"I'm Not There" (Dylan-R)
mannybolone
Los Angeles, CA 15,025 Posts
Anyone else catch this yet? I went with my wife yesterday and have to say I really enjoyed it although, at nearly 2.5 hours, it could have stood to be at least half an hour shorter (read: less Gere please). Cate Blanchett was pretty goddamn amazing and Christian Bale was great too. I wasn't as into Heath Ledger but his sequences at least meant we got to see more of Charlotte Gainsbourgh. Marcus Carl Frankin - as an actor, is someone I would love to see more of - but I didn't find his sequence as engaging...mostly b/c it really made little sense to me but "sense" was not really high up on the Haynes list of tasks anyways. My wife loved the flick; she actually wanted to sit through it again, on the spot. Me, not to so much (mostly b/c, after that long, I really needed a bathroom break). The music, as you might expect, was great (unless you hate Dylan, in which case, you're probably not going to go see this to begin with).
Comments
B/W
A family friend just bought 280 of Dylan's paintings. Here's a direct quote from him at Thanksgiving. "What did he write? 'Blowing in the Wind?' I'm really not familiar with his work". Seems like he would fit in with the average Strutter. I am putting together a Dylan educational packet (suggestions accepted). I think I'm gonna ask if he can get me the original painting for the cover of Music from Big Pink. Don't even get me started with his ideas for selling the stage from Woodstock.
I thought the symbolism was very heavyhanded and obvious (i.e. bringing in a village of misfits, dwarves, and vagabounds to represent the Basement Tapes era) and I left feeling like Haynes had no insight whatsoever into the 1960s, Bob Dylan, or the early 21st century.
I'm not opposed to this sort of project -- a series of intertwined short films inspired by a major cultural figure -- but I wish Haynes had chosen someone he understood better like Bowie, Iggy, or Eno. The disconnect between Dylan's comparably rootsy/organic music and the too-slick visuals downright sickened me at time.
I felt like everything he attempted here has been done so much better (or at least interstingly) elsewhere:
1)Defininitive look at Dylan's approach to fame, persona and the press -- Don't Look Back
2)Films that use multiple actors to portray one protagonist -- That Obscure Object of Desire, Palindromes
3)Arty Todd Haynes feature forged from interconncted shorts -- Poison
4)Messy, meandering 21st century reflection on Dylan's legacy - Masked and Anonymous
naw - it's not remotely that bad. Believe me, I've seen more experimental film than I ever hope to forget and this doesn't come remotely close. Sure, it's definitely unconventional and it's not narrative in a conventional Hollywood way. But I think it's rather kneejerk to assume that this implicitly makes it cringe-worthy.
I mean, at the very least, it's beautifully shot with great songs and at least one of the performances (Blanchett's) is marvelous. That said, it easily could have been 20-30 minutes shorter. The thing to keep in mind is that the film is both about Dylan but not really about Dylan so those expecting some kind of bio-pic ala "Ray" should disabuse themselves of that notion.
Umm...no, not exactly. Unless I missed the King Britt remix of "Just Like a Woman."
Of course, the soundtrack to the film is all Dylan covers.
^ Hater of Freedom.
"Don't Look Back" does get my vote though.
I can't believe you dudes would willingly subject yourselves to it.
^ Exactly what I was thinking, although Cate Blanchett section looks pretty good for a lark (read: short college film), with Cross as Ginsberg.
Don't Look Back and No Direction Home are good docs, though.
It's gotten generally very, very good reviews (Metacritic rating = 74) and that includes a practically fawning review by A.O. Scott at the Times, plus big praise from Entertainment Weekly, LA Times, The Village Voice, and Ebert.
Anthony Lane didn't like it, nor did David Edelstein and Mick LaSalle (whose opinion should never count for anything) hated it. Lane's criticisms were all very fair, IMO. But I happened to like the film a lot better, perhaps b/c I haven't seen the Scorsece doc and thus, don't have a point of comparison.
As far as art house films though, apart from its length, it's really nothing that should reasonably approach "unspeakably bad."
Lot of dudes are pushing the
next you'll be calling upon posters to actually have HEARD albums before dismissing them.
My repugnance does not spring from the crtics' qualitative assessments of the film, but from their general descriptions of it--the good reviews make it sound just as unappealing as the bad ones.
You didn't read my post?
I really hated this film. In fact, watching it actually angered me and I could write many more pages about how and why it rubbed me the wrong way, but it does seem like most people are enjoying it and I don't want to poison the water too much before other people who are interested have a chance to taste it.
Actually, I missed it the first time through but went back up and re-read it.
I wouldn't worry about poisoning the water around these parts; venom is all we drip
Yeah, I've noticed that.
I have to respect the film for getting such an extreme reaction out of me but in many ways it typifies exactly the kind of film I don't want to see in an "art house" in this day and age.
It seems like this thread is destined to have a parallel thurst alongside the Landmark Theatre thread, but I feel like world cinema is on fire right now -- especially in places like South Korea and Thailand. But instead of taking chances on new foreign voices or truly independent American films, "indie" distributors are expending all their resources on highly polished (but often artistically stale and/or anemic) films by established directors.
I love the fact that Dylan has scoffed and the myriad of "symbolism" that fans and critics have read into his lyrics.
"A Hard Rain's A Gonna Fall"....Yeah, that's about a really heavy rainstorm"
Well, it's still a business, right? Folks still want to try to fill seats. I feel your lament, believe me, I do. But especially with foreign films, sheeyit, most Americans don't want to have nothing to do with sub-titles (b/c they're lazy as fuck). Personally, I'm of the mind that finding alternatives to Michael Bay films and/or sequelitis is still worthwhile even if it's not going the full distance.
Curious: what do you think of the spate of Spanish and Mexican filmmakers that have become vogue of late?
It was reported on the radio here this morning that "Redacted" has made $25K to date....is this possible???
scoffed at?
I guess so - his blonde on blonde era stuff is such a hash of metaphors & shit - symbolist-inspired 'poetry' that has been a very bad influence every since in some ways
heard 'American Pie' on the radio the other day & thought, "thanks Bob"
That's based off the first weekend figures, but yeah - shit was crazy bad:
Domestic Total as of Nov. 18, 2007: $25,628
Apparently, that translates into about 3000 tickets. FOR THE ENTIRE OPENING WEEKEND.
Interestingly enough, the foreign gross for the same weekend was $78,000 and that was ALL based on it being released in Spain.
So basically, 3x the number of Spanish cared about the film more than Americans.