BB on The Devil and DJ

This is my second time watching this film. I had heard of Daniel Johnston, but didn't know how. Then I heard a Bright Eyes cover of Devil Town and I thought it was amazing. So I went and watched the movie. Since this was my second time watching the film, I was able to take a step back. The film making is engaging and dynamic, perfectly blending home video, stories, art, audio and recreations to tell about Daniel's life. I think watching it a second time allowed me to think my way through it a bit more than to just engage with it emotionally.

First off, I, like many of you, am excited by the odd, the offbeat, and the romance of a life lived on one's own accord. Many however, are not.

And for them, I'm sure they wonder if they're the butt of an elaborate joke when presented with Daniel Johnston and his pinched vocals and sloppy guitar. And to a certain degree I must agree. Just like some abstract art seems self indulgent and absurd (the bad kind), it feels at times like Daniel Johnston was someone who was cool to get into. To sport a "Hi, How are you" T-Shirt like Kurt Cobain and scoff at the commoners who just don't get it. In fact, there are many times when the interviewees make comments about Daniel's self indulgence, about his desire to be famous, about self fulfilled unrequited love and first and foremost Daniel's opinion of himself as an important artist. Is this earnestness, egoism, naivety, a symptom of his illness, or truth?

For me this question is best represented by his cassette tapes. Not the DIY albums but the letters on tape played throughout the movie. Are these a sort of diary, if so, why were they shared? Was it because he felt his story was so important? Was it important because he was a great artist or because he was a human being? Maybe it was just a way to communicate, after all, there were no cell phones then. The enigma that is these recordings to me describes Daniel Johnston. Equal parts self indulgence, honesty, creativity and sickness. At least I'd like to think that they all share an equal role. I guess I'm still left with the question that seems impossible to answer.

This combination of traits really does feel a lot like Salinger's Glass family. And a comment made earl in the film about the Johnston's being a right wing Christian version of the Glass family certainly felt more and more true by the end of the film. The fact that as Daniel became more and more sick the more convicted he became in his religious upbringing was fascinating, but what was more fascinating was the love the family showed for each other after all the headaches and heartaches of Daniel's life.

The music. The fact that Daniel's disease has left him in many ways an intellectual adolescent has allowed him to pine for a girl he hardly knows, just the way I did when I was 15 and started writing music. I've often wondered if a lot of musicians never really get past this phase. They see something, they want it, they're upset they can't have it. How else can Simple Plan write songs that sound like they're for 13 year olds when the artists are pushing 30? It doesn't seem far fetched to proposed arrested development. While for many this would be that shallow, for Daniel it's far more honest and his brain far more creative. Part of that is because he is sick and part of that is because he has a unique perspective of the world. There are some Daniel Johnston songs that I cannot get into, and there are others that make me stop what I am doing and just soak in the beauty.

Daniel's music and Daniel's art (which I think I like even more than his music) both could be classified as folk art, which brings up a new series of questions and thoughts. Daniel started creating from a young age and was obviously influenced by bands like the Beatles and Bob Dylan and comic book art. He then went on to be trained in art at school. Is that folk art? Art is never created in a vacuum and it seems more honest to just create than to try to create something different, but where does "real" art stop and folk art begin? Is the fact that his music breaks the mold warrant it folk art? Is it possible that it just breaks the mold because he couldn't do it any other way? The conversation now moves away from folk art to modern art. Many people could paint like Rothko or Pollack but that wasn't the point. Most of those artists were talented even in a more traditional sense. Those artists were intentional in their actions, Daniel seems unintentional in his. I did notice that the torso in his drawings looks much more life like than his other cartoons, showing that he might very well be a talented traditional artist. It seems like he found his style and has stuck to it. Additionally he has created his pantheon of characters to explore his feelings and thoughts. Again, this whole conversation leaves me with no real answers, but plenty to think about.

Perhaps the most interesting parallel drawn in the film is between Daniel and Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys. I'd be interested to know how my fellow reviewers feel about this parallel. Are they that similar? If so, how does their art compare? It would seem to be pretty hard to mess with the Beach Boys but maybe that's not the end of the discussion. I'd really like you all to weigh in. In light of the similarities between Brian Wilson and Daniel Johnston, what can we say about Daniel Johnston's art?

Finally, I'm left with one thought that was actually part of a pretty crappy ad campaign. Smart Critiques, Stupid Creates. Daniel is prolific. He picks something up and creates. I've spent all this time wondering about its artistic merit and just created a diarrhea of words for my poor movie clubbers to sift through. Kinda makes you think, huh? Dang it! I mean, kinda makes you want to create, huh?