
A Funny Kind of Tribute
Todd Haynes’s essay on Dylan is no hagiography.
I'm Not There | Directed by Todd Haynes
November 22, 2007
By Jonathan Rosenbaum
I’ve owned copies of Don’t Look Back and Nashville Skyline for decades, but I’d never describe myself as a hard-core Bob Dylan fan. Obvious as his talent may be, he often mixes metaphors and combines images in a way that skirts the edge of incoherence. And as the appointed spokesman for my generation—born in 1941, only a couple of years before me—he sometimes strikes me as little more than a series of shifting masks and poses. So I went into I’m Not There, Todd Haynes’s ambitious new film about the man, fully prepared to feel out of step, and was surprised to find my misgivings addressed at every turn. Widely described as a tribute, it frequently comes across as a series of insults.
To call the film biographical is misleading. If anything, it’s a speculative essay that uses Dylan to comment on his audience and the 60s in general. Haynes, a graduate of the semiotics department at Brown University, isn’t really concerned with Dylan as an individual; rather he presents him as a cluster of signs and texts, spread across six characters embodying phases or distinct aspects of his early career. There’s an 11-year-old black boy (Marcus Carl Franklin) who calls himself Woody Guthrie; a white folksinger named Jack (Christian Bale) who reaches the mainstream via Greenwich Village and later becomes a born-again Christian; a poet (Ben Whishaw) who exists entirely inside an abstract space and identifies himself as Arthur Rimbaud; an actor named Robbie (Heath Ledger) who plays a fictional version of Jack in a movie; an electrified Dylan known as Jude (Cate Blanchett, giving the best imitation of the bunch) who conquers swinging London; and finally a Dylan who fancies himself Billy the Kid (Richard Gere). By the time the real Dylan appears in extreme close-up at the movie’s end, blowing on his harmonica, he simply registers as one more sign.
As semiology, I’m Not There is hardly impartial. It charts Dylan’s development from precocious kid (Franklin’s Woody Guthrie) to posturing asshole (Blanchett’s Jude) with increasing mockery. Nowhere are the criticisms more pointed than in the depictions of Jude and Robbie: both are blatant misogynists and the latter neglects his wife. Yet neither matches up with the Dylan we see in Don’t Look Back, D.A. Pennebaker’s documentary about his 1965 UK tour (a source Haynes plunders repeatedly). Especially compared to Jude, he’s far more impressive as both a musician and a human being. (On a similar note, Joan Baez comes across as much more subdued and prefeminist in Don’t Look Back than she does in Julianne Moore’s depiction of her, largely because the 60s were more prefeminist than Haynes would have you believe.)
Apart from Robbie’s wife, Claire—a dead weight at the center of the film in spite of Charlotte Gainsbourg’s charm and talent—nearly every supporting character in the film is a caricature. The fans who are livid about Dylan going electric are depicted as especially innocent and clueless. One of the few people assigned as much if not more credibility and insight as Dylan is a skeptical journalist modeled loosely on various reporters in Don’t Look Back. He confronts Jude for his apolitical self-absorption—an attack I find questionable, at least from a contemporary standpoint, as it ignores some of Dylan’s more recent work. Masked and Anonymous, the 2003 movie he pseudonymously cowrote and stars in, for example, is a blistering portrayal of the U.S. as a corrupt and greedy banana republic.
Haynes may raise issues with Dylan’s persona, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t working both sides of the street. Not only did he have Dylan’s permission to do the project, he employs so much esoteric Dylanology along the way that he’s clearly pitching to skeptics and specialists alike. A postmodernist who deals in pastiche, often appropriating the mystique of others, Haynes is guilty of some of the same double dealing as Dylan—a guy who comes on as a poet, man of the people, and political protester even as he disavows those identities entirely. Haynes is calling Dylan out for creating public confusion even while he does his part to keep that confusion going.
The moments when this semiological attack becomes hagiography aren’t always easy to spot. The first time I saw the film, I figured the fanciful “old west” town of Riddle, Missouri—where Billy the Kid and Pat Garrett both appear—was intended to show the confused and ahistorical way we tend to view westerns. Riddle is a jumble of freakish hippies and cowboys, where an ostrich, a giraffe, Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, Franklin’s Woody Guthrie reconfigured as Charlie Chaplin, and a projected four-lane highway all come into play. When Billy the Kid and Woody Guthrie hop into the same boxcar, each carrying a guitar case labeled “This Machine Kills Fascists,” it seemed to suggest that both figures belong to the same mythological past. But when I later got the chance to ask Haynes about the Riddle segment, he traced many of its anomalies back to specific Dylan references, such as Greil Marcus’s metaphorical appreciation of The Basement Tapes—more evidence that how much I’m Not There plays as a critique or a celebration depends on what you bring to it.
Haynes was born in ’61, and obviously his perception of the 60s differs greatly from mine. His movie references stretch from 1957 to 1973, encompassing, among other titles, A Face in the Crowd (a gag about “composite” and “compost heap”), 8½ (a human kite), A Hard Day’s Night (the Beatles cavorting on a hillside), The Umbrellas of Cherbourg (an overhead street shot), Masculine Feminine (a line of narration followed by gunshots), Petulia (rich partygoers in neck braces), and of course Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid. These are all films that were seen by very different audiences. I suspect their actual relevance to the era is less important to Haynes than the way they might all seem contemporary with and equal to one another as cultural markers from today’s vantage point.
I’ve seen I’m Not There three times now, and apart from the politically correct sections with suffering Claire, I find it both nimble and gripping. But whenever I try to commit myself to any idea about what I think it’s doing, I ultimately balk at having too many choices. You might say I’m not there—at least not yet.
Send a letter to the editor.
From the Reader blogs On Film J.R. Jones: Rosenbaum redux. 4/30 at 12:41 pm
|
Flag as inappropriate
postpostmod at 1:50 AM on 11/22/2007
I thought postmodernism had already died a well deserved death. When can we go back to just SAYING SOMETHING again?
Flag as inappropriate
Suzy at 3:56 PM on 11/24/2007
One of the worst films of all time. Long, esoteric and extremely confusing. Save your money.
Flag as inappropriate
David Ehrenstein at 10:12 AM on 11/25/2007
I'm rather surprised to see the greatest champion of "Playtime" balk at "too many choices."
Flag as inappropriate
Jonathan R. at 10:57 AM on 11/25/2007
To David E.: The choices in "Playtime" aren't between opposite evaluations of what we're watching; they aren't wishy-washy. It's true that both filmmakers ask the viewer to perform a creative synthesis of the elements involved, but synthesizing an attack with a celebration isn't exactly what Tati is doing in the restaurant sequence of "Playtime".
Flag as inappropriate
Andy at 10:29 PM on 11/26/2007
This guy sees "i'm not there" three times just to figure out if he likes it; yet a few months ago he writes a piece which damns Ingmar Bergman's entire career -- only to admit later that he still hasn't gotten around to watching "Fanny and Alexander." I respect Rosenbaum as a critic, but this kind of thing seems self-serving and suspect and I wonder what his rationale for it would be.
Flag as inappropriate
Jonathan R. at 4:47 AM on 11/27/2007
Just for the record: I never damned Ingmar Bergman's entire career (read the article) and I saw "I'm Not There" three times because I liked it. (I even gave it three stars.)
Flag as inappropriate
Andy at 10:36 AM on 11/28/2007
Thanks for your response and I realize you didn't "damn" Bergman's entire career. Still, I think you will admit, that if you read a piece as dismissive of Hitchcock as your piece was of Bergman, and then you learned that the author of the piece still hadn't seen "Psycho" or "Vertigo," you might be a bit annoyed.
Flag as inappropriate
David Ehrenstein at 4:41 PM on 11/28/2007
I'm not sure what you mean by " synthesizing an attack with a celebration." Granted Todd is NOT Tati in any way shape or form. But like Tati his work requires the intellectual energy of the spectator in ways seldom called for anymore.
Flag as inappropriate
The Man who would be Bob Dylan at 9:16 PM on 11/28/2007
This review and the stupid movie are bogus. You fellas want the truth? I was no poseur but an opposeur, my original idea. And, I was no sixties icon but just an artist trying to be me. I hate all this 'sign and text' shit. It reduces me to a sodapop ad.
If you want the whole truth about how I feel, it's all here:
http://bobdylanalterego.blogspot.com/
Flag as inappropriate
Jonathan R. at 11:59 AM on 11/29/2007
To The Man who would be Bob Dylan: Whoever you are (and, unlike Todd Haynes, I do think it matters), your long text is by far the best critique of I'm Not There that I've read--and certainly the best critique of my own piece as well.
Flag as inappropriate
Eseus at 7:06 PM on 11/29/2007
It really does feel like Bob Dylan is the hardest modern art-maker to...relate to, I guess. His music's not hard to relate to, but the work is not the man, and the fragmented documents of him that exist do indicate an author who turns out to be at least as interesting as his songs--rare but not impossible. "Don't Look Back" is easily as fascinating and complex and magically satisfying and long-lived as his best lyrics, and both he and Pennebaker know it. But--it's not the author. Nothing is. Haynes' response to Dylan is commendably non-literal except for the "Don't Look Back" enactments (and Bale singing to the farmhands), and those are hopelessly outstripped by their source material. Dylan is a rare figure who is more interesting than fact OR fiction, more charismatic than his own legend. No one's going to find Dylan here, and thankfully, almost alone among appreciators, Haynes doesn't insist on his presence.
So: Todd Haynes gets credit for not making the first, most fundamental error in responding to a singular artist. After that, though...I don't know. It all felt like static around the songs themselves. He did no wrong, but he did no right either. "I'm Not There" didn't bleed into, or interact with, any of the songs or images or flashing facets of Dylan himself. It lacked presumptions, which was a fine surprise. But the figure at its center was so damn presumptuous himself, in the most amazing way. There's not much satisfaction in watching a document so much less dynamic than its inspiration...
Flag as inappropriate
Andy at 11:21 PM on 11/29/2007
Not to beat a dead horse but -- Mr. Rosenbaum takes the time to read that long, long, long, pseudo-Dylan blog, yet he did not take the time to watch Fanny and Alexander before writing his Bergman piece. What kind of priorities are these? And what kind of priorities do I have, charting the various manifestations of this minor injustice? Adieu to this message board and back to real life I go...
Flag as inappropriate
Jonathan R. at 1:55 AM on 11/30/2007
To Andy: I guess what you're saying is that when an editor at the New York Times invited me to write a piece about Bergman within a day or so, I should have refused the invitation because I hadn't yet seen the same truncated three-hour version that other American reviewers saw and reviewed as if they were seeing the whole thing. Now that I HAVE seen the truncated three-hour version, I obviously have to wait and see the longer one in order to appreciate the film (something I am planning to do), because the U.S. release version is obviously far inferior to the Bergman masterpieces I treasure the most, such as Sawdust and Tinsel, The Magician, and Persona. Of course, according to your argument, I don't need to see the full version to reach a verdict about this because very few of my reviewing colleagues have done so either, or even bothered to mention that such a distinction exists. Have YOU seen this version? If so, why did you fail to mention it in your post? And if not, what makes you qualified to judge me on this matter?
Flag as inappropriate
A Guy from Montenegro at 1:48 PM on 11/30/2007
The only version of F&A I have seen is the long one. It is a masterpiece, IMO, and I strongly recommend you to see it. On the other hand, I think that your Bergman article is extremely valuable. Not because it was supposed to totally destroy the icon of Bergman but to reevaluate it. Now even those lazy thinkers who were saying "Bergman, the best director of all times has died", and that on the same day when Antonioni has died, for example, will start maybe to search for some more valuable things to appreciate in their idol, and not the same superficialities like always. One of them being that he is the most accessible of the master directors. I understood your article as a well intended provocation. But see the 5 hour version of F&A. I think you'll like it.
Btw, you are the most interesting and probably the best film critic I'm aware of.
Cheers from overseas
Flag as inappropriate
A O O at 2:10 PM on 11/30/2007
Mr. Rosenbaum, what did you think of the crosscuts between Riddle and Jude late in the film? Are they both temporally distant and psychologically unmotivated?
Flag as inappropriate
renbard at 6:03 PM on 11/30/2007
JR, I found your review helpful in my struggle to formulate my own views of the Haynes piece.
I'd like to single out a comment of yours that I feel is important, both to your review of the film and your sense of the artist.
".....as the appointed spokesman for my generation—born in 1941, only a couple of years before me—he sometimes strikes me as little more than a series of shifting masks and poses...."
I think Dylan more or less buys into the notion that personality and character are fictions and if you believe that strongly enough being someone in the conventional sense of things is like putting on a costume. As an artist he's the ultimate shape shifter. Masks are his stock and trade. Mixed metaphors and mixed messages are vital to his art. His love for and appreciation of contemporary visual art, particularly Picasso, Lautrec, Van Gogh, grow out of the notion that what you see is what you get and you don't hardly ever get what you want to see.
I think you've got Haynes' attitude toward Dylan about right. The film is shot through with ambivalence. In a way it's a bitter sweet reminder to Bob that the more people are interested in a person who refuses to sit still and provide answers about himself the more biographers, hagiographers, and hatchet persons are going to falsify you. Why try to get Dylan right when you can get the reflections and refractions of Dylan and his time. Riddle, I saw, as an effort to bring Bob back to his great masterpiece, "Desolation Row" and find things as desolate and incoherent as before.
Flag as inappropriate
Joel at 7:35 PM on 11/30/2007
Jonathan,
Great to see your long reviews appearing again after an absence (in the Reader at least) of a month and a half.
Flag as inappropriate
Jocke at 9:17 AM on 12/1/2007
I don't think F&A is Bergman's masterpiece and not among his greatest either. Because of this I don't believe you have to see F&A to make a statement of Bergman's career.
I do like Bob Dylan and Todd Haynes (Safe is one of few american 1990's movies which deserve to be labeled with the word masterpiece), so I'm looking forward to see "I'm not there". Despite some bad reviews I've read.
Flag as inappropriate
tonypaley at 3:26 PM on 12/2/2007
Jonathan
I saw Sawdust and Tinsel recently on the BBC4 TV channel (what BBC2 used to be years ago but is now marginalised) over here (as part of a weekend devoted to Bergman) and it was a revelation. I have not seen much Bergman (the usual "classics" Seventh Seal and Wild Strawberries some time ago) but this film had a big impact on me. It sent me searching for reviews of the work of the director. Sawdust and Tinsel, where it merited a mention at all, was rated a minor work in the oeuvre. I shall seek out The Magician and Persona.
btw I saw I'm Not There at the London Film Festival. I loved it (Haynes is perhaps my favourite living American director) but I think it will be a flop unfortunately as it presupposes an awful lot of knowledge about Dylan on behalf of its audience. I can't wait to see it again. (I think you would need to see it two or three times to absorb the references and allusions for a start).
ps Please write more about Sawdust and Tinsel.
Flag as inappropriate
Kifah Foutah at 7:20 PM on 12/2/2007
I thought this film was heads an shoulders better than any other American Independent film released in commercial theaters this year, and I find it interesting that your frustration over finding a definitive interpretation of the film would hinder your appreciation of Haynes filmic mastery. This is one of the most ambitious and complex commercial movies ever made, and I think that in years time this film will stand out much more than many of the movies of this era, and quite frankly I'm rather unimpressed with this notion that Haynes has to take a definitive stance on anything. The fact that this movie's interpretation is going to be fundamentally different depending on who you are to me is something to celebrate, not to attack. Don't many including yourself, Mr. Rosenbaum celebrate Kiarostami for the same thing? (I myself am I huge Kiarostami fan, and in no way meant that as a dis).
Flag as inappropriate
blind boy at 2:26 AM on 12/3/2007
the man who would be Dylan is pretty interesting, i think it might be dylan but who knows, whoever they are they know a shit ton about Bob, im just suprised that Dylan would reference so many movies, but then again I dont know what he does with his spare time, i just found the blog very interesting and I see what he means if he doesnt like the film or JRs review, i did like the film more then JRs review though i dont think that Haynes film depicts anything true to life and makes the myth of Dylan more confusing than intriguing, i just thought that the music and imagery were fun for a couple hours, other than that, its pretty much a headache, rosenbaum doesnt know how he feels anymore it seems, why did you watch it 3 times if you dont like Dylan, i wont assume anything, another thing, do you think that it was Dylan that replied, crazy if it was
Flag as inappropriate
Jonathan R. at 11:29 AM on 12/3/2007
To Kifah Foutah: Kiarostami's ambiguity almost always has an ethical aspect, and it's bold enough to include an autocritique. The only ethical issue addressed in I'm Not There is Dylan's attitude towards women, and there's nothing especially interesting or inventive about this critique.
To blind boy: I saw I'm Not There three times because I liked it and found much of it interesting. And I never said that I don't like Dylan (in fact, I like some of his songs and Masked and Anonymous a lot); I only said I wasn't a hardcore fan, which is hardly the same thing.
Flag as inappropriate
blind boy at 2:33 PM on 12/3/2007
still, i wonder if that was Dylan on that blog, the film was cool, but it did seem like Haynes was missing the point of Dylans genius, i dont really think it was Dylan, but i really prefer Scorseses Documentary and Pennebakers for Dylan films mainly because they show him as the artist he was, Haynes film is a cool experiment, but i think that the Dylan guy was right when he said Haynes could have used anyone and that Dylan deserved a little more credit. Im sure thats just the hardcore fan in me, which I thought Im not There was going to be for, i still liked it, and I guess to write a solid review you probably see all films three times, makes sense
Flag as inappropriate
Michael at 9:08 PM on 12/3/2007
I enjoyed Rosenbaum's review but I disagree that the only ethical issue addressed in the film is Dylan's attitude towards women. It seems to me that one of Haynes' central conceits is to examine the role of the artist in society. All of the film's Dylans grapple with the concept of social responsibility - from Woody learning to sing about his "own time" to Billy the Kid taking a stand against the politicians who want to displace the citizens of Riddle so that a new highway can be built.
I also take issue with the description of Haynes' ambiguity as the synthesis of an attack and a celebration. I think it would be truer to say that he is celebrating the work of the artist while simultaneously criticizing certain aspects of the man. I don't think this is Haynes being "wishy-washy" so much as it is an acknowledgment of the complexity of human nature.
Anyway, I'm very much enjoying these and other debates surrounding I'm Not There, which is certainly my favorite American film of the 21st century.
Flag as inappropriate
Kifah Foutah at 11:51 PM on 12/3/2007
I would agree that the issue of ethics is strong in Kiarostami's work, but that isn't to me the only validation for his decisions to tread in ambiguity. I think Hayne's movie is successful because it offers a complex reading of the nature of the human personality, a subject that is, to me anyways, intensified because of the celebrity status of his subject. Regardless, of how deep you feel this is or is not, the fact that so many interpretations of the material are courted and validated to me is something to celebrate, and I don't think that ambiguity in art is only great if its validated by strictly ethical readings. What I meant to point out was, in a way, Hayne's film isn't one film, but an infinite number of films, a goal that Kiarostami has admitted to (see the New Yorker DVD liner notes of The Wind Will Carry Us).
Flag as inappropriate
Nice review at 12:20 PM on 12/4/2007
JR, what films by Kon Ichikawa would you recommend?
Flag as inappropriate
steely at 12:49 PM on 12/4/2007
I wish Rosenbaum had done this review. I really need to know how this movie relates to U.S. foreign policy... I don't know who wrote this article.
Flag as inappropriate
Denny Kravitz at 6:47 PM on 12/4/2007
I did not feel the same conflictedness as Rosenbaum about the film. It seems to me like the fragmented approach is the best one for someone so representative of the American imagination. I also feel the need to mention the soundtrack, which had a similar approach. Hearing artists like Sonic Youth and Cat Power excellently reinvent Bob Dylan, I felt like I rediscovered Dylan.
Flag as inappropriate
Joel Wicklund at 10:45 AM on 12/5/2007
It's good to read a review that notes how critical of Dylan the film is, though I think it's too full of appreciation to see as a series of insults. Though a bit of knowledge about Dylan certainly helps in appreciating the film, I saw the whole movie as a more general discussion of the conflicts between sincerity and superficiality in an artist's efforts and between an artist's sometimes clouded view of things and the desire of others (from the press to people in his/her private life) to read that view more clearly. You could almost plug any controversial artist into the Dylan role and I think the concept would work. Thanks for pointing out the depth of the reporter figure (Bruce Greenwood, giving one of the best performances in the film). I think the debates between him and Blanchett's Dylan are the most interesting part of the film and it's nice to see Greenwood -- a good actor often wasted on stock parts -- making the most of his segments.
Flag as inappropriate
Michael at 10:33 PM on 12/5/2007
Joel, do you really think Haynes has hit upon a new formula for telling the life story of an artist that would work well for a variety of subjects, in the same way that the standard biopic formula has been applied to artists as diverse as Johnny Cash and Ray Charles? I thought he was attempting the exact opposite: to reinvigorate the biopic by coming up with a form that he thought was absolutely unique to his subject.
Flag as inappropriate
DAL at 7:27 PM on 12/7/2007
As a Dylan fan and cinephile born the same year as Haynes, I suppose in some ways I'm the ideal audience for this movie. I've also slogged through most (but not all) of The Man Who Would Be Bob Dylan's blog on the movie and this review (note to would-be Dylans: It's probably a good idea to follow his lead on "Like a Rolling Stone" and do some editing on the original) and think it is on-target in many ways.
My own feeling is that this is an ambitious film and Haynes succeeds best when his own imagination takes flight and approximates the sense of 'mystery' evoked by Dylan's songs themselves that's central to the film, and fell flat in sequences where his take became too literal (e.g., the "Ballad of a Thin Man" montage, Christian Bale episodes and, to some extent, the other Cate Blanchett sequences as well). I also regretted slightly that Haynes gave in to temptation at the end and included a clip of Dylan himself, even if the harmonica solo is sublime. And as for movie references, I noted one to 'The Graduate,' that perennial JR favorite.
In some interviews, Haynes has reportedly said that his 'hands were tied behind his back' with this film, and I presume he meant in terms of budget. Having recently seen Jaromil Jires' 'Valerie and Her Week of Wonders,' a 1970 film based on a Czech surrealist's work from the 1930s and which embodies as well as any film I've seen the waking dream-like quality that Haynes also appears to be aiming for in "I'm Not There," I think Haynes can be excused for not achieving the formal heights of that film because, in his case, the money was probably just not there.
Flag as inappropriate
Mark at 12:44 AM on 12/9/2007
It's striking to me that this review is tagged with the phrase "Todd Haynes' essay on Dylan is no hagiography," because the first thought I had after the film was over was "Talk about hagiography!" On further reflection I recognized that it could also be read as a hit piece, but this is precisely the problem--there's no in between. As Rosenbaum says, Haynes works both sides of the street. But there's no possibility in the film of being _in_ the street. It's certainly true that which side you think it's on depends on what you bring to it, but again, why do I have to take a side? Why does it have to be mockery or worship? Where's the complexity of the public image in this film? I am certainly a fan of Dylan's music, and I understand the appeal of his enigmatic persona, but the film admits no enigmas; it allows only one side or the other, only juvenile genius or wizened sage. It is a retread of the received images of Dylan that we already have, a mishmash of _Don't Look Back_ and _No Direction Home_, with no _Masked and Anonymous_ to it. I take great issue with the word "ambivalence" being used to describe the film, unless by that word you mean "one or the other," allowing for only two possibilities, each mutually exclusive.
It also strikes me that Rosenbaum sees the Dylan of _Don't Look Back_ as even remotely "impressive" as a human being--I always thought that film made him look like an utter asshole, which this entire film does, when read a certain way. The sly moments of Dylan trivia sprinkled throughout are utterly infuriating, indicating nothing more than, "See, I know about Bob Dylan." The motorcycle accident is the most inevitable and unnecessary moment in recent American cinema--we all know it's coming, and when it happens, it feels like padding. The references to other filmmakers (Fellini, Godard, Lester) feel the same, moments that do nothing more than point out Haynes' knowledge of film history (the Beatles moment is particularly maddening, a cheap grade school joke).
The most damning parts of the film are when we hear original recordings as opposed to (awful) covers. At these points, the soundtrack completely takes over the image track, the songs rendering the image superfluous, a nuisance.
And how exactly is the critical journalist portrayed as offering more credibility and insight than Dylan himself? I found myself agreeing with him on quite a few points, but he is completely savaged by the film--the fact that Haynes allows the original recording of "Ballad of a Thin Man" to play over the pseudo-music video attack on him says much about how we are encouraged to read him (seriously, this is the most dubious claim of Rosenbaum's entire review--this guy is made to look like a complete tool by the film, even though he doesn't deserve it).
This film is almost worse than _Hot Rod_.
Flag as inappropriate
Shortdawg at 5:51 PM on 12/19/2007
I thought, for the most part, this was quite entertaining. Of course, the six separate actors that play Dylan range from glorious (Kate Blanchett) to dreadful (Richard Gere), but, all in all, the good far outweighs the bad. The one thing that really struck me, though, is how much Dylan's life resembles that of virtually any long-running comic book character. The character will adopt several distinct looks over the years, but each will be recognizable variations on the original theme. Also, most will agree that the character's true glory days were relatively early in its run, but a few diehards will argue passionately that some later variation is actually an underappreciated masterpiece. Dylan even had a a wise mentor (Woody Guthrie), an arch nemesis who was once extremely close to him and almost his mirror image (Joan Baez), a secret ID (Robert Zimmerman), and a younger version of himself that's pretty lame (Jacob). So I guess what I'm saying is, as a "comic book film," "I'm Not There" works pretty well!
Flag as inappropriate
Marina at 4:51 PM on 12/24/2007
I am not sure it is quite consistent to claim that a filmaker has no real interest in the individual he is allegedly portraying, and then to claim that he is simultaneously adopting an attitude (critical or not) towards that individual qua individual... These don't go together, in the same way in which the two explicitly proclaimed objectives of the film - that it will be a biopic (regardless of how unconventional), but of a subject who is emphatically 'not there', don't quite go together under the conventional presupposition of what a biopic does. My most generous interpretation of the approach here is that while 'Bob Dylan' clearly wasn't there, the film most emphatically contained 'Bob Dylan, the Wikipedia entry', down to the footnotes and sugestions for further reading dispersed throughout in an appropriately smaller font. Further, while the film was, in this sense, not a biopic, it definitely contained the 'biopic, conventional interpretation of', in parody form. With everything further expressed through a variety of images and styles arrived at through a series of (at times, rather clever)analogies. I took all the over-the-top aspects that can be immediately singled out for criticism - like crawling tarantulas, or the 'interpretation' of Ballad of the Thin Man - to be a part of the parody, as both facile symbolism and the impulse towards building naive equations between the 'life' and the 'art' are very much common features of the conventional bioraphical approach. Same with the Claire sequence - I think it was a caricature as much as everything else. It took a standard piece of knowledge from the Dylan canon and represented it as the standard story of pretty much any celebrity marriage (which is, in turn, a standard feature of the standard biopic) shot in a very standard style (which I was only good enough to put down as 'generic French from about that time'). The intent here being, I think, to force one through the recognition of multiple conventions to start to recognize how much of their thinking about or interpretation of whatever is put before them is, in fact, shaped by convention. Which is a valid point, though not necessarily one that merits repeating over 2+ hours - and I really do think it was being repeated over and over, even if under various attractively looking guises.
So... I am oversimplifying somewhat, but I do think that viewed in those terms, the film is quite heavily inoculated against any possible criticism related to its taking a 'stand' of any sort, except maybe some very general one (stand, that is) pertaining to the baggage we all bring to any act of interpretation. In the service of which point it played like a long poem constructed entirely of clever (clever, because obvoius) similes which were simply presented and never expanded.
I personally think the idea of, say, 'Bob Dylan as a New-born Christian preacher' is, on its face, an excellent premise, with plausibility grounded somewhere in some shared context of knowledge, whose potential for ellucidating anything lies in its being a good starting point - for, say, coming up with a fleshed out imagining of what the life of Bob Dylan as a preacher might actually be like. A much riskier approach, obviously, not in the least because it would commit one to adopt an actual specific interpretation of who they take Bob Dylan to be - but also one with a potentially much higher payoff. I kind of wish the movie had gone there, but then I kind of wish a lot of things.
Anyhow. Thanks for trying to write informed and informative reviews.
Flag as inappropriate
AJ at 2:56 AM on 1/26/2008
I didn't interpret the film to be insulting to Dylan at all. I don't think Haynes was even interested in shedding any light on Dylan as an individual. He used Dylan's many media constructions as a vehicle for a postmodern meditation on the way we perceive the lives of public figures as a collection of symbols and narratives. His work is really more of a deconstuctive critique of the typical biopic than it is an honest attempt to depict Dylan's life.
I think it is a great success in that effort. It did feel a little hollow though and it was unable to capture the emotional power and intimacy of Dylan's most focused and introspective work. One of postmodernism's primary flaws is an inability to speak to an emotional human core beyond social constructions.
Still, Haynes has produced an outstanding and thought provoking work of art! I do think that perhaps one must "speak Dylan" to really understand the film's many references, but anyone should be able to appreciate it, if only for the amazing music and captivating imagery.
Flag as inappropriate
Tom Grasty at 11:17 PM on 1/29/2008
I've read a lot of reviews on this film, and this is by far the most debated.
But since you and your readers want fodder for the fire...here's a little in the form of my new novel, BLOOD ON THE TRACKS.
It's a murder-mystery. But not just any rock superstar is knocking on heaven's door. The murdered rock legend is none other than Bob Dorian, an enigmatic, obtuse, inscrutable, well, you get the picture...
Suspects? Tons of them. The only problem is they're all characters in Bob's songs.
You can get a copy on Amazon.com or go "behind the tracks" at www.bloodonthetracksnovel.com to learn more about the book.
Flag as inappropriate
The Ghost of Electricity (Richard) at 12:52 PM on 2/27/2008
First of all, as a longtime fan of Dylan, persona(s) and music alike, I did not expect to like this film at all. From reading the initial reports that Haynes would be doing a "biopic" utilizing multiple actors to portray the different facets of Dylan's life and career, my first thought was, "Didn't Dylan already do this (and badly) with his own "Renaldo and Clara?"
And though the compilation as a whole doesn't all work (the Billy the Kidd sequences are especially pretentious), there is enough there to keep one's interest and even a desire to see it again, as in Mr. Rosenbaum's case.
What really fuels the engine in this film, ironically, is Dylan's own performances of the music, including rare or alternate takes. This makes it especially baffling that Sony would market a soundtrack album that consists mostly of covers (ranging from excellent to disposable), most of which are never even heard during the film itself.
Hayne's does a masterful job of marrying image and music, though the narrative structure surrounding it doesn't always succeed. The best example of this is the "bandstand" scene in Riddle which becomes a live enactment of the cover art depicted on Dylan and the Band's "Basement Tapes" release. And I wish that the film had ended at the point where we hear the brief sampling of Dylan's magnum opus, "Sad-Eyed Lady of the Lowlands" with that beautiful black and white image of Jude on the train rambling through the countryside and the power of that music in the foreground. I would have rolled the credits right there...
Oddly enough, the movie as a whole reminds me most of Woody Allen's "Stardust Memories" - I believe there is even a self-conscious reference to that film in the scene where "Dylan" and Allen Ginsberg are looking at Jesus on the cross and one of them remarks, "I liked his earlier funnier stuff."
All in all, for some reason, I really liked this movie, even though it failed on so many levels. In many ways it mirrors my appreciation of Dylan's recorded output, from the monumental achievements (such as "Blond on Blond" or "Blood on the Tracks") to the confusing failures (such as "Self-Portrait" and "Knocked-Out Loaded") or the more under-valued contributions ("Planet Waves" and "Street Legal"). You have to take it as a whole, without the hype and without expectation.
I never viewed "I'm Not There" as a biography or hagiography -- to me it just seemed to be an impressionistic montage of an iconic figure. The fact that some of it seemed to coincide with what I knew (or read) about the figure we think we know as Bob Dylan, well, that just gave it more context and maybe resonated with me more because of it.
Flag as inappropriate
urhllf at 9:11 PM on 5/9/2008
TmZXm6 oufcptrskmtd, [url=http://mdyakrrbzroy.com/]mdyakrrbzroy[/url], [link=http://keowjnjetdhv.com/]keowjnjetdhv[/link], http://ghhkapbphfid.com/
Add a comment