I appreciate this. As one of those die-hard Phil Ochs fans, I was shocked to hear from my sister, who saw the film upon its release, that Phil doesn't appear and isn't mentioned. How does one erase Phil Ochs from a film that is supposed to largely take place in that 1960-1965 period? I think Ochs was with Dylan when they met Pete Seeger for the first time. I read an interview with the director that Dylan had to approve every single page of the screenplay. Dylan's jealousy of Ochs has not yet dissipated, I suppose.
Ochs was definitely frustrated after Dylan kicked him out of the limo for not liking "Blond on Blond." And when Dylan went around publicly denigrating Ochs as a journalist, not a songwriter. Ochs wanted far more fame on the level of Dylan, sure. But you should find it at least odd that Dylan ensured Ochs was a non person in the biopic script.
I really appreciated this article, David. Two parts stood out for me: where you mention the movie about the Irish musicians, noting the scenes that "where things happen that just would never happen with real musicians or in a real recording studio..." That observation is easily transferable to stories--movies, novels, TV, etc.--where activism and activists are depicted. Of course, such depictions are way less frequent than is warranted considering how crucial activists are to our survival, but when they are portrayed it's often in ways that are unrealistic, incorrect, vague, or stereotyped. Not very helpful for learning from or identifying with them.
The second point is related: that the music industry rarely promotes artists who consistently write explicitly topical, political, songs about the world, preferring artists "on the vague end of political commentary."
In other words, the music (or movie) industry will allow in a certain amount of activism, as long as it does not give people information or inspiration that might directly lead them to organize for social transformation--which the music industry, like the other facets of capitalism, wants to prevent at all costs.
All valid points. Still, the movie is great; go see it. The actors did a fine job, “Joan Baez” sings beautifully. tThey say Timothee Chalamet worked for years to get his part right and it shows. Plus Pete Seeger, Woody Guthrie and Johnny Cash. All set in 1960’s New York City, mostly Greenwich Village, a little Riverside Church and New Jersey. I have no idea how accurate it really is, but it’s a great time. My 24 year old daughter loved it and so did I.
We know that Sean Penn's interested in doing an Ochs biopic decades ago. He even had Megan Ochs working for him. I'm glad that never happened. Too much melodrama. I don't like biopics.
I appreciate this. As one of those die-hard Phil Ochs fans, I was shocked to hear from my sister, who saw the film upon its release, that Phil doesn't appear and isn't mentioned. How does one erase Phil Ochs from a film that is supposed to largely take place in that 1960-1965 period? I think Ochs was with Dylan when they met Pete Seeger for the first time. I read an interview with the director that Dylan had to approve every single page of the screenplay. Dylan's jealousy of Ochs has not yet dissipated, I suppose.
That is sad, disappointing and shocking to here. Another fan of Phil Ochs here.
Yeah, Ochs was THE most important musician in my life. Sinatra then Ochs.
I got to see him at the end during the Max's Kansas City shows.
(And went to the Chile Felt Forum thing too, this all was before I move to NYC. Phil did not sing that night.)
Dylan's jealousy of Ochs? Get real. It was the other way around.
Ochs was definitely frustrated after Dylan kicked him out of the limo for not liking "Blond on Blond." And when Dylan went around publicly denigrating Ochs as a journalist, not a songwriter. Ochs wanted far more fame on the level of Dylan, sure. But you should find it at least odd that Dylan ensured Ochs was a non person in the biopic script.
I really appreciated this article, David. Two parts stood out for me: where you mention the movie about the Irish musicians, noting the scenes that "where things happen that just would never happen with real musicians or in a real recording studio..." That observation is easily transferable to stories--movies, novels, TV, etc.--where activism and activists are depicted. Of course, such depictions are way less frequent than is warranted considering how crucial activists are to our survival, but when they are portrayed it's often in ways that are unrealistic, incorrect, vague, or stereotyped. Not very helpful for learning from or identifying with them.
The second point is related: that the music industry rarely promotes artists who consistently write explicitly topical, political, songs about the world, preferring artists "on the vague end of political commentary."
In other words, the music (or movie) industry will allow in a certain amount of activism, as long as it does not give people information or inspiration that might directly lead them to organize for social transformation--which the music industry, like the other facets of capitalism, wants to prevent at all costs.
All valid points. Still, the movie is great; go see it. The actors did a fine job, “Joan Baez” sings beautifully. tThey say Timothee Chalamet worked for years to get his part right and it shows. Plus Pete Seeger, Woody Guthrie and Johnny Cash. All set in 1960’s New York City, mostly Greenwich Village, a little Riverside Church and New Jersey. I have no idea how accurate it really is, but it’s a great time. My 24 year old daughter loved it and so did I.
I absolutely hate the idea that future generations are going to think that Dylan was a wimpy pretty boy with no genuine talent.
'There but for Fortune' is covered by Baez/Monica in one of the Newport scenes.
We know that Sean Penn's interested in doing an Ochs biopic decades ago. He even had Megan Ochs working for him. I'm glad that never happened. Too much melodrama. I don't like biopics.