I'm Not There (2007)

Amazing, but only for a very particular group of people.

I adored this film. It is more like a puzzle or mosaic than a story, but it comes closer than anything yet to painting a good picture of such an interesting man.

This film is nonlinear and abstract - people who like a concise, plot based story are not going to like it. People who don't know or care much about Dylan's career probably won't get much out of it.

But for those of us who are diehard Dylan fans and enthusiasts, it is a very rewarding experience. You will recognize particular scenes and shots. You will marvel at how many known aspects of the man are shown.

I recommend this film, but only to diehard Dylan fans and fans of nonlinear storytelling. December 24, 2008

"You may call me anything but no matter what you say... "

I am a fan of Bob Dylan's talent. I admire him as a singer-songwriter, musician who plays several instruments, and especially as a poet. I understand very well that Dylan is not Luciano Pavarotti, Robert Plant, Freddie Mercury or Ian Gillan but his rough, nasal and far from perfect singing voice speaks to me clearly. For five decades he's been a major figure in popular music and the number of his admirers has only increases as time goes by. It is not surprising that the figure of such complexity, influence and enigma would attract journalists, writers, and film directors who would try to understand and explain phenomenon of Bob Dylan. When I learned about Todd Haynes' films about Bob Dylan where different aspects of his personality during different times of his life, represented by the different performers, I became a little suspicious. The whole idea sounded a bit pretentious even if I respected what Hayens was trying to achieve. Sadly, his approach did not work for me.

The movie is all over the place and it jumps from past to present and around the world with the grace and elegance of a behemoth. 6 actors of different ages, genders and races play the different Bob Dylan's personalities. I have no problems with many actors playing one person but the problem is - Hayens in his latest film is not Federico Fellini or Luis Bunuel who had made a movie with two actresses playing one character. Bunuel's last film was funny, mysterious, and interesting because Bunuel did not make a big deal of it, and because of his incomparable sense of humor. Having six actors playing one character makes the movie crowded, claustrophobic, and over-complicated with no particular reason and with "no direction home". Besides, of six actors, not all are equally good and it is not perhaps even their fault. Try to create depth of the character, for instance, in Richard Gere's part as a Billy the Kid outlaw figure - I could not help laughing out loud every time Gere was on screen and I love the actor dearly. One of the ominous signs for me that the movie is bad is an urge to laugh in the wrong places. Or take another Dylan's incarnation by the name Arthur Rimbaud - you either know who Arthur Rimbaud was and you laugh at the parallel Haynes tries to draw here or you don't, and it would make no sense to you why the French poet-Rebel of 19th Century was brought to life to enlighten us with the pieces of wisdom like: "I accept chaos. I don't know whether it accepts me "or "Y'know, it's nature's will. And I'm against nature. I'm not cool with nature" among others.

I understand that "I am not there" was the loving tribute and the attempt to understand one of the most complex, enigmatic, controversial, and influential figure in the modern culture but quoting Dylan himself,

"You may call me Terry, you may call me Timmy, You may call me Bobby, you may call me Zimmy, You may call me R.J., you may call me Ray, You may call me anything but no matter what you say... ", Mr. Haynes, sorry, but it did not work as the whole.

You should have made the movie with one Bob Dylan - like figure and it should have been Cate Blanchett. She is way above all five male performers combined together, and her Jude Quinn simply blew away all other personalities from the screen. If ever the dis joined overwrought overcrowded incoherent self-indulgent and confusing with no redeeming cause movie did reach a high point, it was with Blanchett on screen. She keeps proving with her every role that she is truly one of the best (for me THE best actress of her generation - courageous, always ready to take on the challenge, convincing, compelling, beautiful talented Cate Blanchett.

2/5 - all points go to Cate Blanchett

December 23, 2008

Keep Reading, I'm going to totally trash this film!

First of all, I am not a person who blogs/reviews people's work, but I think someone with a strong opinion needs to make a statement before you fellow Dylan fans shell out $17 + shipping for this film. And if you are thinking about a present for dear-old mom or dad the Dylan fans, for everyone's sake, pass on this.
As I am a positive person, I will begin with the positive points of the movie. The music: although Dylan covers have, since their existance, been cliche, the many directions musicians take with Dylan's music on the soundtrack and during the film are very interesting and worth a listen. My personal favorite, as many of the other reviewers have noted also, is Jim James and Calexico making cameos to act like they are performing "Going to Acapulco." (Which they recorded for the soundtrack) Also, I felt that the filmmaker did a great job mixing Dylan's recorded music with other artists as the film progressed. When a real Dylan song needs to make a statement it is there, and when an artsy version of one of Dylan's songs comes on, it is done in a tasteful way which effects the movie in a positive way. Ok, I liked the music.
Whatever you do, do not waste your money buying this movie. I watched it twice just to make sure I really hated it. Through all these hipster's screenwriting, storyboarding, production techniques and directing efforts (Well, there is not that much screenwriting since much of the movie comes from Dylan's actual statements/lyrics/writing) they completely missed the point. Very briefly, I'll tell you why. First off, they intentionally cast all of these very, very famous actors who are at the height of their popularity to portray Dylan. This is at the cost of the believability of the characters. I understand that these people are not supposed to be Dylan, only facets of his persona, but I'm sorry, I just do not see Richard Gere, or his character, as the "Outlaw Dylan," Richard Gere is the kind of outlaw who picks up prostitutes (Ok that was sort of a cheapshot), not one who challenges authority. And Christian Bale as folk singer Dylan, please! Christian Bale is the last person you would want in that role. I could go on, but I'm going to get to my second point which is the definative reason this movie lost me. So Cate Blanchett (Jude Quinn) is at Free Trade Hall playing and has the curtain pulled after the "Judas!" comment. Well, his response of "I don't believe you," was to another heckler who said "I'll never listen to your music again!" which makes much more sense than the theatrical version. To me, for (the real) Dylan to hear that comment and still play the most riveting version of "Like a Rolling Stone" is a defining moment. Why would you rob a film of that moment? Why would you subtract that triumph? What a time in the history of rock and roll, and they left it out, and yet people are calling these people geniuses. They missed the most compelling thing that could be put in a film about Dylan. Martin Scorsese did not miss that moment. So they made an overly complicated movie, which has no humor, no respect, and no heart about SOMEONE ELSE'S accomplishments, bravo! And they wonder why they didn't clean up when Oscars got passed out. By trying to confuse the viewer with stupid, unoriginal filmmaking and ambiguous hidden meaning, they end up with a really bad film. They also rob Bob Dylan of his humor, his personality, and take no time to acknowledge the musicians around him who helped make his career. And by the way, the sets were good. If you want to see something that will make you really fall in love with Dylan's music again, click over to No Direction Home, you will be much happier, I guarantee it! Bob Dylan - No Direction Home December 12, 2008

No.

When Haynes was interviewed about this movie way before it was released, he said that this was going to be the first movie made about the sixties that really truly captured the sixties, and that no other film previously made had captured it and gotten it rigth. Okay. First off, let's remember that Haynes was a child during the sixties-- so whatever authority he has on that decade and what it was "about" is coming from a pre-10 year old's take on a decade and it's society, politics, ethics, aesthetics, etc. How he has become the authority who really knows what it was about is beyond me. Second, to make such a comment is arrogant, smug, and condescending to other artists (including those who made works about the sixties during the sixties). It is also setting himself up for an "Oh really?" moment afterwards. Is this film the first real film about the sixties? Is it the first film that really gets the sixties right? If someone says yes, they most likely weren't there either. It's like saying Sofia Coppola's "Marie Antoinette" was the first film that got the 18th century right. Haynes' fantasy about Bob was way too long, way too scattered, and a study in pretention. The last one he got right. For the people who loved this film-- I'm glad they enjoyed it and had a good time. For others, it was insufferable. December 1, 2008

Another excellent film from Todd Haynes

I knew nothing about Bob Dylan going in to this film. I don't particularly like the songs of Bob Dylan, save for a few of them. However, this film has encouraged me to explore more of his music, and I even did a little research after the film ended. This film basically explores Bob Dylan at different phases of his life, with a different actor for each segment, including Heath Ledger, Christian Bale, Richard Gere, and Cate Blanchett. Yes, you read that correctly, and she is magnificent!

There is a dream-like, poetic quality to this film that I thought was incredibly effective, and the direction is amazing. It is also very symbolic. There were things in the film that I didn't quite grasp upon my first viewing, probably because I don't have a vast knowledge of the work of it's subject. I plan on watching this film several more times, because I'll learn something new every time I see it.

If you haven't seen it, or even if you're not a fan of Dylan, check it out. It's pretty amazing, and I loved it. December 1, 2008

More reviews at Amazon.com ...