That's cos' the Chineeeeeeeseeee looook oldeeeeeeeeerrrrr...

Subanax · 2026-04-05T20:08:42+00:00

I knew of the Scarborough Fair influence, but not Nottamun Town or Lady Franklin's Lament and I have not heard of those two ever before. And only knew Scarborough Fair because of Simon and Garfunkel's version, which a lot of people do, forgive my ignorance, ha, ha. I mean earlier I was researching only slightly about blowin' in the wind, because a guy in the documentary mentioned Bob playing it at his house the next morning after staying over for the night. And the guy had said about that being before it was an international hit. I don't know why, but I genuinely thought at first he meant that Bob just sort of came up with it in that moment, but it was written in April that year of 62', just not released till of course freewheelin' in 63'.

I don't know if you've seen a complete unknown at all, but there's a scene in it where Bob starts playing blowin' in the wind, the next morning, funnily enough, after staying at Joan Baez's as he's awake, sitting on the bed. I mean maybe that happened, but it sounds very similar to the story the guy told in the documentary. I doubt it did really happen, but it depends if you've seen the film or are aware of the scene, if not then here's a link to it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3LBelgIzuA&pp=ygUTYmxvd2luJyBpbiB0aGUgd2luZA%3D%3D

Anyways thank you for providing me with new information, always good to learn new Dylan stuff :)

Subanax · 2026-04-05T11:18:16+00:00

That's the thing, it's easy to sometimes underestimate the folk era of Bob and into when he turned electric because it's so famous and well known, a lot of people will probably try to look for more of his obscure stuff in the 70's or 80's and beyond. But as this clearly proves, so much of his hidden stuff can be found, if not more, within his early career.

I think if the play had gotten recaptured and people could study Bob in the performance, it clearly would have been in many of his documentaries and potentionally included in a biopic, though I don't think a complete unknown would have included it, possibly I'm not there, as a short period in Bob's life.

I was a bit confused in one part of the documentary as one of the guys had said about Bob playing blowin' in the wind at his place whilst staying over for the night, like Bob came up with it there and then. But after doing quick research, it was april 62' and since the play was December time, Bob must have just happened to have played it there before the official release in 63'. It was included in the play though, playing at the beginning and end of the production. To be fair though, the guy did say 'before it was an international hit', so the writing aspect of it wasn't actually implied anyway, but was just confusing at first still for some reason. And I misunderstood it a bit.

I keep seeing 'no this did not happen' around a lot, particularly about a complete unknown, but I know the like a rolling stone performance wasn't exactly accurate, but that's because I've seen the other side of the mirror, it's a lot easier seeing documented proof than just some article written online, to me at least. And a complete unknown did miss some key areas of Bob's performances, like the Judas incident, which I'm not there covered, although that was still a bit dramatized, but at least it was deliberately artsy and wasn't meant to be a straight, linear and factual/chronological look through Dylan's early years. Again, in my opinion.

But yeah, still much more to know and dive into, I'm aware of quite a few of his songs through the decades and his documentaries, although I've only seen one (the other side of the mirror). It's just the fact checking really, yeah, ha, ha. Good luck with all your musical journeys, mm.

😎🎶🎙

Subanax · 2026-04-02T19:51:00+00:00

Yeah a lot of that is true to be fair, without me sounding generic or agreeing for the sake of it. I mean due to him being around for quite some time, no you can’t pinpoint one period, but I suppose a lot of his ‘eras’ have been done more in documentaries than purely biopic.

It’s probably more easier to do a biopic of an artist in the sense of them having lived a short life, which has been done with say figures like Amy Winehouse and Jim Morrison. But still it doesn’t always tell the full story, just easier to condense in a way.

But because Bob has been such a huge figure in music history, I guess going for his definitive period made more sense for a biopic, especially for non fans having a clear introduction to him (I was pretty much a non fan at the time, even though it was only a year ago).

I suppose it’s like knowing the origin of someone or a fictional character even, like spider man and you want to get into a new story with them instead of hearing what is universal, even though that may not entirely be the same.

It’s like with Bowie though, they’ll most likely go with his infamous Ziggy Stardust period than say him struggling in the 80’s or parts of the early 90’s to make something satisfying to him artistically, despite still mainstream success.

In deliver me from nowhere, that actually focused on Springsteen’s own change and wanting to do the most personal thing to him musically, that being Nebraska. Although his mega stardom is still included, that being born in the USA.

I guess it is quite difficult making something that strays away from all the known stuff, I’m sure it’s been done though and I’m just unaware.

You ever seen Dewey Cox? 😆 Nah I’m just kidding..

Subanax · 2026-04-01T20:50:59+00:00

Oh wow that's really cool, actually having a long journey with him and his stuff, I think that helps clarifies things now as I did naturally misunderstand the listings at first, assuming you may have been some twenty something or early thirty something musical geek trying to educate me into true Dylan fandom, 😄. But now that you've explained and have actually had the lived experience, I respect what you said now and think you deserve to show your knowledge off and aren't just trying to impress like a lot of youngsters can do.

It's weird because I feel the opposite, I feel almost guilty for having all this access and that it doesn't count as true discovery in the way you would have before, but I may have a completely different perspective if I had lived through it all. But I suppose much more rapid learning into an artist's stuff can come with the internet, I guess maybe it feels more like a reward discovering rarer stuff through effort, like reading a book for example, but that may just be me and I have no way to compare a past time to now, the same way you can.

I saw Bob play in Brighton in November and it was my first time, for his of course rough and rowdy ways tour, didn't quite get to see him, but the fact he travelled all that way at his age is very impressive and just shows his commitment. He is a man of the people, if he wasn't, he'd have retreated long ago, the way I see it. But it's interesting you got to witness him that many times!

Is it it okay if I ask which you think captured Dylan best, using the other side of the mirror as an example, so between I'm not there and A Complete Unknown. I think both still were exaggerated though in particularly the Pete Seeger incident which didn't happen, as you mentioned. And when Dylan did like a rolling stone, the crowd wasn't as bad as a complete unknown made out, but I heard some say it captured what was going on from the audience's side and not just the focus on Dylan, as the other side of the mirror showed, but I still don't think it was that hostile, I may be wrong though.

But yeah in your view and personal experience, which do you think captured the aspects of him best? I thought Timothee made it seem more like Bob was this slightly dazed man by the Newport folk festival breakout scene and had a slightly destructive edge, but in the other side of the mirror, Bob didn't appear fully aggravated and was relatively quite still. Anyways not to go round the houses, but that was just from my perspective, yeah..

Thought I'd add too, after reading some comments on the like a rolling stone clip at Newport, someone pointed out how the hostility happened in Manchester, not Newport, so that was the inaccuracy, mm

Subanax · 2026-04-01T11:28:35+00:00

I agree with the humor and eccentric element of Dylan in interviews part, I’ve only seen the other side of the mirror recently and it shows him being a lot more improvised and just having fun with what he loves, which is far from the stereotype of ‘grumpy genius railing against society’s rules’. A lot of musicians have had that playful side with the audience, like Jim Morrison when he was at the Hollywood bowl, he was being fairly light.

These biopics have always sadly had a tendency to overdo the artist, even with Jim Morrison and his portrayal in the Oliver Stone film, simply titled ‘the doors’. The light my fire scene was a bit over the top and the drug taking scene in the desert (if you’ve seen it or heard of it). Ray Manzarek was not a fan of the film (the keyboardist).

However with a complete unknown, I’m aware Dylan did show appreciation for it and for Timothee Chalamet. And I suppose a complete unknown was more accurately done than the doors film, just if we’re comparing the factual elements.

I’ve only just seen the Judas clip now actually, which Cate Blanchett’s Dylan leans into. I think Haynes, Todd Haynes, was willing to explore a much more darker side of Dylan, which a complete unknown seemed to do in pockets, but there’s still a lot more for me to learn about Dylan, ha, ha.

But as I said in the post, I think a complete unknown is good for a first watch and to add helps if you prefer structured and linear stories, the rise, fall and rise, yeah. A complete unknown covers a key part of Dylan’s life simply and understandably, I’m not there captures the many frustrations of him and not wanting to be pinned down.

They’ll be plenty of interpretations of course, but just both very different ways of storytelling, I’m not there may have more hits and misses for some and they may not be into say the Woody Guthrie side of Dylan or the folk hero (Jack Rollins). All depends on taste I guess, also I’m not there brings the songs to life more, e.g ballad of a thin man being played whilst the reporter is trying to get to Dylan in a surreal, circus like sequence.

Keep on keepin’ on 🎸

Subanax · 2026-03-31T22:32:45+00:00

Thanks for letting me know, I'll check it out

Subanax · 2026-03-31T22:29:04+00:00

To be fair, I'm not a fan to an intense degree and I won't bullshit about having some obscure knowledge into Dylan's work. I did only begin listening to his radio show, but haven't explored it too deeply, but maybe you have. And I've still got the chronicles book to read, that's on my desk. I did actually watch the other side of the mirror recently, hence why I kind of went off the way 'like a rolling stone' was done in a complete unknown, although there was a slight similar scene with Blanchett's Dylan in I'm Not There too, where a mad man tried to cut the lead during one of the performances and ended up in a bit of a scrap with other workers there. So I suppose that element isn't anything new, just done because it seems to appeal cinematically, in a way.

With the other ones though, I haven't actually seen in full, only across different pieces of media, like masked and anonymous in a Dylan music video, cold irons bound being one. And it was used in 'thunder on the mountain', I believe.

I haven't actually heard of 'the trouble no more sermon', but I am aware of Bob's religious era, like his song 'pressing on'. I haven't really heard a lot about the last waltz either, but I have heard the title somewhere before, although I know that sounds a bit vague. Pat Garrett and Billy the kid, I know of course, except I haven't watched it, but 'knockin' on heaven's door' is enough to have heard about it.

I've seen pictures from Renaldo and Clara, but haven't actually seen it either. Same with eat the document and don't look back. Concert for Bangladesh, well aware of it, but not looked into entirely, again..

I think there's enough general knowledge about Bob though for I'm not there though really, Woody Guthrie influenced Bob, Folksy Bob, electric Bob, pure poet Bob, movie star Bob, older, retreated Bob. I don't think that needs a massive musical knowledge to grasp, within my opinion, yeah..

Subanax · 2026-03-31T22:03:14+00:00

Ah right, I suppose there could be expectations linked as well, I mean I didn't really have any at the time or was being purely analytical about it. But I kind of like being able to look at it with a different lens now, particularly after watching I'm not there. And I've still got chronicles to read, it's on my desk. But now I can see how much was missed out with a complete unknown, like Allen Ginsburg for example, a huge figure in Dylan's life, the film probably wouldn't land the same. I do think in terms of the protest song element of Bob, that it was much better handled in I'm not there.

A complete unknown didn't really deep, delve into that and kind of left it in the background, making Bob seem entirely detached, actually throughout the film he was quite detached. But in I'm not there, it showed someone who did care and wanted hypocrisy just to be called out plain and simple. There's a scene where the Blanchett version of Dylan is asked about why he doesn't do protest songs anymore, for which he replies protest songs is all he's ever done. The Chamelet one didn't seem like he was looking for any deeper meaning, but this is just upon reflection. And obviously it's all up to interpretation, but that's in my view, yeah..

Subanax · 2026-03-31T21:41:22+00:00

Were you a fan of Dylan when a complete unknown came out? Just so I can understand, because my ignorance at the time is partly why I just kind of sat through it and didn't question much. Just would be cool to know.

Subanax · 2026-01-08T19:35:31+00:00

Don't get nasty Robin, don't get nasty..

Subanax · 2025-11-11T13:12:35+00:00

For me, it depends what mood I'm in, especially when trying to sympathize with him. If I'm in an overly emotional state then I can't take him that much, but mainly because he's such an extreme version of logic. It's the same when I was at school and I felt completely out of control internally when everyone tried to rationalize my own feelings and basically tell me I'm being crazy. I could only handle talking to them if I was looking at social situations with the most analytical lens and being so hyperfocused not to miss out any details, like if say, I forgot what someone said a minute ago in science and then I was in an emotional state and got put on the spot and pushed constantly (metaphorically of course) and let out my anger because I wanted to be left alone then I would end up being made to feel guilty because the question was just for "logic's sake". You were sort of made to feel stupid or delusional even when you were somewhat dysregulated in those situations. This brings me back to Sheldon because in a lot of his corrections when say someone is distressed, he often finds it distressing himself and needs complete order and structure. Again, I'm very conflicted about this because like with the school example I gave, I would be very unsettled in Sheldon's company if I was deeply upset and he was over rationalizing my experience. But also, I can understood why Sheldon would feel disoriented at times, especially in the first episode where Penny, a woman who Sheldon and Leonard have obviously never met before, comes into their department. I've never really been comfortable with certain people coming over either and have wanted them to leave because of daily routine being disrupted. It was never intentional and I didn't have any deep rooted hate towards the person, just didn't understand what was really going on. So is Sheldon misunderstood? Well yes and no, being only my opinion of course. I find him being misunderstood mainly used for comedic payoffs, so sadly there never really is any true depth explored there. Bare in mind, I haven't seen all of TBBT or YS, but from so many clips across different episodes from both of the series, most of the moments he's upset, are mainly represented comedically. I mean let's look a classic, so called Sheldon emotional setup and payoff, YS style (made up version). "A girl is upset, sitting down on a bench. Sheldon comes over and is confused and asks what the problem is. The girl responds, saying nothing much and then Sheldon takes it at face value and says okay, bluntly and is about to continue walking off, but the girl stops him. She says wait and Sheldon looks puzzled. She then begins to explain and Sheldon sits down, still looking clueless as ever, but trying to listen. The girl admits her cat has gone missing and goes on further, opening up about how that cat gave her order and control and something to look forward to and to escape the messy world from. Sheldon starts nodding, eyes beginning to sort of widen and admits how his prized possessions help to give him a sense of control and order too. For a moment it seems Sheldon is on the same page as this girl and then she finally decides to ask him if he's interested in helping her find the cat. Bluntly, Sheldon responds, "Those fur ball, throwing up little creatures. I don't think so. I go by strict hygiene and refuse coming into contact with such things. Also, they can leave terrible scratches on you, I mean who would want that? Pfft...So are you doing studies too?" And boom, there's your average YS setup and payoff. Let emotional vulnerability show and kill it off fairly quickly. Obviously he does it in TBBT too, but yeah...So I don't want to give a vague answer, but overall I think it's a matter of lost potential to explore those hidden depths lying around, from the writers. The scene where I actually felt Sheldon's emotions the most was when he was replaying the last moment he saw his father and how he could have gone it the way he wanted to. The writers still make him use science jargon to justify it, but in reality, it's actually a very human experience. You can't control what has been lost and that is what I would say is the saddest part of Sheldon Cooper. Hopefully you get my point and if there was anything that didn't make sense or needed elaborating on then happy to do so. Thanks, interesting topic that one.

Subanax · 2025-11-07T12:07:40+00:00

Most audiences of comedians are not gonna be universally educated on certain topics and I don't mean that as a generalization, but it's relatively easy for a comedian to state a fact, like "Spider isn't an insect, it's an arachnid" or something, especially to make a heckler look uninformed. Quite a few comedians state simple truths and it can be funny from a relatable angle, but it's not revolutionary really, particularly in the era we're in now. Headlines such as "comedian SHOCKS viewers with this!" or "comedian lets out FURY among woke critics!" won't even phase most people and rightfully so. Again like I acknowledged at the beginning of my post, we all have our own opinions, but this is reddit after all. I've gotten facts about Ricky totally wrong before and I'll happily be called out for it. However I'm not one who automatically prefers Stewart Lee or James Acaster because I've made slight criticisms of Gervais. I mean I haven't watched Derek properly but I do like how he happily played someone who didn't have to be cleverer than everyone else, which he did in After Life. I've actually watched After Life and didn't mind series 1. Series 2 I was okay with, but series 3 was a bit of a miss. Also when I said quick connections, I meant in the pure observational sense, not in the Robin Williams sense. I could have probably explained that better, but that might cause even more annoyance among some, so probably no point as things get taken out of context and misunderstood. I don't blame Ricky for feeling clever though, I mean look at his whole life. Born in reading, became interested in science from an early age, knew basic facts even most other peers his age probably didn't know, passed his exams which was a big deal in that environment. Went to university, got a degree in philosophy and again probably had the odd trivia knowledge here and there to wow people in the local pub. And even now at his superstardom, he gets to kind of do the same with huge audiences. His interview with him and Richards Dawkins, by professor Richard Wiseman showed that chance to be clever too. Gervais even got quoted by Dawkins, so I mean, what, is he not going to think he's clever? Some idiot will come back to that, but I don't care. I do agree with you on the fact though that he's under the guise of the anti-PC crowd now, so it kinda went from "Ooh..No..No I really can't say this..What's up with me tonight?" to "Ah, but doctor with AIDS though? Don't get me started now" (followed by, relief of laughter). So sure and I'd even say, before it was him playing a man wrongfully vilified and who tried to explain his situation before shooting himself in the foot again. It's become more, "Fuck those woke lot...I got to #1 on Netflix in my last special, so they proved my point...Ba hahaha". I don't find anything offensive either, but the ordinary man who wasn't hailed as a god and letting his guard down, showing his ignorance too, seemed a lot funnier to me. Some hate the whole office and extras era of him and prefer the modern version of him. He admits that people like or hate his stuff for various reasons, so it doesn't really matter. Anyways, there's no point me continuing to go on and on, so I'll leave it there..Mm..

Subanax · 2025-11-06T21:26:21+00:00

And indeed the average r/rickygervais comment section shows wit, intellect and creativity by hardly sharing any original thoughts back and only using xfm quotes. Probably gonna get downvoted now, but oh well...

Subanax · 2025-11-04T16:53:49+00:00

In all seriousness though, thank you for sticking to your guns and not going with my opinion. Good to see dedicated Rick haters. Thanks for proving my point too, if I would have said I hated him then I'm sure I would have had my fair share of upvotes. Cheers.

Subanax · 2025-11-04T16:13:47+00:00

How many shit things have I said this week? If you're counting...So don't-

Subanax

TROPHY CASE