D. A. Pennebaker Don T Look Back Analysis
Don’t Look Back by D.A. Pennebaker is a 1967 documentary which follows the young folk singer Bob Dylan, during his 1965 tour in the United Kingdom. The documentary is shot in the observational style known as ‘direct cinema’, which was invented between 1958 and 1962 in North America and focuses on the subject acting in their natural habitat as if there was no camera - made possible, through an agreement between the filmmaker and the subject. This form of documenting became possible due to the development of more mobile cameras and the evolution of smaller, lighter sound equipment. (reference erase?). This is dissimilar to cinéma vérité, invented by Jean Rouch, where the filmmaker interacts with the subject - to provoke the character thus triggering a reaction resulting in a storyline to the film.
A strength of filming in the documentary style of direct cinema, is the ease of editing. As the filmmakers focus on the ‘raw footage’, of filming, the structure of the film is essentially chronological. Manipulation of the film is still imposed as editors cut and compress clips, however, it is done in a very clever and articulate fashion by the director. For example, one scene sees Bob Dylan satirically joking about becoming insane, this is then cut abruptly into the next scene showing a close up of a newspaper, which shows Dylan, with his arms out …show more content…
looking outrageous and almost insane-like.
Furthermore, another benefit that direct cinema serves, is that filmmakers do not need to spend time on introducing characters or making formal introductions. The conversations that occur in the documentary reveal the characters to the audience. The interviews that also occur throughout the film served as its way to interact with Dylan – to which Dylan did not like as there was a great media demand to try and “penetrate his carefully evasive yet antagonistic persona.” (INDIEPIXfilms, 2004). This is evident through his retorts when communicating with those around him and more specifically with interviewers. In one interview with a scientist, Dylan is clearly annoyed and it is evident that he is really mocking him through his use of satirical questions and his presumptuous behavior. As the interview goes on, Dylan finally blurts out, “Do you ever just be quiet? Like be silent. And just watch and you don’t say one word.” It could be argued that, this is a reflection on direct cinema. We appreciate the true form of the subjects merely through observing, which is indeed a benefit of such a convention since we are given the opportunity to truly engage with the events being unfolded. This demonstrates that understanding can be brought to the audience through observations by forcing them to reflect and ponder on the events that have taken place. This is what direct cinema attempts to advocate through its approach on subjectivity, and therefore serves to be a strength as there is a sense of ‘truth’, towards the filmmakers and audience as the message of the film is received through a direct manner.
Despite direct cinema priding themselves on being ‘natural’, one must still question the possibility of the prevalence of demand characteristics.
Although Bob Dylan is deemed to be in his natural form, he could in fact be acting for the camera in order to live up to the expectations of the masses. Evidence of this can even be found from the director of Don’t Look Back. In a 2003 interview, 36 years after the release of the documentary, D.A Pennebaker recalls Dylan’s behavior during his time with him. ‘’Being with Dylan was like being the inside of a tornado. We were in the middle of something, and us being there, filming
him, heightened everything for him too. The big difference between fiction movies and documentaries is that the actors in movies know they’re actors. But 10 minutes into shooting, Dylan knew he was an actor too.” (reference D.A. Pennebaker interviewed by Lynn Hirschberg in “Shooting for Pop History,” The New York Times. May 4, 2003; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851-2003), p. SM19) This is a clear weakness for direct cinema, as it shows it is not what critics would call ‘natural cinema’, since there is a form of showmanship and an act, for the camera. This is a weakness as it contradicts the idea of direct cinema and it could in fact be categorized as Hollywood ‘biopic’ since Dylan is essentially acting, conforming to the conventions of a traditional biopic.
Direct cinema at the time was a completely new way to document film. Despite this, similar conventions of traditional films at the time were still being implemented. Audiences require a structured kind of setting in order to understand and interpret the film to determine their readings. We see this in ‘Don’t Look Back’, where ‘Donovan’, a character, who Bob immediately dislikes – citing “Donovon who?” upon hearing his name the first time it is dropped. Throughout the film Donovan references are mentioned, and when the two finally clash at a hotel – a climax consequently occurs, where we see Bob Dylan at his angriest and loudest point in the film. This example demonstrates that, as the audience, only through the methodical structure is it made possible to understand and interpret the film. This is strength of direct cinema as once again it is able to bring about a connection between subject and audience member through this convention.
Moreover a strength of direct cinema, which many fans praised Pennebaker for, was the intimacy, the audience are able to experience with the subject. Prior to ‘Don’t Look Back’, cameras were too heavy to be carried around portably and so, had to be mounted on tripods, which limited the filmmakers in the sense that there was not a variety of shot angles available to them. The 1960 film ‘Primary’, revolutionised film documenting, as cameras were made lighter and were able to be placed on a person’s shoulder. This for one inhibited the use of a stand still tripod, and enabled ease and convenience of shooting from different angles. The introduction of close ups and other angles made possible by portable cameras, had, for the first time ever, given the opportunity for the audience to be transported into the scene allowing the audience to share the experience with the subject.
Furthermore, the filmmakers of Don’t Look Back labeled themselves to be the role of ‘observers’, or merely bystanders. They believed that “a camera will tell the truth, it’s the fly-on-the-wall. We’ll just follow people” (What is Cinéma Vérité? - Chronicle of a Summer, 2013). Which gave them access to the events that unraveled having no interference with the subject. A strength of filming in this natural form, means that audiences are open to develop their own opinion of the film. There is no given storyline, plot or narrative – the documentary becomes subjective and open to interpretation and audiences can develop their own readings of the film. “Instead of staged scenes dominated by a voice-over narration, the new documentary would let the action unfold naturally and permit people to speak for themselves.” (Thompson and Bordwell, 1994)
In contrast to this, cinéma vérité (cinema truth) – recorded reality objectively. First used by French ethnologist Jean Rouch, uses naturalistic techniques similar to direct cinema however there are differences, which show examples of weaknesses in direct cinema. The staged set-ups and involvement of filmmakers to provoke its subjects all make for a different kind of documentary. Cinéma vérité also takes provocative stances towards its topics making for a more entertaining documentary. As oppose to direct cinema, where audiences would wait for the story or plot to unfold out of raw material, cinéma vérité governs the story to give compelling, truthful entertainment.
Despite the idea of direct cinema contrasting to the objective approach from that of cinéma vérité, it is in a sense, still controlled. ‘Don’t Look Back’, had over twenty hours of raw footage. The final cut of the film was ninety-six minutes in total (DVDBEAVER, 2014). To make this possible, the filmmakers were required to make many cuts. Thus giving the filmmakers control and power over the image of Bob Dylan, and how they wish to portray Dylan to the audiences. This once again questions the underlying ideology of direct cinema.
Overall, the observational style of ‘Don’t Look Back’, shot in the direct cinema form shows many strengths and weaknesses. Audiences around the world at the time praised Pennebaker’s new style of documenting. The high contrast black and white film shot in the 16mm format shows how raw footage can be used as entertainment. The grainy shots, which at times are thrown in and out of focus and even the appearance of Pennebaker himself, in several scenes all added to the realism portrayed by direct cinema. Both the interaction and the synchronization of both newly introduced conventions of direct cinema as well as pre existing forms from other styles had also contributed to the success of what was deemed at the time to be a rehivolutionised form of media.
A strength of filming in the documentary style of direct cinema, is the ease of editing. As the filmmakers focus on the ‘raw footage’, of filming, the structure of the film is essentially chronological. Manipulation of the film is still imposed as editors cut and compress clips, however, it is done in a very clever and articulate fashion by the director. For example, one scene sees Bob Dylan satirically joking about becoming insane, this is then cut abruptly into the next scene showing a close up of a newspaper, which shows Dylan, with his arms out …show more content…
looking outrageous and almost insane-like.
Furthermore, another benefit that direct cinema serves, is that filmmakers do not need to spend time on introducing characters or making formal introductions. The conversations that occur in the documentary reveal the characters to the audience. The interviews that also occur throughout the film served as its way to interact with Dylan – to which Dylan did not like as there was a great media demand to try and “penetrate his carefully evasive yet antagonistic persona.” (INDIEPIXfilms, 2004). This is evident through his retorts when communicating with those around him and more specifically with interviewers. In one interview with a scientist, Dylan is clearly annoyed and it is evident that he is really mocking him through his use of satirical questions and his presumptuous behavior. As the interview goes on, Dylan finally blurts out, “Do you ever just be quiet? Like be silent. And just watch and you don’t say one word.” It could be argued that, this is a reflection on direct cinema. We appreciate the true form of the subjects merely through observing, which is indeed a benefit of such a convention since we are given the opportunity to truly engage with the events being unfolded. This demonstrates that understanding can be brought to the audience through observations by forcing them to reflect and ponder on the events that have taken place. This is what direct cinema attempts to advocate through its approach on subjectivity, and therefore serves to be a strength as there is a sense of ‘truth’, towards the filmmakers and audience as the message of the film is received through a direct manner.
Despite direct cinema priding themselves on being ‘natural’, one must still question the possibility of the prevalence of demand characteristics.
Although Bob Dylan is deemed to be in his natural form, he could in fact be acting for the camera in order to live up to the expectations of the masses. Evidence of this can even be found from the director of Don’t Look Back. In a 2003 interview, 36 years after the release of the documentary, D.A Pennebaker recalls Dylan’s behavior during his time with him. ‘’Being with Dylan was like being the inside of a tornado. We were in the middle of something, and us being there, filming
him, heightened everything for him too. The big difference between fiction movies and documentaries is that the actors in movies know they’re actors. But 10 minutes into shooting, Dylan knew he was an actor too.” (reference D.A. Pennebaker interviewed by Lynn Hirschberg in “Shooting for Pop History,” The New York Times. May 4, 2003; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851-2003), p. SM19) This is a clear weakness for direct cinema, as it shows it is not what critics would call ‘natural cinema’, since there is a form of showmanship and an act, for the camera. This is a weakness as it contradicts the idea of direct cinema and it could in fact be categorized as Hollywood ‘biopic’ since Dylan is essentially acting, conforming to the conventions of a traditional biopic.
Direct cinema at the time was a completely new way to document film. Despite this, similar conventions of traditional films at the time were still being implemented. Audiences require a structured kind of setting in order to understand and interpret the film to determine their readings. We see this in ‘Don’t Look Back’, where ‘Donovan’, a character, who Bob immediately dislikes – citing “Donovon who?” upon hearing his name the first time it is dropped. Throughout the film Donovan references are mentioned, and when the two finally clash at a hotel – a climax consequently occurs, where we see Bob Dylan at his angriest and loudest point in the film. This example demonstrates that, as the audience, only through the methodical structure is it made possible to understand and interpret the film. This is strength of direct cinema as once again it is able to bring about a connection between subject and audience member through this convention.
Moreover a strength of direct cinema, which many fans praised Pennebaker for, was the intimacy, the audience are able to experience with the subject. Prior to ‘Don’t Look Back’, cameras were too heavy to be carried around portably and so, had to be mounted on tripods, which limited the filmmakers in the sense that there was not a variety of shot angles available to them. The 1960 film ‘Primary’, revolutionised film documenting, as cameras were made lighter and were able to be placed on a person’s shoulder. This for one inhibited the use of a stand still tripod, and enabled ease and convenience of shooting from different angles. The introduction of close ups and other angles made possible by portable cameras, had, for the first time ever, given the opportunity for the audience to be transported into the scene allowing the audience to share the experience with the subject.
Furthermore, the filmmakers of Don’t Look Back labeled themselves to be the role of ‘observers’, or merely bystanders. They believed that “a camera will tell the truth, it’s the fly-on-the-wall. We’ll just follow people” (What is Cinéma Vérité? - Chronicle of a Summer, 2013). Which gave them access to the events that unraveled having no interference with the subject. A strength of filming in this natural form, means that audiences are open to develop their own opinion of the film. There is no given storyline, plot or narrative – the documentary becomes subjective and open to interpretation and audiences can develop their own readings of the film. “Instead of staged scenes dominated by a voice-over narration, the new documentary would let the action unfold naturally and permit people to speak for themselves.” (Thompson and Bordwell, 1994)
In contrast to this, cinéma vérité (cinema truth) – recorded reality objectively. First used by French ethnologist Jean Rouch, uses naturalistic techniques similar to direct cinema however there are differences, which show examples of weaknesses in direct cinema. The staged set-ups and involvement of filmmakers to provoke its subjects all make for a different kind of documentary. Cinéma vérité also takes provocative stances towards its topics making for a more entertaining documentary. As oppose to direct cinema, where audiences would wait for the story or plot to unfold out of raw material, cinéma vérité governs the story to give compelling, truthful entertainment.
Despite the idea of direct cinema contrasting to the objective approach from that of cinéma vérité, it is in a sense, still controlled. ‘Don’t Look Back’, had over twenty hours of raw footage. The final cut of the film was ninety-six minutes in total (DVDBEAVER, 2014). To make this possible, the filmmakers were required to make many cuts. Thus giving the filmmakers control and power over the image of Bob Dylan, and how they wish to portray Dylan to the audiences. This once again questions the underlying ideology of direct cinema.
Overall, the observational style of ‘Don’t Look Back’, shot in the direct cinema form shows many strengths and weaknesses. Audiences around the world at the time praised Pennebaker’s new style of documenting. The high contrast black and white film shot in the 16mm format shows how raw footage can be used as entertainment. The grainy shots, which at times are thrown in and out of focus and even the appearance of Pennebaker himself, in several scenes all added to the realism portrayed by direct cinema. Both the interaction and the synchronization of both newly introduced conventions of direct cinema as well as pre existing forms from other styles had also contributed to the success of what was deemed at the time to be a rehivolutionised form of media.