New at Reason

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptions

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

(310) 367-6109

Editorial & Production Offices:

3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245

Print|Email

December 10, 2007

Brian Doherty revisits the 1960s through two new movies, the Dylan biopic I'm Not There, and the half-documentary, half-animation Chicago 10.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

← Is Chris Dodd Only Two Notches… | Main | Condom Carbon Credits →

See all 10 comments | Leave a comment

|12.10.07 @ 2:27PM|#

Excellent piece, Brian.

Rainbow|12.10.07 @ 3:20PM|#

The 60's were a steaming pile of shit.

ed|12.10.07 @ 3:26PM|#

Does that mean you were there or weren't, Rainbow?
Not that your opinion matters.

|12.10.07 @ 3:27PM|#

Feh. I thought they jumped the shark after Chicago IX, anyway.

Skip|12.10.07 @ 3:57PM|#

"Not that your opinion matters."

What a fuckin' asshole.

|12.10.07 @ 3:57PM|#

I will always remember "The Chicago 7" because they inspired the first of reply to this

Anyone else ever notice how much cooler the 60s were in Europe versus America? In Europe you get Catherine Deneuve and French Cinema and Mary Ann Faithful. Think swinging London in the movie Alfie. What do you think of when you think of the 1960s in America? Some fat dirty hippie yelling "the New York Throughway is Closed Man". Yuck.

|12.10.07 @ 5:10PM|#

Someday, I hope that someone makes a movie about Bob Roberts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Roberts

Now there was a "volk" singer we can all enjoy!

Mad Max|12.10.07 @ 11:10PM|#

From the article:

"Dylan was famously condemned as 'Judas' by a British fan on his first electric tour . . ."

Nowadays, we recognize this as a compliment - everybody knows that Judas was Jesus' BFF.

Paul|12.11.07 @ 1:27PM|#

Forgive my tardiness to the thread, but I'm curious about the comments regarding Bobby Seale and the fairness of the trial.

A common protest tactic during the period of the sixties was to force figures of authority into an act of violence or repression by disrupting a given proceeding. I know I'm being a little clumsy here with the language, but bear with me.

From my perspective, Bobby Seale didn't want a fair trial. Bobby Seale intended to bring chaos to the courtroom and thus invite something just like being bound and gagged as "proof" that he couldn't get a fair trial.

Yes, Judge Hoffman was a rather well known cantankerous old fuddy-duddy who, from what I've read, was always sympathetic to the government's positions.

But isn't this precisely the venue that Bobby Seale wanted? An excerpt:

Seale wouldn't be stifled. He continued to disrupt the proceedings, yelling such epithets as "pig" and "fascist" at Hoffman, likening him to a plantation slave owner. Finally, on October 29, Hoffman's thin reserve of patience ran out and he ordered Seale gagged and bound to a chair. As Seale struggled to free himself, court attendants roughly manhandled him, an action that brought Kunstler to his feet in loud protest: "Your Honor, are we going to stop this medieval torture that is going on in this courtroom? I think this is a disgrace."

This was clearly a show trial, not only for the government, but for Seale and the counterculture. You can't rightly scream "oppression!" if you're being treated with fairness and due process. So you agitate the proceedings causing an oppressive act to be perpetrated.

I would imagine that any mainstream white, middle-class male entering a courtroom and acting in any way similar while engaging in his own defense would likely receive some "gag", be it literal or figurative.

Yes, one can certainly argue that the ham-fisted manner in which they handled Seale was wrong, or at minimum, ill-advised. Ill-advised because this is exactly what Seale was aiming for.

Reason Magazine