (1915-1985) over the release of what is universally considered the greatest American film ever made, Citizen Kane. Both men left indelible impressions on their respective eras. Hearst is to American journalism what John D. Rockefeller was to oil, as he controlled a sizable portion of the newspaper industry for the first half of the 20th century. Welles revolutionized American theater and film in the 1930s and 1940s. In 1941, Hearst and Wells, an old man and a young man, clashed over the limits of artistic expression on the eve of America's entry into the Second World War. The film skillfully used narration, photography, and the usual talking head commentary that captures the personalities of two giants.



Hearst holds a dubious place in American history, even more so than most titans of industry. The heir to a mining fortune, Hearst used cunning and wealth to build a news empire. Early in his career Hearst championed the underdog with stories favoring immigrants, the poor, and reformers. In 1898, Hearst favored war with Spain and helped spark a war fever in the country, with outrageous stories of Spanish atrocities in Cuba and their alleged complicity in the explosion of the U.S.S. Maine. After a failed foray into politics, Hearst newspapers turned their focus to sensationalism and celebrity driven stories. In later life, he secluded himself at his Northern California mansion with his mistress, the actress Marion Davies, and held court with the Hollywood elite. The life of Hearst is a metaphor for the corrosive effect of greed and epitomized the worst of American capitalism.

Welles cuts a far more interesting and enduring figure. During his childhood in suburban Chicago Welles was told he was a genius and believed it! In the late 1930s Welles shook up American theater with topical productions of classic Shakespeare plays. For example, he placed Julius Caesar in Nazi Germany. A star of the radio as well, Welles frightened the CBS listening audience in his legendary broadcast of War of the Worlds. In 1939, Hollywood came calling and he signed a contract with RKO that gave him complete creative control. Out of this came, Citizen Kane.

Modern film goers may not be aware the film is inspired by the life of Hearst, although the character Charles Foster Kane has the attributes of other historical figures. In 1941, when word leaked out the film gave a less than flattering portrayal of Hearst, he used all his power to prevent the film from being released. Hearst newspapers were banned from advertising the film and even distributed harsh reviews. Many theaters, under pressure from Hearst, refused to show it as well. Welles threatened major lawsuits on RKO if they caved in. The film was released to generally favorable reviews, but Welles had left a bad impression on the Hollywood elite. Citizen Kane only won one Oscar for original screenplay.



Several books and articles are available explain why Citizen Kane is a great film. The study by New Yorker critic Pauline Kael, The Citizen Kane Book, remains the standard work. I would also recommend the commentary tracks on the DVD with film historian Peter Bogdanovich and the movie critic Roger Ebert. The groundbreaking cinematography and the non linear structure of the film were way ahead of its time. Welles's amazing transformation from an idealistic young man into a cold reactionary is still remarkable. Also, the film is a parable about the nature of wealth and fame in America. The film opens with Kane dying alone inside his mansion is an odd foreshadowing of the demise of future icons like Howard Hughes, Elvis Presley, or Michael Jackson.

My one qualm in the film is its downbeat depiction of Welles. After the controversy surrounding Citizen Kane Welles lost creative control over his films. Amazingly, Welles was planning on film based on the life of Christ with himself in the title role! Eventually Welles left the studio system and became an independent filmmaker - before it was hip. The film implied that his post-Kane career was a downward spiral. Critics now acknowledge later films as masterpieces as well, Touch of Evil and Chimes at Midnight. His work remains relevant and a recent film by the indy director Richard Linklater, Me and Orson Welles, is about his famous production of Julius Caesar. Overall, the is useful in telling the story behind America's greatest film.

Music Review: Wilco: (the album)

"Are you under the impression this isn't your life?" begins Wilco's latest LP, entitled, Wilco: (the album). Jeff Tweedy, lead songwriter and singer for Wilco, is beginning to receive widespread notoriety. Based in Chicago, their music is rooted in the American Midwest. Formed after the break up of the pioneering alt-country band, Uncle Tupelo, Wilco has crafted some of finest music in the past two decades. Wilco: (the album) is a great starting point for anyone unfamilar with their music since it has all the best aspects of their previous work.

The band's history is not lacking in drama. In the mid 1990s they were on the vanguard of the alternate country scene, but quickly moved on. Their 1996 double album, Being There, moved them in a more classic rock direction; a retro homage to the great 1970s bands. Wilco's next project was of a collaboration with the British folk singer, Billy Bragg, of unrecorded Woody Guthrie tunes. In 1999 came Summerteeth, a departure into pure pop music. Tweedy's dark lyrics juxtaposed with Jay Bennett's heavy production redefined Wilco. The signature track, "Via Chicago," opens with the line, "I dreamed about killing you again last night and it felt all right to me," in a haunting, but beautiful journey into a nightmarish landscape.

The year 2001 brought the release of Yankee Hotel Foxtrot. An instant classic, it was almost left on the shelf after their record company dropped them for being too experimental. Differences between Tweedy and Bennett led to his departure (Bennet passed away last May). Everything was captured in the documentary, I am Trying to Break your Heart, - the Let it Be of this generation. Some songs were released on the Internet that created a buzz and brought them more fans. Yankee is truly unique album that sounds traditional and futuristic. The follow up in 2004, A Ghost is Born, had a bit of everything, from the 12 minute surrealistic epic "Spiders" ( a showstopper at their concerts) and 16 minutes of drone. In 2007 came Sky Blue Sky with a revamped line up of musicians brought them back to earth after two experimental albums.

Their latest album has brought them national attention from major media outlets, including the cover of Spin. While the album lacks the controlled chaos of the Tweedy/Bennett era, the spirit is still there. Some highlights include a charming duet with Feist on "You and I," an ode to civil war conscript "I'll fight," and a parody of American nostalgia in "Sonny Feeling." Finally there is "Bull Black Nova," imagine an Edgar Allan Poe tale set to electric mayhem.

Wilco is a great live band as well, playing sets that often last 2 1/2 hours. Rumor has it they will begin recording new material in January, so fans can eagerly await which direction Tweedy will take them. Hopefully, they will keep making great music.

On Seeing a Bob Dylan Concert

I've never met anyone famous. Nor have I traveled to all places I wish to see. But about a year ago I did get to see Bob Dylan perform. One of my heroes that's actually still alive. It was on a rainy, chilly November night in Kalamazoo, Michigan. A Bob Dylan concert is a unique experience, and one will leave feeling they've just been through something . . .

So along with my sister we made the trek to Kalamazoo to see the aging icon of the 1960s. I've read enough about Dylan to know that he's no saint. Our society demands much of its heroes and Dylan would scoff at the very notion of hero worship. In "Subterranean Homesick Blues" from 1965, a stream of consciousness rant, Dylan proclaimed "don't follow leaders." His music is honest, sometimes panifully so about life. My first memory of his music is hearing "Positively 4th Street" and having a vague idea of the song's meaning. The comforting organ sound juxtaposed with the searing lyrics of either a jilted lover aimed at someone or maybe at the folk community who thought him a sellout for playing rock and roll. It's really hard to pinpoint the exact meaning towards any Dylan song.

The concert opened with a rollicking version of "Maggie's Farm." That was the song Dylan played at the 1965 Newport Folk Festival with a rock band that enraged the folk community. Dylan's voice has aged and it's hard to decipher at times. On his first album, Bob Dylan (1962), he was a 21 year old trying to sound like an old man - so things have come full circle for him. But there's a poignancy to the voice . The second song, another 60s classic, Rainy Day Women 12 & 35 had a joyful carefree spirit. Towards the end his band performed 'Ballad of a Thin Man," perhaps the most searing condemnation of the American establishment ever written.

There were many memorable moments. Some of the best material from his recent trilogy Time Out of Mind (1997), Love and Theft (2001), and Modern Times (2006) were highlights. These recordings are just as relevant anything Dylan recorded in the 1960s. They are like a history of American music told through emotion rather than fact. The best word to describe them is timeless.

The two encores, "Like a Rolling Stone" and "All Along the Watchtower have now transcended the 1960s. One a sermon on self-reliance, the other a vision of impending doom made famous by another major Dylan fan - Jimi Hendrix. At the end Dylan introduced his band took a bow and left the stage. Many get miffed he rarely recognizes the audience, but his fans realize that's just Dylan.

In all his many guises - scion of Woody Guthrie, Mod Rocker/Romantic poet, Old West outlaw, born again Christian, has been rocker, world weary prophet - all endear us to him. Dylan is a survivor of an America that seems distant to my generation - Cold War, Vietnam, Civil Rights, assassinations, and Watergate - as one who lived up to his early promise. In future ages scholars will look to Dylan's words to unravel the elusive American character. As for myself, that one encounter with greatness will always be with me.