### Joan Baez and Bob Dylan’s Reaction to the Dylan Biopic Perfectly Encapsulates Their Unique Attitudes and Careers
The release of *I’m Not There* in 2007, Todd Haynes’ unconventional biopic about Bob Dylan, was an artistic statement in itself, deconstructing the idea of a single, unified biographical narrative. The film portrays the legendary singer-songwriter through multiple actors, each representing different facets of Dylan’s persona. The film’s fragmented approach to Dylan’s life and music aligns with his own resistance to being pinned down by any one identity or genre, and it also highlights the contrasting ways in which Dylan’s peers, particularly Joan Baez, reacted to the portrayal of their shared history.
Joan Baez’s and Bob Dylan’s reactions to *I’m Not There* encapsulate much about their careers, attitudes, and public personas. While Dylan himself responded ambiguously to the film, Baez’s reaction revealed her more reflective, grounded nature and her tendency to view her personal history through a lens of intimacy and legacy. Both reactions mirror their unique roles in the 1960s folk music scene and their subsequent divergent paths in the years that followed. Their differing responses to the film also shed light on their contrasting artistic approaches, personal journeys, and public images.
### Bob Dylan: The Elusive Icon
Bob Dylan has long been an enigma in both his personal and professional life. From the early days of his career, he resisted categorization, shifting between musical styles, personas, and ideologies with remarkable fluidity. He reinvented himself continuously—each album was a new iteration, a new sound, a new philosophy. From the protest songs of the early ’60s to the electric revolution of *Bringing It All Back Home*, Dylan’s evolution signaled a profound rejection of the notion that an artist, or their life, could be neatly packaged into a digestible narrative. He once remarked, “I’m just a song and dance man,” further emphasizing his refusal to be defined by any one thing.
Dylan’s reaction to *I’m Not There* was, as might be expected, characterized by his usual reticence and distance. When asked about the film, Dylan made only fleeting remarks, noting that he thought it was “interesting” but that he hadn’t watched it in its entirety. Dylan’s indifference wasn’t so much a rejection of the film as it was a continuation of his longstanding reluctance to engage with the public’s expectations of him. For Dylan, the biopic was another attempt to pin him down, to turn his life and music into something that could be easily understood and consumed. In his career, he had consistently subverted such expectations, whether through his unpredictable music or his notoriously difficult interviews. This refusal to provide a definitive statement about his life and work in *I’m Not There* aligns with his broader approach to fame—an unwillingness to allow others to dictate his identity.
Furthermore, Dylan’s ambiguity toward *I’m Not There* is consistent with his desire for autonomy over his own narrative. Over the decades, he had faced an overwhelming desire from critics, fans, and even friends to define him, to reduce his complexity to a single story or image. The fragmented nature of the biopic, which presents multiple “Dylans” rather than a cohesive whole, reflects his personal view of identity as a fluid and ever-changing concept. It is a story not about who he was, but about who he could be, continually shifting to evade capture.
Dylan’s reluctance to engage with or validate any single narrative about his life is also a direct reflection of his distrust of the media. From his early days in New York City to his tumultuous relationship with the press, he was known for being both elusive and combative. The biopic, by offering a portrayal of his life through multiple, often contradictory lenses, suggests that Dylan—like his music—is meant to be interpreted in myriad ways. His disinterest in discussing the film in depth signals his desire to let the work speak for itself, without being tethered to his personal involvement.
### Joan Baez: The Reflective Storyteller
In stark contrast to Dylan’s ambivalence, Joan Baez’s reaction to *I’m Not There* was more nuanced and contemplative. Baez, who was deeply entwined with Dylan’s life during the early years of his career, expressed a more personal connection to the film. In interviews, she revealed that she found the portrayal of her and Dylan’s relationship in the film to be both “accurate” and “touching,” but also acknowledged the pain of reliving that history. Baez’s response, unlike Dylan’s, was rooted in a sense of legacy. She seemed to view the film not only as a portrayal of Dylan but also as a moment to reflect on the shared history of the 1960s folk music scene and her own role within it.
Baez’s emotional reaction to the film underscores her relationship with her past and the way she has navigated her public persona. Unlike Dylan, who often downplays his early years and seeks to distance himself from the folk movement of the 1960s, Baez has often embraced the historical significance of her contributions to music and activism. She continues to maintain a close connection to her folk roots and has dedicated much of her career to advocating for social justice, making her response to the film more reflective of a life lived in alignment with her artistic and personal values.
Baez’s acknowledgment of her connection to the film also highlights her more grounded relationship with fame. While Dylan resented the way he was idolized and mythologized, Baez, perhaps because of her long-standing role as a symbol of peace, protest, and political consciousness, has maintained a relatively more stable relationship with her public persona. She doesn’t recoil from her past as much as Dylan does; rather, she appears to embrace it as part of her ongoing journey as an artist and activist.
Additionally, Baez’s response to *I’m Not There* reflects her long-standing sense of self-awareness and self-possession. Throughout her career, she has always been much more open with her emotions and more willing to engage with her personal history. In contrast to Dylan’s shifty and elusive approach to interviews and public life, Baez has consistently used her platform to speak candidly about her experiences, including her turbulent relationship with Dylan. This openness is part of why she responded to the film with a mix of affection and melancholy—she has lived through and worked through much of the drama depicted in the movie, and while it may bring up old wounds, it also offers her an opportunity for closure.
### Conclusion: Diverging Paths, Shared History
The contrasting reactions of Joan Baez and Bob Dylan to *I’m Not There* offer a fascinating window into their respective careers, personalities, and artistic approaches. While Dylan remains the elusive, self-constructed icon who avoids being reduced to a simple narrative, Baez embraces the complexity of her past, using it as a springboard for reflection and continued activism. Dylan’s response, characterized by disinterest and detachment, speaks to his desire for autonomy and control over his identity. Baez, on the other hand, remains a more empathetic figure, one who reflects on her past while accepting the role she played in shaping it.
Their reactions to the film are a microcosm of the larger dynamics between them—two artists whose lives and careers were deeply intertwined but who eventually took very different paths. Dylan, the ever-evolving chameleon, and Baez, the steadfast storyteller and activist, reflect the diverging ways in which their personal and artistic lives unfolded. The biopic, in its attempt to capture Dylan’s essence, highlights both the impossibility of truly capturing a figure as complex as Dylan and the ways in which his history continues to affect those who were closest to him.
Leave a Reply