I'm Not There (Haynes, 2007)

[Duncan]

It's awesome. Best movie of the year. Just got back from it, may write more later.

[Rowland]

Are you a big Dylan fan?

[Sven]

I'm very interested in reading an appealing defense of the movie. Everything I've heard anybody say about it has made me go "Hmmmm..." in a mostly "uh-oh" kind of way.

Plus, the last Haynes musician biopic, Velvet Goldmine, was the uber-suck.

[eternity]

I want to make the drive out to go see either this or Margot. I'm just too much of a lazy ass.

[Duncan]

Are you a big Dylan fan?

Pretty big. Not like KF or anything, but I own maybe five albums and have about five more downloaded.

[Duncan]

I'm very interested in reading an appealing defense of the movie. Everything I've heard anybody say about it has made me go "Hmmmm..." in a mostly "uh-oh" kind of way.

Plus, the last Haynes musician biopic, Velvet Goldmine, was the uber-suck.

What kind of a defense would appeal to you? Answer, then I'll write it.

It's funny, if that helps.

[Sycophant]

I'll probably be seeing this some time in the next two weeks. Even the most positive reviews make me think this is a movie I'm going to hate, and that if I do, it's going to be a chore to defend my position. Hearing an interview on the radio with Haynes the other day did nothing to convince me otherwise.

Frankly, I'm not interested in the mythologization of Dylan. Believe me, though. I actually do want to like this.

[number8]

I don't think it's a movie I would recommend anyone to see unless I know for sure that they'd dig it.

[Duncan]

I don't think it's a movie I would recommend anyone to see unless I know for sure that they'd dig it.

It is a little bizarre.

[number8]

It's not even the fact that it's bizarre. It's that it's purposely bizarre just to weed out the non-Dylan fans. Unless you're a little bit pretentious, I don't think there's any reason to see it if you're not well-versed in the myth of Dylan.

[Rowland]

I don't think there's any reason to see it if you're not well-versed in the myth of Dylan.This is exactly the impression I'm getting. The movie may be a masterpiece on its own terms, but quite frankly, I don't think I'm in a position to respond emotionally or really parse it in any meaningful or resonant way.

[Duncan]

It's not even the fact that it's bizarre. It's that it's purposely bizarre just to weed out the non-Dylan fans. Unless you're a little bit pretentious, I don't think there's any reason to see it if you're not well-versed in the myth of Dylan.

I disagree, but I've got a bottle of wine in me and am in no condition to respond coherently.

[Derek]

I would say it'd be better to be a fan of Todd Haynes than Bob Dylan and more familiar with semiotics than Dylan's discography to like the film. Or, like number8 said, be a little bit pretentious. Honestly, none of those are even really necessary. I knew very little about his personal life going in and while it probably would've let to a few more deeper connections, I certainly didn't feel lost because of it. Like Duncan said, best film of the year.

I will wager my left testicle that iosos dislikes it.

[MadMan]

It's not even the fact that it's bizarre. It's that it's purposely bizarre just to weed out the non-Dylan fans. Unless you're a little bit pretentious, I don't think there's any reason to see it if you're not well-versed in the myth of Dylan.See I fear all of this. I'm not in the least pretentious, and I'm more of a casual fan of Dylan than a diehard fan of his music and his life. That said the extremely positive review in Newsweek this week was a good sign. The film seems more like a fascinating experiment than anything else.

[monolith94]

Well, I thought it was great, just really, really great. The cinematography alone is worth the price of admission. See it on the big screen if you have the chance, do NOT wait for DVD.

[Ezee E]

See I fear all of this. I'm not in the least pretentious, and I'm more of a casual fan of Dylan than a diehard fan of his music and his life. That said the extremely positive review in Newsweek this week was a good sign. The film seems more like a fascinating experiment than anything else.
Certain types of film fans will probably like this as well if they aren't fans of Bob Dylan.

It would be a great movie if it weren't for that Gere sequence.

[number8]

It would be a great movie if it weren't for that Gere sequence.

What a silly thing to say. That sequence resonated the most with me.

[Ezee E]

What a silly thing to say. That sequence resonated the most with me.
Sure. It did for me too. Resonated with idiocracy.

[EvilShoe]

What a silly thing to say. That sequence resonated the most with me.
Indeed!
It also helps that this bit had the brilliant "Goin' To Acapulco" cover.

[NickGlass]

I'm Not There isn't just designed to please Dylan acolytes--it's for lovers of pure cinema as well. I hope most of you enjoy it as much as I did.

[Duncan]

I'm Not There isn't just designed to please Dylan acolytes--it's for lovers of pure cinema as well. I hope most of you enjoy it as much as I did.

Exactly.

[Derek]

Exactly.

Not true, we're just pretentious.

[Sycophant]

Exactly.
Good. Because I'm not terribly interested in Dylan's mystique, nor marvelling at the grandeur or participating in the deification of any celebrity for that matter.

[Derek]

Good. Because I'm not terribly interested in Dylan's mystique, nor marvelling at the grandeur or participating in the deification of any celebrity for that matter.

It's certainly not about the deification of celebrity. It's more of deconstruction of the biopic than anything else and the inability of cinema to pin down something as complex and ever-shifting as identity within the constraints of a traditional narrative arc. Haynes is as self-aware as ever, comically layering actual events with fictional, taking us into films within the film to suggest the impossibility of differentiating between the real/actual Dylan and the mystique of Dylan as filtered to us through the media. Haynes clearly knows a lot about Dylan, but I think he uses him more to present ideas he himself is fascinated with rather than coming across these ideas through researching Dylan's life. I said it before, but it's at least as much a film for Haynes fans (ie, fans of cinema) as it is for Dylan's.

[Winston*]

Haynes fans (ie, fans of cinema)
Take that, iosos!

[Derek]

Good. Because I'm not terribly interested in Dylan's mystique, nor marvelling at the grandeur or participating in the deification of any celebrity for that matter.

It's certainly not about the deification of celebrity. It's more of a deconstruction of the biopic than anything else and the inability of cinema to pin down something as complex and ever-shifting as identity within the constraints of a traditional narrative arc. Haynes is as self-aware as ever, comically layering actual events with fictional, taking us into films within the film to suggest the impossibility of differentiating between the real/actual Dylan and the mystique of Dylan as filtered to us through the media. Haynes clearly knows a lot about Dylan, but I think he uses him more to present ideas he himself is fascinated with rather than coming across these ideas through researching Dylan's life. I said it before, but it's at least as much a film for Haynes fans (ie, fans of cinema) as it is for Dylan's.

[Derek]

Take that, iosos!

That wasn't meant as a shot against iosos at all. The only reason I'm pretty sure that he won't like it is his general distaste for films as intellectual conceits that are more concerned with theories and ideas than emotional engagement. And not to say that there's none of latter in the film, but it's delivered with an ironic distance that he tends to also dislike. Anyway, I never meant to drag iosos into this though I do wish he was going in without an "uh oh" attitude, which usually leads to him disliking the film.

I'm also starting to realize that iosos himself is becoming a myth; an idea so grand that he can be argued about as if he weren't merely a person we can converse with, but a force whose influence can be felt in the threads of every thread. I think he should be the focus of Haynes' next film. :)

[Sycophant]

I'm also starting to realize that iosos himself is becoming a myth; an idea so grand that he can be argued about as if he weren't merely a person we can converse with, but a force whose influence can be felt in the threads of every thread. I think he should be the focus of Haynes' next film. :)If iosos still lived near me, I'd totally be getting to work on this film right now. Except instead of being portrayed by different actors, it would be iosos himself wearing a variety of cheesey disguises and wielding his mighty arsenal of voices.

[Derek]

If iosos still lived near me, I'd totally be getting to work on this film right now. Except instead of being portrayed by different actors, it would be iosos himself wearing a variety of cheesey disguises and wielding his mighty arsenal of voices.

And it would feature the ukelele more than any mainstream film in history. I'd totally pre-order the soundtrack.

[Rowland]

I'm Not There isn't just designed to please Dylan acolytes--it's for lovers of pure cinema as well. I hope most of you enjoy it as much as I did.Sure, but it's still dispiriting to imagine that I'll be missing a gazillion references that will probably detract from my appreciation of the movie.

[Duncan]

I have a few reservations in retrospect. The first one is the casting of Cate Blanchett. She's wonderful in the role. It's a brilliant turn, I have no qualms with her skill. However, in the rest of the scenarios the other characters respond to the Bob Dylan avatar as he looks. ie. They look at the little black kid as a little black kid. Why don't they look at Blanchett as a woman? Unless they went over my head, there don't seem to be any comments in that section (or any section) on Dylan's feminine side, so why is she cast at all?

Secondly, I suppose I can understand Rowland's concern that he won't get all the references. As a sort of litmus test, Rowland, do you know what the cover of The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan looks like? Anyway, there was one moment when people were laughing at a joke I didn't get at all that made me a little uncomfortable. It came with the introduction of Julianne Moore's character. Apparently she was supposed to be Joan Baez, but I didn't pick up on that. She's pretty funny without knowing that though.

[Ezee E]

I have a few reservations in retrospect. The first one is the casting of Cate Blanchett. She's wonderful in the role. It's a brilliant turn, I have no qualms with her skill. However, in the rest of the scenarios the other characters respond to the Bob Dylan avatar as he looks. ie. They look at the little black kid as a little black kid. Why don't they look at Blanchett as a woman? Unless they went over my head, there don't seem to be any comments in that section (or any section) on Dylan's feminine side, so why is she cast at all?

Secondly, I suppose I can understand Rowland's concern that he won't get all the references. As a sort of litmus test, Rowland, do you know what the cover of The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan looks like? Anyway, there was one moment when people were laughing at a joke I didn't get at all that made me a little uncomfortable. It came with the introduction of Julianne Moore's character. Apparently she was supposed to be Joan Baez, but I didn't pick up on that. She's pretty funny without knowing that though.
To me, each Dylan story was in its own world that had different rules. What went on in Cate Blanchett's world didn't have to go on in Richard Gere's or Christian Bale's, etc.

[monolith94]

Man, Peter Rainer of the Christian Science Monitor gave this a c-. Stupid Rainer.

[Rowland]

Armond White's review:

http://www.nypress.com/20/47/film/ArmondWhite.cfm

This makes for a refreshing contrast to you guys. http://www.match-cut.org/images/smilies/razz.gif

[Sven]

Armond White's review:

http://www.nypress.com/20/47/film/ArmondWhite.cfm

And Anthony Lane's.

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2007/11/26/071126crci_cinema_lane

Duncan, write a review that is a retort to these two reviews.

[Sven]

I'm also starting to realize that iosos himself is becoming a myth; an idea so grand that he can be argued about as if he weren't merely a person we can converse with, but a force whose influence can be felt in the threads of every thread. I think he should be the focus of Haynes' next film. :)

:lol: :)

I'm trying to keep an open mind, but with Haynes's track record with me, it's hard to be completely open to what sounds like his most pretentious project yet. Even more than Barbie-as-Karen-Carpenter (which honestly I thought was going to be tough to beat).

It may be true that I'm more attracted to films that work as narratives - not necessarily "emotional engagement" - as opposed to commentaries or experiments (although there are plenty of notable exceptions, I think, given my passion for Lynch, Bergman, Kitano, Altman, among others). I do like films that aim more for the heart than the mind.

But from what I've heard, this movie just seems like it's got too many annoying things for me to be excited about. I'm definitely interested in seeing it, but a comment like "great camera work" is far outweighed by something like "camp knowingness of the script". The idea of people quoting Dylan lines as lines of dialogue has me cringing already... Across the Universe was bad enough!

[Duncan]

And Anthony Lane's.

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2007/11/26/071126crci_cinema_lane

Duncan, write a review that is a retort to these two reviews.
I'm thinking. I'm pretty sure I could tear White's to shreds. He simplifies the movie to the point of quoting the trailer (in capital letters no less), which is a tad pathetic. He also takes the very cheap route of making the film seem borderline racist. He's playing the faux victim game so as to automatically claim moral high ground as an offended black man. It's incorrect, needlessly confrontational, and regressive. I don't think I'll respond further to his review because Anthony Lane says everything worthwhile that Armond does, and then some.

[Duncan]

I’m Not There (Haynes, 2007)

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/weinstein_company/i_m_not_there/cate_blanchett/dylan3.jpg

There is no denying that I’m Not There is a film based on an intellectual conceit. It is a film “inspired by the life and music of Bob Dylan” without a single character named Bob Dylan. Instead of the traditional biopic we have six fictional short films woven together in an attempt to portray a complete portrait of, arguably, the 20th century’s preeminent artist. It’s idiotic and doomed to failure. Spending an average of approximately twenty minutes with six disparate characters is never going satisfactorily summarize a man’s life. Luckily, director Todd Haynes knows this from the start and so pursues other investigations.

Anthony Lane and Armond White both come to the realization early in their negative reviews of I’m Not There that this is not a film about Bob Dylan. It features his music, and features some of the notable events in his life. However, these moments are exaggerated to the point of caricature. The purpose of this embellishment is not to celebrate Dylan as some sort of mythical creature, or to deify him. Rather, Haynes uses Dylan’s status as the artist to comment on the Artist.

Flags thrown. Penalty on the play. That was pretentious. Alright, but let’s review the call, shall we? (Sorry, I spent a lot of hours watching college football today.) I think considering Walk the Line as a comparison film could be productive. Here is a paint-by-numbers biopic that proposes to render Johnny Cash’s psychology, artistic motivations, deepest passions, and darkest moments on celluloid. It proposes to give its audience a complete picture of a man. A complete picture of a man. Now consider I’m Not There. Instead of daring to declare itself capable of defining a man (any man), it deconstructs that erroneous proposal and decides to explore the Artist’s role, responsibilities, and freedoms. The Artist, as I am using it, is merely an idea. It is one of civilization’s many collective concepts that people feel the need to prod now and then. So my question is this: which film is more pretentious? Is it the one that claims to accurately depict a man’s life? Or is it the one that uses deliberately exaggerated moments from a well known man’s life to examine an intellectual concept? I don’t think the answer is entirely clear, but I certainly know how I would respond.

Aside from this, I’m Not There is simply great filmmaking. The direction is lively and fun. It takes risks with aesthetic and narrative experimentation. White derisively notes that Haynes “parod[ies]” 8 ½ and then lazily dismisses Haynes as indulging in shallow cinephilia. White doesn’t even bother to consider why this decision was made. I feel confident saying it is because both films are struggling with the same problems. These are the Artist’s need to express himself, the struggle for an audience, the audience’s appreciation or misinterpretation of the expression, the Artist’s need for escape from the audience’s expectations, etc. The parallels between the two films are many. 8 ½ even has multiple actors playing the same character.

The script does indeed drop lines from Dylan’s songs into the dialogue. Deal with it, I guess. It only happens a few times, and I think it’s always meant as a self-conscious joke. I thought the film was very funny, but if you are not at all familiar with Dylan’s music I can see some of the jokes going over your head. Regardless, these are minor concerns when I consider how much creativity and energy was poured into this film. Some parts are better than others, but at its best I’m Not There is like thought dreams seen.

[Duncan]

...so why palm off on us a few stock-footage shots of Martin Luther King, Jr., mass riots, and Nixon’s declaring an end to the war in Vietnam? How can we judge Dylan’s place in history, when the history feels paper thin? This is a pretty good point. But then he continues with...

“I’m Not There” is bravely conceived, but some of the reconstructions of the folk movement could have come straight out of “A Mighty Wind,” This is totally intentional. It's funny.

[Sven]

Thanks, Duncan! I will let you know when I see it.

[Melville]

I didn't have much interest in seeing this until I read Duncan's review. Now I'm thinking that it sounds pretty awesome.

[Derek]

This is a pretty good point. But then he continues with...
This is totally intentional. It's funny.

I'm not even sure the first point is valid. In deconstructing the bio-pic, Haynes is toying with its cliches as well. It never felt as if the stock footage was put in there to give historical context as much as show the absurdity of a technique which shallowly connects the intimately personal with the broadly social/political. One of the points is that identity and culture are constantly changing, so it's reductive to pinpoint iconic historical moments to capture a certain time period or phase of persons life.

[MadMan]

I liked Duncan's review better than White's, and I haven't even seen the film yet.


If iosos still lived near me, I'd totally be getting to work on this film right now. Except instead of being portrayed by different actors, it would be iosos himself wearing a variety of cheesey disguises and wielding his mighty arsenal of voices.I would go see that movie :lol:

And I haven't seen anything by Hayes. Should I still go see this film if I get the chance? (I have a feeling the answer is "Yes" but I still ask anyways).

[monolith94]

I had only seen Haynes' Far From Heaven, and that in no way prepared me for I'm Not There.

It's just a really good movie, one that I'd recommend to anyone. A recommendation with the caveat that it is, indeed, really out there and weird. But I don't think it's pretentious.

Bear in mind that I might, in fact, be a little bit pretentious.

[Bosco B Thug]

Hmm... this is a difficult film. In an overall view, I'm not quite a fan of the stylistic hodge-podge, rapidly cut musical montage, interwoven narrative, and hybrid use of the documentary style - I'm not saying it would be better off, but I would have liked the film to not have so intricately intercut the stories and played with their chronology - the film's so damn disjointed. It was so much more narratively avant garde than I expected... BUT I guess I'm a sucker for minutiae, and there are so many moments of cinematic "rightness" and character nuance, that I can't blame the film for being so different yet still winning me over so well at so many different points, not to mention creating cohesive thematic arcs as it hit the end credits.

The film is most effective when, as Duncan has pointed out, it focuses on Dylan's role as an artist, activist, and creator, the expectations it creates, and the pressure it puts on him, his personal life, and his personal mind. I also thought his relationships and views on women was a fascinating undercurrent.

I knew pretty much nothing about Dylan's life before watching this. I have no real qualms with any one story, but I did have reservations with the numerous flights of fancy the film takes. The Richard Gere section struck me as brilliantly creative in its fantastical nature and the Cate Blanchett portion is dependent on its artsy musical montages, but did that magazine have to come to life? And did that whale have to be there? Anyway, those are minor quibbles in an otherwise extraordinary film.

[Ezee E]

So it looks like Cate Blanchett is going to be pushed for Best Actress in this now.

[Derek]

So it looks like Cate Blanchett is going to be pushed for Best Actress in this now.

How could this be anything but a supporting performance?

[Ezee E]

How could this be anything but a supporting performance?
Who knows, but that's what awardsdaily is saying, and they're usually right.

[Derek]

Who knows, but that's what awardsdaily is saying, and they're usually right.

Oh, I'm not doubting you, but it's silly to consider this a lead performance when it's so clearly part of an ensemble. It is the closest to the caricatured, imitation-based performances that Oscar voters fawn over in bio-pics, so it wouldn't surprise me if she gets the nomination. And I'm not knocking Blanchett as she was perfect in the film, but it's not terribly noteworthy.

[MacGuffin]

While I can't see Cate Blanchett not getting nominated, and giving the Academy any credit at the same time (even if I wouldn't be suprised if people did this), aside from her being nominated, I'd also like to see Charlotte Gainsberg for Best Supporting Actress, and Richard Gere and Ben Wishaw for Best Supporting Actors.

[number8]

Why don't they look at Blanchett as a woman? Unless they went over my head, there don't seem to be any comments in that section (or any section) on Dylan's feminine side, so why is she cast at all?

It wasn't about Dylan's feminine side at all. It was about his sexual ambiguity. That period of his life, he was the sexy rock and roll star that became an idol for both sexes. There was a mystery to his whole persona. The casting of Cate was meant to represent his ability to enrapture both his male and female audience.

[number8]

IAnyway, there was one moment when people were laughing at a joke I didn't get at all that made me a little uncomfortable. It came with the introduction of Julianne Moore's character. Apparently she was supposed to be Joan Baez, but I didn't pick up on that. She's pretty funny without knowing that though.

Did you see Scorsese's No Direction Home?

[Duncan]

It wasn't about Dylan's feminine side at all. It was about his sexual ambiguity. That period of his life, he was the sexy rock and roll star that became an idol for both sexes. There was a mystery to his whole persona. The casting of Cate was meant to represent his ability to enrapture both his male and female audience.
Oh. I guess I can see that. Well, still, I would have liked some comment on his femininity.



Did you see Scorsese's No Direction Home?
Nope. I mean to at some point, as I do with so many films.

[number8]

Nope. I mean to at some point, as I do with so many films.

That's where the "joke" came in. Moore's look was almost a copy of Baez on Scorsese's doc.

[jamaul]

This is one of the most exhilarating movies of the decade. A fantastic film experience for movie lovers -- bloody heaven for movie lovers and Bob Dylan fanatics.

I can't wait to watch this movie like, 700 more times.

[origami_mustache]

previously posted in film discussion thread:


I have to ask once again - do you need to like Bob Dylan to like the movie?

I can't stand him, but I would like to see the movie.


Well I like Bob Dylan's earlier stuff, especially the albums from the 60s, but I am by no means a Bob Dylan buff. I can't predict how much personal bias will play a factor, but in my opinion the film is awarding based on the fact that it's an anti-biopic done in an avant-garde style exploring the multi dimensional personalities of one man. This film could have been made about anyone fictional or nonfictional using this technique, and I believe I would have loved it all the same. The film is very fragmented and dreamlike, reflecting Dylan's anti-nature sentiments, stating that "dreams are the most natural thing there are because of the lack of interferences." Haynes raises interesting philosophical questions about "personality" and "self." Are we as humans more multi dimensional than given credit for and entitled to more complex portrayals of our lives through art and entertainment mediums? After watching I'm Not There it will be difficult for me to ever look at a biopic in the same way, let alone film. Bob Dylan's iconic status just serves as a springboard to perpetuate these ideas on semiotics and filmmaking to a broader audience, but it is a fitting choice, as his poetic lyrics and anti establishment attitude coincide with the unconventional visual poem style.

[Sven]

I'm Not There
from A Rambling Skeptic's Perspective

The first thing that I thought of when piecing together my reaction while walking out of the theatre was: "Did he have to cut to credits with a 'Like a Rolling Stone' cue?" It is a song that tritely summarizes the whole of effort that seems to be taking place in I'm Not There--as the song that symbolized Bob Dylan's transformation from folk hero to iconoclast, thereby representative of lofty things like transition, change, shifting perspective, individual abstraction. The song in itself is not trite, but rather, Haynes's application is an easy one. After struggling and toiling, deliberately, imaginatively, humorously, portentously, to wrap it up with such an obvious gesture threatens to reveal something dafter at work.

To which I wonder: is it possible to be dafter than to inject your arty, poetic film about an arty, poetic musician with a ridiculously sustained mimicry of Fellini's arty, poetic 8 1/2? To what end is Haynes lampooning the biopic, and to what end is Haynes lampooning his own artistic conceit? How much of this am I supposed to take seriously? The stuff about Dylan is immediately suspicious, beginning with the very title of the picture. Is he here? No. His likeness, his music, his lyrics, his art is there. But he is not. We are not to take this film as an authoritative portrait of Dylan. Rather, what transpires appears to be almost a spoof of the biopic. Silly talking head interviews with people goofily pretending to be real people, crowd reactions that distill fan opinion (rather comedically, I thought), and the central conceit of multiple actors representing the same being, if not the same entity, among other things, hint at a playful and potentially exciting exercise in cinema commentary. But if Haynes is parodying his own approach by recalling 8 1/2--what does such a blunt imitation of 8 1/2 do but draw attention to one's own failings as a filmmaker?--then it can rightfully be said the film's very form is uncertain. Perhaps intentionally.

Some would call that daring or ballsy or important. A commentary on film. A meta-meta something or other. I call it wishy-washy. A playful reminder in the audience of Fellini's film being the ultimate in artistic ambiguity/despair/uncertainty, is what Haynes intended with so direct an "homage", perhaps. I think needing to quote 8 1/2 in your movie shows enough despair. Quit, Haynes, before you suffocate us with your lofty pretensions.

However, ironically, I think the film succeeds, what's more, I think it succeeds as a film. As a film about anything, no, not really, it has ambitions, I find more collapse than withstand, it's noble in intent but full-of-itself in execution. As a film about Dylan, it is unenlightening. As a film about film, it is too full of parody to be much more meaningful than The Naked Gun series (and I love The Naked Gun series). It is also too typical in execution to be effective as a comment on film. Guy yells accusations at Dylan-figure - "who do you think you are?" - cut to: British journalist who voiced same query to a different Dylan-figure. Dylan-figure feels old, cut to Dylan-figure that symbolizes older Dylan, etc, etc. Obvious cuts. The editing may be construed as reflective, but that's probably a mistaken perception, given that each individual sequence is rather rotely constructed--it is simply the juxtaposition of different sustained representations of Dylan, and the blend of fiction and documentary, that give the impression of a loaded presentation. The Ledger sequences illustrating Dylan's troubled domestic life seem particularly uninspired in their assemblage.

But as a film about nothing - as a film, as a piece of strung together shots, scored to Dylan, it is pretty good. By the halfway point, I realized that I couldn't heed anything being said about Dylan, and that Haynes's conceit as a arty art film cinema-commentary was flawed (or rather, equals the same presentation it has of Dylan - its depiction of their mutual creative worlds mired in vagueries), I let myself get wrapped up in the entertaining drama, the good performances, the frequently gorgeous Lachman colors and compositions, Dylan's music, and some wonderful setpieces (in particular, I was very moved by the funeral sequence during the Gere bit, where the man in the Renaldo makeup sang). I think it worked best as a straight-up docudrama entertainment, with little to say and lots of flash. I don't think I buy any justifications of Blanchett's casting, but she did impress. I couldn't tell you why Bale's Jack Rollins character was both the Guthrie-esque folk singer and born again Christian (a simplistic link of the representation's idealism), but Bale's performance was incredible. I can't make anything other than a condescending suggestion as to why there were so many midgets, but it created a unique atmosphere.

I was most impressed with Bale's performance, Gere's sequence, Blanchett's mimicry, Whishaw's wryness, Ledger's physicality, and Franklin's singing. Dylan songs are always a plus, and the cinematography was pretty beautiful. I can't imagine why anyone would think this is a revelatory work, but it's watchable, if a bit long, and pretty funny. It was fun to figure out where I stood. My perception may not be terribly "accurate" or respectful to Haynes's "art" (I put that in quotes, because I'm not sure whether he was skewing his own art, or what), but I think he made an entertaining movie. A positive time was had. I liked it.

Derek, you can keep the testicle.

*** (out of ****)

[Sven]

Argh! It feels like I have so much to say and so much to respond to. I'm just overloaded with thoughts right now that I think I'll wait 'til tomorrow or Sunday to get down to it. Most notably, I'd like to respond more to the 8 1/2 issue, and the movie thrust being a commentary of the Artist (or, I prefer, Creator).

[Watashi]

Fucking awesome. I have no idea why people are saying the Richard Gere section drags. It's easily my favorite Dylan storyline. The "Going to Acapulco" scene is just sublime in every cinematic detail.

[Bosco B Thug]

I'm Not There
from A Rambling Skeptic's Perspective

To which I wonder: is it possible to be dafter than to inject your arty, poetic film about an arty, poetic musician with a ridiculously sustained mimicry of Fellini's arty, poetic 8 1/2? To what end is Haynes lampooning the biopic, and to what end is Haynes lampooning his own artistic conceit? How much of this am I supposed to take seriously? The stuff about Dylan is immediately suspicious, beginning with the very title of the picture. Is he here? No. His likeness, his music, his lyrics, his art is there. But he is not. We are not to take this film as an authoritative portrait of Dylan. Rather, what transpires appears to be almost a spoof of the biopic. Silly talking head interviews with people goofily pretending to be real people, crowd reactions that distill fan opinion (rather comedically, I thought), and the central conceit of multiple actors representing the same being, if not the same entity, among other things, hint at a playful and potentially exciting exercise in cinema commentary. But if Haynes is parodying his own approach by recalling 8 1/2--what does such a blunt imitation of 8 1/2 do but draw attention to one's own failings as a filmmaker?--then it can rightfully be said the film's very form is uncertain. Perhaps intentionally.

Some would call that daring or ballsy or important. A commentary on film. A meta-meta something or other. I call it wishy-washy. A playful reminder in the audience of Fellini's film being the ultimate in artistic ambiguity/despair/uncertainty, is what Haynes intended with so direct an "homage", perhaps. I think needing to quote 8 1/2 in your movie shows enough despair. Quit, Haynes, before you suffocate us with your lofty pretensions. Excellent paragraphs there, I completely agree. I hardly remember 8 1/2 more than the idea of it, and I didn't make any connections myself, but even then, the film seems too aware of its intellectual conceit, moments of goofily haphazard arrangement renege upon the conceit itself (though I'm hoping repeated viewing will reveal a compositional delicacy behind the intoxicated creative freeform that I didn't see the first time), and its form is very uncertain.

I maintain that if the film wasn't so scattershot in its structure and didn't intercut its stories so much, then all its parodying and stylistic exaggerations would have achieved a sort of self-containment that would work better in presenting the film as a more "serious" set of cinematic "suppositions" on Dylan's life, rather than Haynes' playground for philosophical-metaphorical associations more reflective of Haynes than Dylan (so I do agree to an extent with the Slant and Armond White reviews). Then again, that would probably be at the sacrifice of Haynes' stream-of-consciousness intellectual vitality and artistic impetus behind the film. That said, I wish he'd had pulled back on the playfulness. While I'd say any meta-textual "mutual creators"-affinity with Dylan that brought him to create this film acquits any blunt parodying or exaggerated musical bits, it doesn't write-off the jokey, largely mockumentary bits and their lack of integration, which I felt detracted from the picture overall.

[monolith94]

I'm Not There
from A Rambling Skeptic's Perspective

The Ledger sequences illustrating Dylan's troubled domestic life seem particularly uninspired in their assemblage.

Agreed.


I don't think I buy any justifications of Blanchett's casting, but she did impress.


How about this justification? Cate Blanchette's awesome. No?

[Watashi]

How were people's audiences during this movie? Mine was filled with rabid Dylan fans and old hippies.

It was awesome.

[Sven]

How about this justification? Cate Blanchette's awesome. No?

She is frequently good. But no, that does not satisfy.

[Duncan]

How were people's audiences during this movie? Mine was filled with rabid Dylan fans and old hippies.

It was awesome.

There were a lot of older people in my audience that dressed like 20-something Brooklyn hipsters. Upon arriving 45 minutes early to my show time and seeing that the seating line was already half way down the block, I joked to one of them that people sure take their art-house Bob Dylan movies seriously. He did not laugh.

[Watashi]

She is frequently good. But no, that does not satisfy.

Blanchett was good, but Bale definitely gave the best performance (was that him singing? If so... wow).

Wishaw had the best Dylan features and mannerisms, though.

[Sven]

Blanchett was good, but Bale definitely gave the best performance (was that him singing? If so... wow).

I agree, but no, I don't think it was him singing.

[Duncan]

She is frequently good. But no, that does not satisfy.

I kind of agree with you on this point. But at the same time, I thought she was really good so I don't mind so much.

I also agree that the film works best when just taken as a fun time. I thought Hayne's higher aspirations were more successful that you did, but ultimately they're not why I liked the film so much.

[number8]

My screening had only press people. Blah.

I should go see it a second time in Berkeley or something.

[jesse]

Oh. I guess I can see that. Well, still, I would have liked some comment on his femininity. Honestly, I was kind of surprised the film never really touched on the rumors regarding Dylan's homosexual experimentation (unless that's what the "cocksucker" comment was supposed to be).

Especially considering the director and all.

[jesse]

My friend Kevin wrote a pretty perceptive dissenting piece for The House Next Door (http://mattzollerseitz.blogspot.com/2007/10/on-circuit-im-not-there.html).

Particularly this:


Haynes seems too entranced by the Dylan myth to bother examining what I think is the larger picture: of how Dylan's rebellious appeal depended largely on the media's fixation on him; despite his protestations, he needed them like Ali needed Frazier. You'd expect someone as culturally literate as Haynes to appreciate such a paradoxical symbiosis...

[Bosco B Thug]

Honestly, I was kind of surprised the film never really touched on the rumors regarding Dylan's homosexual experimentation (unless that's what the "cocksucker" comment was supposed to be).

Especially considering the director and all. It would've been amusing, considering the gender-bending and Blanchett playing the Dylan-as-player part (which is an insiduous acknowledgement in itself, and enough for me, I'd say).


That's an excellent review you posted in your following post, too. The one thing I'd disagree with it in is its seeing every story except Ledger's as an embossment of Dylan's alleged principles, when I saw the film as portraying him (in all the stories) as being just as confused about them as we are.

[Eleven]

As a die-hard Dylanophile, I had a fun time, with reservations. iosos comes close to my thinking when he says that it works as a movie about nothing, because I pretty much got all of the references, to Dylan and otherwise (Tarantula, Joan Baez, 8 1/2, the music from Casanova, et al.), and found it all unenlightening. Stylistically, it extensively apes Don't Look Back and No Direction Home, even down to quoting real crowd reactions outside his concerts, and the film overliteralizes some of the songs. The movie is too on-the-nose at perfectly recycling the visual history of Dylan to present much of anything new, so it takes something like Richard Gere's and Marcus Carl Franklin's segments to possess real standalone energy. Blanchett's impersonation is spot-on, even if I wish more had been made of the androgyny, an aspect of Dylan's persona that has yet to be extensively investigated.

But hearing the originals of so many songs was heartening, as well were the musical performances of "Goin' to Acapulco" and "Pressin' On." The cinematography is neato, even when just copying Don't Look Back. Although the movie itself is funny, especially when just repeating concert reactions and talking head interviews, one aspect of Dylan's personality that I wished had been more in evidence was his sense of humor, which peeks through Whitshaw and Frankln and gets mired in Blanchett's (and Dylan's, certainly) antagonism, but then again, what am I doing looking for Dylan in this movie? He's not there.

And the new Batman and the new Joker together as parallel personas. Hmm.

[origami_mustache]

I agree, but no, I don't think it was him singing.

I know Mason Jennings performed "The Times They Are a Changin'" as well as "The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carrol" and John Doe performed "Pressing On."

[origami_mustache]

Fucking awesome. I have no idea why people are saying the Richard Gere section drags. It's easily my favorite Dylan storyline. The "Going to Acapulco" scene is just sublime in every cinematic detail.

I don't understand this either. I loved the surrealistic quality of the whole Billy the Kidd section and Jim James and Calexico's version of "Going to Acapulco" was one of the most memorable scenes for me as well as my favorite cover on the soundtrack.

[number8]

Haynes recorded everyone singing covers, but only ended up using Marcus Carl Franklin's.

[Watashi]

Oh, and Antony and the Johnsons' cover of "Knockin' on Heaven's Door" kicks ass.

[origami_mustache]

Oh, and Antony and the Johnsons' cover of "Knockin' on Heaven's Door" kicks ass.

The soundtrack is pretty much great...especially impressive for a covers album.

[NickGlass]

There were a lot of older people in my audience that dressed like 20-something Brooklyn hipsters. Upon arriving 45 minutes early to my show time and seeing that the seating line was already half way down the block.

My guess: Film Forum?


Blanchett was good, but Bale definitely gave the best performance (was that him singing? If so... wow).

Wishaw had the best Dylan features and mannerisms, though.

Wishaw was great, yes (and not for channeling the appearance of Dylan, because that's certainly not the purpose of his segment), but I thought Bale's moments were laughable.

[Duncan]

My guess: Film Forum? Yep. First time I've been there this semester. They haven't really been playing much of interest to me.

[NickGlass]

Yep. First time I've been there this semester. They haven't really been playing much of interest to me.

Yeah, showing The 400 Blows on the big screen isn't anything new, but I was really disappointed that I missed The Red Balloon and Godard's La Chinoise by a couple days (the damn Boston to New York commute can be so taxing if done frequently).

[Duncan]

Yeah, showing The 400 Blows on the big screen isn't anything new, but I was really disappointed that I missed The Red Balloon and Godard's La Chinoise by a couple days (the damn Boston to New York commute can be so taxing if done frequently).

Oh, actually, I take it back. I saw The Red Balloon with White Mane. They were both great.

[Raiders]

The most entertaining film I think I have seen this year. As a biopic, it is useless. I doubt anyone not already well aware of Dylan's career and personal trajectory could even make a coherent story within all the mess. But as a rambling piece of meta-fiction, it is pretty glorious. I heard grumbles of "lack of clarity" walking out, but for a film that more or less beats you over the head with the idea that media cannot capture an individual's essence (much like one individual cannot represent an entire movement), it seems ridiculous to expect one film to accomplish the feat. Afterall, Ben Whishaw's Rimbaud is the film's intellectual center, a series of snippets of Dylan quotes strung together; the public persona both directly effecting our perceptions while coyly deflecting anything resembling a clear truth.

[Sven]

The most entertaining film I think I have seen this year. As a biopic, it is useless. I doubt anyone not already well aware of Dylan's career and personal trajectory could even make a coherent story within all the mess. But as a rambling piece of meta-fiction, it is pretty glorious. I heard grumbles of "lack of clarity" walking out, but for a film that more or less beats you over the head with the idea that media cannot capture an individual's essence (much like one individual cannot represent an entire movement), it seems ridiculous to expect one film to accomplish the feat. Afterall, Ben Whishaw's Rimbaud is the film's intellectual center, a series of snippets of Dylan quotes strung together; the public persona both directly effecting our perceptions while coyly deflecting anything resembling a clear truth.

I think I'd agree that the film lacks clarity, but not in the way you are imagining the complaints. To me, the lack of clarity comes from exactly what it is the movie is supposed to be about in the first place, not "who" it's about. Why was this film made? There is where clarity is muddied. Saying that its purpose is to convey the elusiveness of identity, or some other pretentious thing, is snugly wrapping the film up into an easy-to-read artball, which is contradictory.

[Raiders]

I don't know. The film's raison d'etre seems pretty clear to me.

[Sven]

I don't know. The film's raison d'etre seems pretty clear to me.

And that would be to express film's incapability of capturing the individual?

[Raiders]

And that would be to express film's incapability of capturing the individual?

Well, to a point, yes. I was thinking more that media and people in general look to mold their celebrities in a way that is easily packaged and fit with the slogan they desire (particularly in the revolution of the time when Dylan became a huge success). Haynes is very much extending this to the standard biopic structure which belies the complexity of an artist like Dylan who has changed, morphed and rejected expectations throughout his career.

The film is a massive collage, reminiscent of Fincher's Zodiac in the sheer mass of information thrown out in the film that creates the purposefully dizzying experience. It isn't entirely successful, but the sheer amount of Dylan and musical era-specific information thrown out is impressive. Haynes isn't a natural filmmaker. He is, as negative reviews of the film point out, a semiotics major who views cinema more in abstract ideas rather than from-the-gut emotions. But I think he was smart enough to realize here the emotions would come for any Dylan fan who can see the references between the screen and the music layering over top.

[Melville]

I finally saw this last night. While I appreciate the film's purpose and audacious structure, the whole thing was overflowing with trite metaphors (the machine gun attack on the audience, the performance-as-geek-show, the entirety of the Billy the Kid portion of the film, etc.), the Ledger-Dylan storyline, which could have acted as a perfect anchor for all Dylan's self-constructions (and/or media-constructed selves) in the rest of the film, was awfully flimsy, and Blanchett's contrarian-Dylan was spectacularly irritating (not the performance—just the constant non sequiturs), which could have been allayed by giving that characterization some depth. On the other hand, the cinematography was gorgeous, and its variation kept me interested.

[Ivan Drago]

I hate to ask this because I know meg or somebody did earlier, but does one need to like Bob Dylan to like the movie? I haven't heard enough of his music to form an opinion on him, but the movie interests me.

[Izzy Black]

While I appreciate the film's purpose and audacious structure, the whole thing was overflowing with trite metaphors (the machine gun attack on the audience, the performance-as-geek-show, the entirety of the Billy the Kid portion of the film, etc.), the Ledger-Dylan storyline, which could have acted as a perfect anchor for all Dylan's self-constructions (and/or media-constructed selves) in the rest of the film, was awfully flimsy, and Blanchett's contrarian-Dylan was spectacularly irritating (not the performance—just the constant non sequiturs), which could have been allayed by giving that characterization some depth.

Now this is a sentence.

[Derek]

I hate to ask this because I know meg or somebody did earlier, but does one need to like Bob Dylan to like the movie? I haven't heard enough of his music to form an opinion on him, but the movie interests me.

I searched through all 3 pages for you. The consensus still seems to be no.

[Melville]

Now this is a sentence.
What happened to your avatar of the grim old sage?

[Teecee]

I'm not sure it's my favorite of 2007 just yet (There Will Be Blood and Syndromes and a Century look amazing), but it's very likely to be the most interesting film I'll see this year.

It's not so much a biopic as an essay on how audiences (and artists themselves) can imprint themselves on art and imbue it with their own meanings. The Bob Dylan-inspired subject matter is fascinating as hell; the filmmaking, which fakes its way through biopic and documentary tropes as well as various 60s cinema iconography, is nothing short of brilliant.

It also has some of the year's best moments:

- The opening credits
- Charlotte Gainsbourg's bedside alarm ringing in rhythm with the music (the year's best cut)
- The Cate Blanchett press conference
- The two Woody Guthries
(...)

[Izzy Black]

What happened to your avatar of the grim old sage?

Heh. I just haven't really devoted much attention to the new forums until now. I suppose I should put an AV back on, but I am contemplating if I should go back to the old one or the one I use on RT now.

[Boner M]

Wait a sec... Teecee = TC = Timotei Centea? Cool.

[monolith94]

I'm not sure it's my favorite of 2007 just yet (There Will Be Blood and Syndromes and a Century look amazing), but it's very likely to be the most interesting film I'll see this year.

It's not so much a biopic as an essay on how audiences (and artists themselves) can imprint themselves on art and imbue it with their own meanings. The Bob Dylan-inspired subject matter is fascinating as hell; the filmmaking, which fakes its way through biopic and documentary tropes as well as various 60s cinema iconography, is nothing short of brilliant.

It also has some of the year's best moments:

- The opening credits
- Charlotte Gainsbourg's bedside alarm ringing in rhythm with the music (the year's best cut)
- The Cate Blanchett press conference
- The two Woody Guthries
(...)
Glad to have you with us, TC, and glad you enjoyed the film! :D

[Boner M]

Aesthetically exhilarating, always interesting... yet somehow I didn't take away as much meaning from the film as I did from the mere concept, so it's not quite the revelation that I'd hoped for. Still, pretty much successful in every department, and it always feels like Haynes has capitalised on the full potential of the idea.

[jesse]

Been messing with this for about a week now. I guess I'll give it a try...

What to say about I’m Not There (2007), Todd Haynes’s latest and one of the most acclaimed films of the year? I was immediately bowled over by its technical virtuosity, dazzled that Haynes dare deconstruct a single person by rolling together bits of autobiography, glimpses of history, a fair bit of exaggeration, and a very generous dose of unabashed fiction into six different characters searching for a whole, all in the hope (against hope) that it all coalesces into some kind of overarching statement or emotional truth about one of the most iconic individuals of the 20th century. And while I can’t deny that at moments it seems—it feels—like Haynes has somehow reached this goal, for all the visual pyrotechnics, the mind-whirling shifts in time, setting and characters, I can’t help but feel there’s something essentially lifeless about the film at its center, that for all the vitality on display by a formidable assemblage of acting talent they’re never really granted the time or room to breath and humanize the symbols, concepts and conceits that they’re representing. Yes, it’s admirable that Haynes has refused to dish up another sappy biopic (we’ve been spoonfed plenty of those as of late), but what exactly have we been served? A biopic lacking... a human? A heart?

That said, I also can’t deny that in the film’s last minutes, where the real Bob Dylan, (before then a ghostly, unnamed presence hovering over the film) is finally given a moment to appear as himself I was moved, and much to my surprise, found myself fighting tears. The problem is, I’m not sure if it was because of everything I had seen unfold before had led up to that moment, or if Bob Dylan—the icon, the unknown person, the myth—is simply most eloquent when speaking (or rather, singing) on his own, allowed to embody his own mysteriousness.

Or maybe, in the final moments, we’re finally given a glimpse at a real human being. And it makes all the difference in the world.

[ledfloyd]

i just watched this and then read through the thread.

i loved the movie to death. duncan has said most of what i'd say about it much better than i'm capable of saying.

some of the detractors have raised good points and made me wonder if the ecstasy of the images and sound made me overlook the simplicity of the subtext, but i don't really think so.

this movie seems to beg being watched over and over again and analyzed like many of lynches films do. and i look forward to doing that.

i'm not sure if it's my favorite of the year. but the only competition it has so far are zodiac and no country. and i think i enjoyed it slightly more than either of those. mind you i still have a ton left to see.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Well, I liked it, with reservations. I'm not nearly as in love with it as many. I got no satisfaction out of the constant winks at Dylan fans. A little subtlety might have helped. Also, I didn't much care for Blanchett. I found her performance rather annoying, and I'm usually a big fan. She was a distraction, and I didn't glean a reason for her casting while watching the film. I'm also not very impressed by what everyone seems to think was such an imaginative approach to the material. I'm not saying it wasn't a creative vision, but too much of the film is taken directly from Don't Look Back and No Direction Home, as well as other various footage of Dylan during his life.

Most importantly, I don't think the film did a good job presenting the Dylan mystique. They portrayed him as a reluctant star, which for much of his career simply wasn't true. He craved the spotlight and the media. Despite his treating them as cloy and useless, he showed a definite enjoyment in their circus that wasn't on display enough in the film. I agree with those who said the Ledger/family sequences were shallow, though without them we wouldn't have Gainsborough's impressive performance, which was my favorite in the film.

All that said, I still enjoyed it. I loved Franklin and Whishaw, was less enthusiastic about Bale, and was pleasantly surprised with Gere (whose segment was easily the best in the film). The covers were quite good, even considering my general distaste for Dylan covers, and the film had a breezy flow that gelled well with me. An enjoyable experience for the most part, but hardly the revolutionary cinematic achievement it seems to be getting credit for.

[number8]

was pleasantly surprised with Gere (whose segment was easily the best in the film).

yay!

[Sven]

Totally. Gere's is without a doubt the core of that movie's success with me.

[Ezee E]

Totally. Gere's is without a doubt the core of that movie's success with me.
Ugh. Insane. All of you.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Ugh. Insane. All of you.

What? How can you not find that segment the strongest? You seriously didn't like it?

[EvilShoe]

I'm glad Gere's segment is being liked around here.
Critics don't seem to like it too much.

(Once again I must say though, it's all about the moment with Jim James & Calexico's cover of Goin' To Acapulco)

[Kurosawa Fan]

(Once again I must say though, it's all about the moment with Jim James & Calexico's cover of Goin' To Acapulco)

Easily the best cover in the film.

[Ezee E]

What? How can you not find that segment the strongest? You seriously didn't like it?
No. It can probably be dug up in my Telluride thoughts somewhere where I'm a little more articulate about it, but from what I remember, it just slowed the movie down more then anything, and seemed to be the hardest attempt at making it "imaginative." Franklin's segment is probably the best now that I think about it.

[origami_mustache]

Easily the best cover in the film.

yes yes

[Sycophant]

Well, I thought walking into this movie that it was going to have a lot to prove to me, to win me over. It had me completely a couple minutes in. My two favorite Dylans? Gere and Ledger.

I won't say much more for the time being as it was less than an hour ago that it finished, and I want to rehash what's been said. But I rather loved it.

[Sycophant]

By the way, wanted to make it clear that I went in knowing little about Dylan and emerged not really feeling like I learned much more nor did I particularly have the desire to. Fundamentally, Dylan works well as a launching point for what is fundamentally a study in identity in its more general sense, change and perception.

[jesse]

By the way, wanted to make it clear that I went in knowing little about Dylan and emerged not really feeling like I learned much more nor did I particularly have the desire to. Fundamentally, Dylan works well as a launching point for what is fundamentally a study in identity in its more general sense, change and perception. Yeah, that was kind of a big deal here for a while, but I don't know a whole lot about Dylan--and since I'm a bigger fan of her music, I probably "got" more of the Joan Baez references/in-jokes than the Dylan ones.

[Spinal]

This was unbearable. A deeply off-putting mixture of idolatry, self-importance and pseudo-artistic nonsense. Haynes' premise is an eye-roller, that Dylan is so enigmatic and complex that we need six different persona to approach a definition of the man. Spare me. Scene after scene fails to resonate and the end result is a Dylan that is more irritating than elusive, more tiresome than mysterious.

[Qrazy]

This was unbearable. A deeply off-putting mixture of idolatry, self-importance and pseudo-artistic nonsense. Haynes' premise is an eye-roller, that Dylan is so enigmatic and complex that we need six different persona to approach a definition of the man. Spare me. Scene after scene fails to resonate and the end result is a Dylan that is more irritating than elusive, more tiresome than mysterious.

Oh fuck that.

Anyway, Gere's segment was good but I have no idea how someone can say and or think it's the crux of the film. The film was very good. Certainly one of the best of the year.

[Kurosawa Fan]

This was unbearable. A deeply off-putting mixture of idolatry, self-importance and pseudo-artistic nonsense. Haynes' premise is an eye-roller, that Dylan is so enigmatic and complex that we need six different persona to approach a definition of the man. Spare me. Scene after scene fails to resonate and the end result is a Dylan that is more irritating than elusive, more tiresome than mysterious.

Wow. This is surprising.

[Raiders]

This was unbearable. A deeply off-putting mixture of idolatry, self-importance and pseudo-artistic nonsense. Haynes' premise is an eye-roller, that Dylan is so enigmatic and complex that we need six different persona to approach a definition of the man. Spare me. Scene after scene fails to resonate and the end result is a Dylan that is more irritating than elusive, more tiresome than mysterious.

Was the premise a secret to you? Were you not one of the few anticipating this concept back when it was first discussed?

Oh well. I didn't expect you to like it, but I figured you would have something to say besides "the premise sucked." Plus, I don't even think you got the premise right. The film never attempts to use the different persona to "define" the man. The entire film is spent chastising those who do attempt to define him. It's more about artistic impulse as opposed to definition.

[Melville]

mixture of idolatry, self-importance and pseudo-artistic nonsense... Scene after scene fails to resonate and the end result is a Dylan that is more irritating than elusive, more tiresome than mysterious.
I agree with these statements, but I agree with Raiders that your summary of the premise is a bit off.


Anyway, Gere's segment was good but I have no idea how someone can say and or think it's the crux of the film. The film was very good. Certainly one of the best of the year.
Really? It seemed to obviously encapsulate the core idea of the film.

[Spinal]

Oh fuck that.

Is that necessary?

[Spinal]

Anyone can make a bad movie, but it takes a good filmmaker to make one as bad as "I'm Not There." Todd Haynes, who directed and co-wrote it, takes a misbegotten idea and pursues it with the kind of zeal and imagination not available to mediocre filmmakers.

...

Going out on a limb is admirable. Haynes belongs there. He should go back there in the future. But recognizing that doesn't mean having to pretend that a failure isn't a failure. The idea was to do a semifictional autobiography of Bob Dylan in which six actors play the singer-songwriter in his various incarnations. Haynes has done exactly that, but the resulting film is snore-inducing, a bore that zigzags through time, overstays its welcome and is so narratively scattered that it could begin and end anywhere without an appreciable difference in impact.

...

Jude becomes impressed only once, when he meets up with Allen Ginsberg and is awed, presumably at encountering someone even more full of baloney than he is. Though "I'm Not There" seems intended as the opposite of a hatchet job, Haynes' version of Dylan is that of an obnoxious, self-absorbed, ungiving man, spouting relativist mumbo jumbo in his public utterances.

Despite all the talk of Dylan's ever-changing personality, he remains consistent on one score: He's a creep.

...

Along with Al Jolson, Ronald Reagan and Truman Capote, Dylan is one of the four people everyone on Earth can imitate - that is, everyone except Christian Bale

...

Richard Gere has the misfortune of appearing in the film's most deadly dull scenes, as the older Dylan, presented here as Billy the Kid, trapped inside some latter-day version of the 1973 movie "Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid." In keeping with the scrupulousness with which he approaches everything, Haynes makes sure these scenes have the look, the color saturation and cinematic style of a 1970s film. But noting that is not the same as enjoying it.


Link. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/11/21/DDODTF2KN.DTL&type=movies)

[Spinal]

Was the premise a secret to you? Were you not one of the few anticipating this concept back when it was first discussed?


I'm always up for something unusual, so yes, I thought this might be fun. But early on in the film, it was clear that Haynes intended to use the device to deify Dylan, like some sort of "oh-we-cannot-possibly-look-directly-into-the-face-of-God" thing. Yes, the Dylan here is flawed, but even his flaws are deified, used to demonstrate his impatience with all those around him who presumably do not share his lofty intelligence and talent.



Oh well. I didn't expect you to like it, but I figured you would have something to say besides "the premise sucked."


No need to be rude. I did say more than that and besides I was simply jotting down first impressions after getting home from the film after midnight. A rather common event at this site.



Plus, I don't even think you got the premise right. The film never attempts to use the different persona to "define" the man. The entire film is spent chastising those who do attempt to define him. It's more about artistic impulse as opposed to definition.

If you look back at what I actually wrote, I said "approach a definition." In other words, Haynes' belief is that Dylan is so mysterious and complex, etc. that he must necessarily employ six actors to represent him. To which I roll my eyes about as hard as I possibly can, because despite all this unconventional casting, the Dylan we are left with is a typical moody, drug-addled, self-centered celebrity. The entire film is a waste of time with no narrative thrust. I'm surprised that so many people here like it, because it's basically bad performance art captured on film.

[Qrazy]

Is that necessary?

Nope.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I'm always up for something unusual, so yes, I thought this might be fun. But early on in the film, it was clear that Haynes intended to use the device to deify Dylan, like some sort of "oh-we-cannot-possibly-look-directly-into-the-face-of-God" thing. Yes, the Dylan here is flawed, but even his flaws are deified, used to demonstrate his impatience with all those around him who presumably do not share his lofty intelligence and talent.

You and I agree on this point. While I liked the film more than you, the one thing that bothered me throughout was the fact that Haynes completely denied that Dylan craved the media as much as the media craved Dylan. He left the argument black and white, when every press conference and interview, and nearly every time Dylan is in front of a camera up to his motorcycle accident, there's a playful smile on his face, not the annoyed, sullen facade that each character put forward. He wanted the attention, and I'm sure he'd admit as much at this point if asked. Now, after the accident is another story. From that point, basically up to his life now, he has shied from any media attention, and is a complete bore (purposely) whenever forced to sit down for an interview.

[Qrazy]

If you look back at what I actually wrote, I said "approach a definition." In other words, Haynes' belief is that Dylan is so mysterious and complex, etc. that he must necessarily employ six actors to represent him. To which I roll my eyes about as hard as I possibly can, because despite all this unconventional casting, the Dylan we are left with is a typical moody, drug-addled, self-centered celebrity.

Was he drug-addled and self-centered in his kid sections? In his old age (helps put up sign, helps boy)? Power and celebrity corrupt and weigh down on an individual. The film is not about deifying Dylan. I don't know how you can say you thought from watching the film that he was a creep and yet the film was trying to deify him. The film is showing an impression of the idea of Dylan, not Dylan himself. He breaks the idea down into a few of it's constituent parts (6) and then gives each part a character, a life of it's own. Each part is Dylan to a degree but also has it's own life and reality. They exist on their own in the imagination of the creator and of the public when they try to interpret Dylan.

The film didn't have to be about Dylan. It could have been about Joe Schmoe and Joe would have been just as interesting and complex and worthy of a personality divide as anyone else (vis. Steppenwolf). That for me is the crux of the film. Dylan works because he made a ton of great music, he was an incredible lyricist and didn't like his art to be categorized and forced into a rhetorical mold.

[Melville]

The film didn't have to be about Dylan. It could have been about Joe Schmoe and Joe would have been just as interesting and complex and worthy of a personality divide as anyone else (vis. Steppenwolf). That for me is the crux of the film. Dylan works because he made a ton of great music, he was an incredible lyricist and didn't like his art to be categorized and forced into a rhetorical mold.
I think far too much of the film specifically focuses on celebrity to say that it could have been about Joe Schmoe. But now I see why you don't think the Gere portion of the film is the crux of the film.

[Kurosawa Fan]

The film didn't have to be about Dylan. It could have been about Joe Schmoe and Joe would have been just as interesting and complex and worthy of a personality divide as anyone else (vis. Steppenwolf). That for me is the crux of the film. Dylan works because he made a ton of great music, he was an incredible lyricist and didn't like his art to be categorized and forced into a rhetorical mold.

If you're saying that the idea of having 6 different people portray the same person could be used for anyone, I agree. If you're saying this particular film could have been about anyone, I'd argue that you were watching a different film than I. Haynes film needed to be about celebrity, about an icon. I don't see how you could argue differently after seeing the finished product.

[ledfloyd]

It possibly could have been about any celebrity or any icon, even a nameless "artist/superstar" figure. However, I don't think anything of the sort would've fit the film as well as dylan did. Most of my favorite moments are borne out of Dylan's history. The Pat Garrett/Billy the Kid showdown would not have happened if this movie wasn't about Dylan. The soundtrack certainly would've suffered.

Also, deification is one of the last words i'd use when describing this film.

[Spinal]

Also, deification is one of the last words i'd use when describing this film.

Deification means something a little different when applied to a rock icon. Yes, he has flaws, but in Haynes' world, all of these flaws result from the fact that he is the Great Unknowable. He is incoherent when talking to the press, but they don't deserve his coherence. He is a chauvinist, but that is a by-product of his role as Great Truth Teller. He pisses off his fans, but that is because they are short-sighted and he is the All-Knowing Artist. To say that the film deifies him, while also showing his flaws, is not a contradiction.

[ledfloyd]

i didn't think the film portrayed him as a great truth teller or all knowing. it certainly suggests he's unknowable, but who really is knowable?

[Spinal]

it certainly suggests he's unknowable, but who really is knowable?

That, in my opinion, is philosophical hide-and-seek. It's not terribly interesting and it doesn't get us very far. Haynes makes the mistake of making that idea the central point of his picture, rather than just a facet of his presentation. Beyond that, he has very little to say and, as a result, the film is dead. It takes us nowhere. It circles around and around admiring itself for its own refusal to stand for anything.

[Qrazy]

If you're saying that the idea of having 6 different people portray the same person could be used for anyone, I agree.

Obviously.

I'm not saying the film is not about Dylan or about celebrity. It obviously is. I'm saying that Haynes didn't choose to make the film about Dylan in this way because Dylan was especially mysterious and the only one deserving of 6 distinct personalities or whatever. The film is not about romanticizing the enigma of Dylan.

[monolith94]

That, in my opinion, is philosophical hide-and-seek. It's not terribly interesting and it doesn't get us very far. Haynes makes the mistake of making that idea the central point of his picture, rather than just a facet of his presentation. Beyond that, he has very little to say and, as a result, the film is dead. It takes us nowhere. It circles around and around admiring itself for its own refusal to stand for anything.
I beg to differ Spinal - I believe the film does stand for something. It stands for the refusal to accept the surface, the pat, and the trivial.

[Qrazy]

Deification means something a little different when applied to a rock icon. Yes, he has flaws, but in Haynes' world, all of these flaws result from the fact that he is the Great Unknowable. He is incoherent when talking to the press, but they don't deserve his coherence. He is a chauvinist, but that is a by-product of his role as Great Truth Teller. He pisses off his fans, but that is because they are short-sighted and he is the All-Knowing Artist. To say that the film deifies him, while also showing his flaws, is not a contradiction.

It's not a contradiction, but it's also not true of the film. Just because Blanchett speaks in riddles doesn't mean 'Mr Jones' isn't deserving of his coherence and kindness. I was particularly pleased that Mr. Jones was presented as a human and not overly demonized as most films would have done just that. His chauvinist personality type is not justified on any level in the film. His pissing off his fans was just an actual by-product of his artistic growth/artistic choices.

[Spinal]

I'm not saying the film is not about Dylan or about celebrity. It obviously is. I'm saying that Haynes didn't choose to make the film about Dylan in this way because Dylan was especially mysterious and the only one deserving of 6 distinct personalities or whatever.

These interviews with Haynes support my assertions :

http://www.emanuellevy.com/article.php?articleID=7426
http://blog.oregonlive.com/madaboutmovies/2007/11/interview_todd_haynes_on_im_no .html


My love for his music started in high school, but I didn't listen to him for many years. And I found myself curiously coming back to him at a moment in my life where I was looking for change, though I may not have known it yet. I've heard that people at crucial times in their lives can turn to Dylan to either lose themselves or find themselves again. And I did change my life. I gave up my apartment in New York and moved to Portland.

Does this not sound like somebody talking about a spiritual guru?

[Spinal]

I beg to differ Spinal - I believe the film does stand for something. It stands for the refusal to accept the surface, the pat, and the trivial.

That does not make it particularly unusual as far as art goes.

[Ezee E]

Nope.
I laughed.

[Qrazy]

These interviews with Haynes support my assertions :

http://www.emanuellevy.com/article.php?articleID=7426
http://blog.oregonlive.com/madaboutmovies/2007/11/interview_todd_haynes_on_im_no .html



I don't feel that it does though. First because an artist is not the best judge of their work nor the final arbiter of meaning. Furthermore though, just because Haynes encountered this difficulty with what he describes as a shape shifting Dylan, that doesn't mean that only Dylan merits a multiple persona style treatment... only that he is particularly well fitted for it given his ever changing nature and relationship with the media.

[Raiders]

I think the difference here is Spinal took the film far more seriously than did I. He says he thought the premise sounded like fun, and well, I thought it was.

[monolith94]

That does not make it particularly unusual as far as art goes.
I don't know - when I look at many movies released, it seems somewhat unusal to me.