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.
Well, it's still a business, right? Folks still want to try to fill seats.
It was reported on the radio here this morning that "Redacted" has made $25K to date....is this possible???
The lunch bill for the cast had to be more than $25K.....failure is an understatement.
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.
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.
I agree, it's still a business, but it's a business that the 80s and 90s sucked the soul out of. Before directors like Bergman, Kurosawa and Fellini got canonized, someone had to take a chance on marketing em. It seems like in the 50s through the 70s, the average art-house filmgoer was a lot more film literate and would not only follow the above directors but follow with interest names like Antonioni, Bresson, Fassbinder, Godard, etc. Now it seems like people pick one foreign director to champion (seems like it's Almodovar more often than not) and think to themselves "whew, took care of that. Now off to the latest indie film starring Christian Bale, Cate Blanchett, and Richard Gere."
Part of that might be a change in the public, but I think a lot of that is also a change in the industry away from risk-taking and towards safe marketing to lowest-common-denominator mentalities.
Curious: what do you think of the spate of Spanish and Mexican filmmakers that have become vogue of late?
Cuaron and Inarittu are both very talented, but both clearly see themselves as international directors rather than directors who want to be thought of as building a "Mexican New Wave" cinema.
Carlos Reygadas seems like the real deal to me. His films are difficult and challenging, and while none of them work 100% of the time for me, I think he's finding his own voice and may have some great films for us in the near future. I saw Silent Light at the Toronto festival a few months back and that film, despite a very discordant divisive ending that didn't work for me, it was very bold filmmaking with some very beautiful scenes.
I agree, it's still a business, but it's a business that the 80s and 90s sucked the soul out of. Before directors like Bergman, Kurosawa and Fellini got canonized, someone had to take a chance on marketing em. It seems like in the 50s through the 70s, the average art-house filmgoer was a lot more film literate and would not only follow the above directors but follow with interest names like Antonioni, Bresson, Fassbinder, Godard, etc.
The more adult content available in foreign/arthouse films during this period certainly had an influence on the general public developing an interest in foreign language cinema. If you look back at a lot of the posters advertising the films at the time it was all about the ladies.
On a side note, my personal experience is that people these days seem far more receptive to watching the occasional subtitled movie but they just don't bother going to the cinema to see it.
I agree, it's still a business, but it's a business that the 80s and 90s sucked the soul out of. Before directors like Bergman, Kurosawa and Fellini got canonized, someone had to take a chance on marketing em. It seems like in the 50s through the 70s, the average art-house filmgoer was a lot more film literate and would not only follow the above directors but follow with interest names like Antonioni, Bresson, Fassbinder, Godard, etc.
The more adult content available in foreign/arthouse films during this period certainly had an influence on the general public developing an interest in foreign language cinema. If you look back at a lot of the posters advertising the films at the time it was all about the ladies.
On a side note, my personal experience is that people these days seem far more receptive to watching the occasional subtitled movie but they just don't bother going to the cinema to see it.
Both of those points are well-taken. Certainly Godard's Contempt sold a lot of tickets based on the premise of seeing Bardot's bare ass in the first 5 minutes. But there's no shortage of quality foreign films these days that are more adventurous sexually than most of their American equivalents, and most of them aren't being marketed in the US -- or aren't being marketed effectively.
And yeah, most cinephiles seem to be retreating to their home theaters -- but that might only feel like a preference after years and years of feeling let down by their local theaters' programming. Interestingly, many art-house video stores are developing a certain social function, and I think part of that is because most people, when they experience culture, want to have some human interaction that in some way validates and/or comments on that experience.
high concept pretentious dogshit based on a subject that gives rockist critics a boner
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"
Bob is a very shrewd manipulator of the media. He has carefully managed to control the dialogue about his oeuvre by withholding comment and then blessing certain projects (i.e No Direction Home) which tend to canonize his great creative achievements.
The article I read about Haynes' journey to make the movie mentioned the wooing of Dylan in very specific terms, which opens the curtain a little to the machine behind the man. It is clear that Dylan takes everything very seriously, weighing the consequences carefully before acting. Not that this is terribly unexpected but the choices are what is interesting. Personally, I think Dylan liked the idea of the movie because it just muddies the waters even more.
Did anyone read 'Chronicles'? A friend tells me that the basic premise is that Dylan feels like he made some lasting music early in his career and has been sort of drifting since then trying to figure life out. Of course he doesn't just say that but the message is contained in seemingly random choice of events that he details, such as the Oh Mercy sessions and the like. Events that seem totally unimportant in a career marked by such towering artistic heights. Their importance lies in the fact that they document his struggle to deal with his post "Canonical" period as an artist.
I asked my friend who is buying all of Dylan's paintings (see above if you missed it) why Bob was doing this. He assured me that it had nothing to do with money and that it was Bob's attempt to branch out from music into another creative sphere. According to him, Bob is looking for other avenues to engage himself. In the same vein, he still tours 120 nights a year not because he wants the dough but he hasn't found anything else to replace it with. According to my friend, these were his business managers words not his.
Did anyone else see the other movie he made recently, Masked and Anonymous? Curious how it fits into his recent spate of work dealing with his "persona".
Did anyone else see the other movie he made recently, Masked and Anonymous? Curious how it fits into his recent spate of work dealing with his "persona".
Yes, and people might be more interested in it now than they were at the time, given that it's the film director Larry Charles made prior to Borat.
I thought Masked and Anonymous was a mess, but fitfully enjoyable -- and for all its flaws much preferable to I'm Not There. It felt like Dylan attempting to engage with the here-and-now more than he has for decades, and it had a few moments that really connected with me.
high concept pretentious dogshit based on a subject that gives rockist critics a boner
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"
My wife is/was a big Dylan fan and left Blood on the Tracks in my car. I've never been a fan of his, but I thought I'd give him a chance and I was pretty blown away by some of his lyrics. So, I started to ask her what she thought certain things meant and she said the same thing; it is what it is. She also said sometimes he just says bullshit. People tend to read too much into him and I can sort of see why. I think that's what makes a good artist. Someone who can create something anyone can identify with.
There was a documentary on last weekend and someone asked him what was the meaning behind the Triumph shirt he wore on the cover of his album. The guy said he spent a lot of time thinking about it and insisted there was some sort of message in the image.
Darkness at the break of noon Shadows even the silver spoon The handmade blade, the child's balloon Eclipses both the sun and moon To understand you know too soon There is no sense in trying.
Pointed threats, they bluff with scorn Suicide remarks are torn From the fool's gold mouthpiece The hollow horn plays wasted words Proves to warn That he not busy being born Is busy dying.
Temptation's page flies out the door You follow, find yourself at war Watch waterfalls of pity roar You feel to moan but unlike before You discover That you'd just be One more person crying.
So don't fear if you hear A foreign sound to your ear It's alright, Ma, I'm only sighing.
As some warn victory, some downfall Private reasons great or small Can be seen in the eyes of those that call To make all that should be killed to crawl While others say don't hate nothing at all Except hatred.
Disillusioned words like bullets bark As human gods aim for their mark Made everything from toy guns that spark To flesh-colored Christs that glow in the dark It's easy to see without looking too far That not much Is really sacred.
While preachers preach of evil fates Teachers teach that knowledge waits Can lead to hundred-dollar plates Goodness hides behind its gates But even the president of the United States Sometimes must have To stand naked.
An' though the rules of the road have been lodged It's only people's games that you got to dodge And it's alright, Ma, I can make it.
Advertising signs that con you Into thinking you're the one That can do what's never been done That can win what's never been won Meantime life outside goes on All around you.
You lose yourself, you reappear You suddenly find you got nothing to fear Alone you stand with nobody near When a trembling distant voice, unclear Startles your sleeping ears to hear That somebody thinks They really found you.
A question in your nerves is lit Yet you know there is no answer fit to satisfy Insure you not to quit To keep it in your mind and not fergit That it is not he or she or them or it That you belong to.
Although the masters make the rules For the wise men and the fools I got nothing, Ma, to live up to.
For them that must obey authority That they do not respect in any degree Who despise their jobs, their destinies Speak jealously of them that are free Cultivate their flowers to be Nothing more than something They invest in.
While some on principles baptized To strict party platform ties Social clubs in drag disguise Outsiders they can freely criticize Tell nothing except who to idolize And then say God bless him.
While one who sings with his tongue on fire Gargles in the rat race choir Bent out of shape from society's pliers Cares not to come up any higher But rather get you down in the hole That he's in.
But I mean no harm nor put fault On anyone that lives in a vault But it's alright, Ma, if I can't please him.
Old lady judges watch people in pairs Limited in sex, they dare To push fake morals, insult and stare While money doesn't talk, it swears Obscenity, who really cares Propaganda, all is phony.
While them that defend what they cannot see With a killer's pride, security It blows the minds most bitterly For them that think death's honesty Won't fall upon them naturally Life sometimes Must get lonely.
My eyes collide head-on with stuffed graveyards False gods, I scuff At pettiness which plays so rough Walk upside-down inside handcuffs Kick my legs to crash it off Say okay, I have had enough What else can you show me?
And if my thought-dreams could be seen They'd probably put my head in a guillotine But it's alright, Ma, it's life, and life only.
Disillusioned words like bullets bark As human gods aim for their mark Made everything from toy guns that spark To flesh-colored Christs that glow in the dark It's easy to see without looking too far That not much Is really sacred.
Thanks for the reminder. That was the first song that really did it for me. (checkthisout)
(Full Disclosure: Tarantula was one of the first books I read of my own accord, cover to cover, without some dense elementary teacher telling me about symbolism or stream of consciousness or any other shit. I suffered my first bout of completism with Dylan records. I studied that 400+ page of book of lyrics when it was published in the '80s, I've read the biographies, learned the songs, went upstate to visit the "pump" that "don't work 'cause the vandals took the handle", etc.)
There's something that should be said for the bullshit-to-truth ratio with Dylan. His tactics in obfuscation, reflection and indifference shouldn't translate to "it's about a heavy rainstorm," literally. That's ridiculous. I think, like most songwriters, Dylan realized early that the substance of his craft was in the writing/recording/performing, not in holding some dimwitted journalist's hand through all 34 verses. For example, his Lifetime Achievement Award acceptance speech--where he plagiarised Rabbi Shimshon Rafael Hirsch's prayer book before mumbling all the words to "Masters of War" (amidst the Gulf War) during his performance--shows that he's smart enough to not be that dumb.
For those that look, the symbolism and references are everywhere in his words, for those that don't it's like rhyming jibberish.
Dylan's a fraud. He's overrated. And he understands that better than Martin Scorsese who missed him completely by trying to capture him. This movie tries to say it like Dylan did, and that's not for everyone, but it's worth something. Dylan had a lot, but lacked the "voice of a generation" garishness. I think this was deliberate, because the more you look, the more you don't like what you see. He let people draw their own conclusions while keeping himself likable. Why do you think his Self Portrait album is among his worst?
Who among them can think he could outguess you?
Check out Chronicles first, then start with everyone else's point-of-view.
My wife is/was a big Dylan fan and left Blood on the Tracks in my car.
That's a solid record. If you want more, try Blonde on Blonde, Time Out Of Mind and Desire.
There's a recording available of his recitation of a piece called, "Last Thoughts On Woody Guthrie" that is the most well-built biography on Guthrie that has nothing to do with him at all. Also, his "George Jackson" 45. Listen to him sing the slave song, "No More Auction Block For Me," and try to keep your eyes dry.
Disillusioned words like bullets bark As human gods aim for their mark Made everything from toy guns that spark To flesh-colored Christs that glow in the dark It's easy to see without looking too far That not much Is really sacred.
Thanks for the reminder. That was the first song that really did it for me.
There's something that should be said for the bullshit-to-truth ratio with Dylan. His tactics in obfuscation, reflection and indifference shouldn't translate to "it's about a heavy rainstorm," literally. That's ridiculous. I think, like most songwriters, Dylan realized early that the substance of his craft was in the writing/recording/performing, not in holding some dimwitted journalist's hand through all 34 verses. For example, his Lifetime Achievement Award acceptance speech--where he plagiarised Rabbi Shimshon Rafael Hirsch's prayer book before mumbling all the words to "Masters of War" (amidst the Gulf War) during his performance--shows that he's smart enough to not be that dumb.
For those that look, the symbolism and references are everywhere in his words, for those that don't it's like rhyming jibberish.
Dylan's a fraud. He's overrated. And he understands that better than Martin Scorsese who missed him completely by trying to capture him. This movie tries to say it like Dylan did, and that's not for everyone, but it's worth something. Dylan had a lot, but lacked the "voice of a generation" garishness. I think this was deliberate, because the more you look, the more you don't like what you see. He let people draw their own conclusions while keeping himself likable. Why do you think his Self Portrait album is among his worst?
My wife is/was a big Dylan fan and left Blood on the Tracks in my car.
That's a solid record. If you want more, try Blonde on Blonde, Time Out Of Mind and Desire.
There's a recording available of his recitation of a piece called, "Last Thoughts On Woody Guthrie" that is the most well-built biography on Guthrie that has nothing to do with him at all. Also, his "George Jackson" 45. Listen to him sing the slave song, "No More Auction Block For Me," and try to keep your eyes dry.
Agreed, big time, re: Last Thoughts. Also: Moonshiner, Who Killed Davey Moore? (vis-??-vis Rashomon) and the rest of the the early material on the Bootleg Sessions, vol. 1.
I agree that Dylan knows that he's a fraud or is, anymore, fraudulent on purpose. How else do you explain Wigwam (a song I love)? I mean, how do you explain this?:
"Now THAT," as John Madden famously said in Madden '94, "Is big-time football."
I'm a big Dylan fan and apologist. But I know the scope of things.
I'm a big Dylan fan and apologist. But I know the scope of things.
Dylan is like the Wizard Of Oz.
He gives you whatever it is that you need to fill an intellectual/philosophical/emotional void and does it so generically that it speaks to a wide variety of people and multiple generations.
I hope he knows this and does it with a smirk on his face.
I'm a big Dylan fan and apologist. But I know the scope of things.
Dylan is like the Wizard Of Oz.
He gives you whatever it is that you need to fill an intellectual/philosophical/emotional void and does it so generically that it speaks to a wide variety of people and multiple generations.
I hope he knows this and does it with a smirk on his face.
Pure Genius!
Well, I certainly wouldn't call Dylan's best work "generic." If you're saying this with his entire oeuvre in mind, then that's pretty baby/bathwater. But the man purposefully released bad albums just to fuck with people. That is pretty funny.
I'm a big Dylan fan and apologist. But I know the scope of things.
Dylan is like the Wizard Of Oz.
He gives you whatever it is that you need to fill an intellectual/philosophical/emotional void and does it so generically that it speaks to a wide variety of people and multiple generations.
I hope he knows this and does it with a smirk on his face.
Pure Genius!
Well, I certainly wouldn't call Dylan's best work "generic." If you're saying this with his entire oeuvre in mind, then that's pretty baby/bathwater. But the man purposefully released bad albums just to fuck with people. That is pretty funny.
By generic I just mean that he never pigeonholed himself by writing about a specific and well defined life experience.
He used characters, metaphors and fiction that was easy to relate to and appealed to a wide spectrum of people.
Maybe generic isn't the right word.
Blood On The Tracks is my favorite Dylan LP.
People see me all the time and they just can't remember how to act Their minds are filled with big ideas, images and distorted facts. Even you, yesterday you had to ask me where it was at, I couldn't believe after all these years, you didn't know me better than that
Kurt Cobain reminds me of a 21st century visitant of Dylan, especially when he said, "People think I'm original because they don't know who I'm ripping off."
I was enchanted by Dylan as a kid because I hadn't heard Leadbelly, Guthrie, Ramblin' Jack Elliott, Van Ronk, among others.
Conversely, as a teenager I wasn't particularly impressed with Nirvana because I was already listening to Scratch Acid, Rapeman, Gang of Four, Flipper, Melvins, Meat Puppets, among others.
This is tackled in I'm Not There by using many appropriated quotes from those Dylan "borrowed" from; Guthrie, Rimbaud, Lord Randal, etc.
Journalists and industry stooges went out of their way to proclaim Dylan king of uniqueness and bestow upon him all those spectacular crowns. The deflection and runaround that he was so famous for makes sense, then, when you think of him feeling like he's cribbed his way to the high peaks. Being contrary became his standard procedure against such accolades.
While all the hippies, beats, folkies and intellectuals were getting zooted and chasing loose cootch around Bard and the village, Dylan was among them, but he was grinding something of his own out of everything around him.
Up on Housing Project Hill It's either fortune or fame You must pick up one or the other Though neither of them are to be what they claim
Thanks for your reply. You're right. Dylan really does have excellent taste and has been unafraid to shift gears to respond to his new influences (read steal a good idea).
I have never really thought of Dylan as an original, except in his "protest/symbolist" phase (from Freewheelin to Blonde on Blonde) when he combined literary poetic elements with folk music idioms. To me Dylan reached across the chasm and brought the two artistic vines together for the first time. One of the few truly evocative moments in 'No Direction' is Ginsberg's description of hearing "Hard Rain" for the first time. As a poet he wept seeing that the torch had been past from his generation (of poets) to the next even though it was been done under the auspices of folk/pop music. To me that is why that music will always remain the best of his extraordinary career. There is a uniqueness in the totality of what he is grasping for, the ambition is huge. The songs sound like anthems (or simply are). No question he later, and too some extent still does (Blind Willie McTell), make great music. But that early stuff just blows the mind in its scope and quality.
Just to bring this back to the film - I think Haynes actually does a decent job of reflecting the kind of complexity and invention that Dylan brought to his own personas. The film doesn't do a perfect job of it and in the end, it's Haynes interpreting Dylan and obviously, one can disagree with his take. But reading through this longer discussion of Dylan's facts and fictions, I think this is precisely what informs "I'm Not There."
I was also very surprised to learn this was the first film where Dylan approved the use of his songs for it. That seems astounding...what the hell was in the prvevious flicks?
I went to a party last Friday. The host is a music writer, and many of the guests were journalists, label people, music enthusiasts, etc. A good hour of conversation was devoted to I'm Not There (including passing around the host's copy of Basement Tapes to see how many of the characters made it into the movie). A roomful of self-professed authorities on Dylan. I was surprised that everyone was really pleased with the film, save a sole complaint about Ledger's part being too cliche.
The more casual Dylan fans at the party who had seen the film didn't make all the same connections as the Dylanophiles, but they all said they enjoyed it. Some even saw it twice. From that small pool (7 or 8 people), the movie seemed to have something for both the average movie goer as well as the die-hard fan. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that so many people in this thread hate the movie (or even just the idea of the movie). When I saw it, there were 3 people that came late and sat right behind me. They reminded me of Soulstrut. I could hear them whispering through the first hour trying to make sense of everything. They spent a good 20 minutes trying to decide if Michelle Williams was Michelle Williams or not. I wanted to lean back and tell 'em Bob threw a fuck on Edie Sedgewick during his Warhol screen test days, but I didn't know if that would help. The 3 of them left an hour before the film ended, with much exhaustion. So I guess it's a terribly confusing movie for everyone who wasn't at that party?
I mean, at the very least, it's beautifully shot with great songs and at least one of the performances (Blanchett's) is marvelous.
I have to disagree with Oliver. I thought the performances were horrible. The lip-sync parts were painful. If you've seen the actual Albert Hall or other footage that Blanchett was miming, it just looks like a high school talent show. I make an exception for Richie Havens. He is goddamned fantastic singing "Tombstone Blues" on that porch. He's aged so gracefully, and seeing him sing and smile and put all of himself into that song (even though he was lipsyncing) was moving. Everyone else was phoning-it-the-fuck-in.
As far as the actual soundtrack goes, how many hundreds and hundreds of Dylan covers are there? Of all those that I've heard, they don't make me want to listen to them more than the Dylan originals (excepting Hendrix's "All Along the Watchtower" and The Band's "I Shall Be Released"). The thing is, Dylan's got a weird voice, he's logorrheic, and he says ridiculous things, but it's that style that he's made his own. Other people singing his songs usually sound like their going through the motions. Or, in the case of the Staple Singers doing "Hard Rain," 9 verses can get a little monotonous.
Hearing Eddie Vedder and Charlotte Gainsbourg and Cat Power and The Hold Steady make me want to puke. Like the Mark Ronson remix, these cover songs serve a purpose--getting non-sexagenarians into Dylan?--but the world doesn't need a Dylan song with a breakbeat under it. They all sound like novelty.
My thoughts on the movie? I agree with onetet in many respects. It was heavy-handed and over-literal in most cases. It was about as obvious as it could get, but I chuckled when "Positively 4th Street" came blaring out of the speakers after Bob/Blanchett got booed off the stage for performing with electric instruments. I've always liked that song as a hearty "eat shit" to traditionalism and obeying formula (I wish that for just one time/ You could stand inside my shoes/ And just for that one moment, I could be you/ Yes, I wish that for just one time/ You could stand inside my shoes/ You'd know what a drag it is, to see you).
I didn't think it was too long. I have developed a certain patience for his Dylan's own longwindedness, so it seems fitting that the film should be longwinded. If you want long, you should try Renaldo and Clara. That shit's long!
I think Haynes actually does a decent job of reflecting the kind of complexity and invention that Dylan brought to his own personas. The film doesn't do a perfect job of it and in the end, it's Haynes interpreting Dylan and obviously, one can disagree with his take. But reading through this longer discussion of Dylan's facts and fictions, I think this is precisely what informs "I'm Not There."
I have to agree by disagreeing, I suppose. More than anything else, the movie seemed like a vehicle to "show" something, with more importance on the act of showing than content. With all the focus on stars, some kind of high (yet predictable) concept, mime-like footage, cool kids to cover Dylan songs, I think the movie missed making any substantial point.
That is to say, the movie's main thrust was to authenticate Dylan's inauthenticities. It's common knowledge that Dylan was contrary and went out of his way to confuse those who tried to pin him down. The movie took these behaviors, gave them names and faces, and made a story out of them. Why? That, to me, is not the interesting part of Dylan's behavior.
Instead, why not shed light on the tension between his genius and his falability: those things that challenged him, enraged him, and made him scared of standing up for what he sings; his tendency towards idol worship; his extensive appropriations; his changeling behavior; why he wrote protest songs but didn't want to be a protest singer, etc. That would be a much more interesting film, in my opinion. But I suppose that stuff is personal, and it's that kind of personal stuff that Bob Dylan often obfuscates, so we're stuck with this...
I admire Dylan for being able to create so many characters that can speak with such conviction and stir people so deeply. I admire him almost as much as I admire those people who did the same, genuinely engaging people, without creating characters to do so.
--Wow... that was a lot more than I intended to say. Sorry.--
Anyway, I'd be interested in hearing more of what you guys think, ~B
[color:#666666]
As a bonus, for those who've stuck around. Here's an mp3 with an hour's worth of old music that Dylan used as the source for many of his songs: "How Much Of It Is Yours?"
(Like any good "source" mix: Dylan snippets followed by the original)
Anyone with a serious interest in field recordings, folk music, Woody Guthrie, The Carter Family, etc., won't be shocked, but those who aren't aware of these songs will probably be amazed at how blatant Bob is with his appropriations.
It's not uncommon in americana music to update standards. Practically everyone in country and folk and bluegrass does it. Dylan, however, rips it off, changes it around, calls it his own, and quite often makes it better. This mix includes songs from the very beginning of his career up through his latest album. This, by no means, covers it all. Many people make it their life's work to uncover Dylan's plagiarism. This mix is just to stir conversation. Perhaps some of the folks here who don't listen to this music much will find similar arguments in Dylan's approach to that of the arguments for and against sample-based music.
If you're not familiar with talkin' blues, union fight songs, the Lomax archives, hollers, country, folk, bluegrass... here's a shortlist of folks in the mix I suggest checking out if you're interested:
The Bently Boys John Greenway The Carter Family Woody Guthrie Leadbelly Sonny Terry A.L. Lloyd Doug and Jack Wallin Ernest Williams and Group Leadbelly Hank Williams (Luke The Drifter) Earl Robinson Gene Austin Kelly Pace [/color]
Bam, thanks for the movie review and the mix. I think you hit the nail on the head with your review. Haynes' films seem long on style and theory but short on soul and wit. I'm Not There sounds like more of the same. Glad to hear Richie is in fine form for the movie. He is one of the my favorite singers ever. Just an incredible voice.
Some thoughts on the mix. For me it reinforces the notion that once he got his sea legs Dylan didn't need to lean too much on anybody. Most of the songs date from his early folk period, when he didn't have as much under his belt to draw on. His borrowings from Woody are pretty well self-acknowledged. Even still, many were never released until the bootleg/basement series (paths, angelina, cane). Of the songs that you posted, only Hard Rain and God on Our Side are truly canonical Dylan works. In the case of Hard Rain, he completely reimagines the context of the work. The theme is totally different. To me that represents the best of artistic borrowing. I just don't hear the Joe Hill-St Augustine connection, the melody is completely different and of course the lyrics other than the three shared words show no connection. Same goes for the Hank-Frankie Lee. I just don't see the relation. Lately, Dylan has reverted to a new folk phase where he is again actively stealing/borrowing from the old sources (sometimes shockingly striaght forwardly). It's good work but not his best. Not surprisingly, what is largely absent from the mix is his 'classical' (or, for that matter, his 1980s lost years) phase (1965-75), where he really broke ground lyrically and musically.
Doesn't 'Every Grain of Sand' borrow heavily from an Emerson or Whitman poem? I know I have heard that metaphor before.
I think there have been a number of very good Dylan covers over the years. The Staples do an excellent John Brown. I like the Byrds' version of "You Ain't Going Nowhere". Truthfully, I have a soft spot for Cher's cover of 'All I Really Wanna Do'. The Band's 'When I Paint My Masterpiece' is pure joy (but they don't really count do they). Baby Blue is one of Dylan's best songs but I think he never really got it right on tape. THEM and The 13th Floor Elevators both recorded versions that exceed Dylan's own. My new favorite Dylan cover however is this version of 'The Times They Are A Changin'. Ain't nobobdy phoning in nothing here.
PS I just bought the Vanguard Squad and Mingering Mike (he has one copy left) releases at Jump Jump yesterday. Loving them.
Comments
Yes....scoffed at......d'oh
The lunch bill for the cast had to be more than $25K.....failure is an understatement.
how did that reese witherspoon torture movie do?
not so good I bet.
I agree, it's still a business, but it's a business that the 80s and 90s sucked the soul out of. Before directors like Bergman, Kurosawa and Fellini got canonized, someone had to take a chance on marketing em. It seems like in the 50s through the 70s, the average art-house filmgoer was a lot more film literate and would not only follow the above directors but follow with interest names like Antonioni, Bresson, Fassbinder, Godard, etc. Now it seems like people pick one foreign director to champion (seems like it's Almodovar more often than not) and think to themselves "whew, took care of that. Now off to the latest indie film starring Christian Bale, Cate Blanchett, and Richard Gere."
Part of that might be a change in the public, but I think a lot of that is also a change in the industry away from risk-taking and towards safe marketing to lowest-common-denominator mentalities.
Cuaron and Inarittu are both very talented, but both clearly see themselves as international directors rather than directors who want to be thought of as building a "Mexican New Wave" cinema.
Carlos Reygadas seems like the real deal to me. His films are difficult and challenging, and while none of them work 100% of the time for me, I think he's finding his own voice and may have some great films for us in the near future. I saw Silent Light at the Toronto festival a few months back and that film, despite a very discordant divisive ending that didn't work for me, it was very bold filmmaking with some very beautiful scenes.
The more adult content available in foreign/arthouse films during this period certainly had an influence on the general public developing an interest in foreign language cinema. If you look back at a lot of the posters advertising the films at the time it was all about the ladies.
On a side note, my personal experience is that people these days seem far more receptive to watching the occasional subtitled movie but they just don't bother going to the cinema to see it.
Both of those points are well-taken. Certainly Godard's Contempt sold a lot of tickets based on the premise of seeing Bardot's bare ass in the first 5 minutes. But there's no shortage of quality foreign films these days that are more adventurous sexually than most of their American equivalents, and most of them aren't being marketed in the US -- or aren't being marketed effectively.
And yeah, most cinephiles seem to be retreating to their home theaters -- but that might only feel like a preference after years and years of feeling let down by their local theaters' programming. Interestingly, many art-house video stores are developing a certain social function, and I think part of that is because most people, when they experience culture, want to have some human interaction that in some way validates and/or comments on that experience.
Bob is a very shrewd manipulator of the media. He has carefully managed to control the dialogue about his oeuvre by withholding comment and then blessing certain projects (i.e No Direction Home) which tend to canonize his great creative achievements.
The article I read about Haynes' journey to make the movie mentioned the wooing of Dylan in very specific terms, which opens the curtain a little to the machine behind the man. It is clear that Dylan takes everything very seriously, weighing the consequences carefully before acting. Not that this is terribly unexpected but the choices are what is interesting. Personally, I think Dylan liked the idea of the movie because it just muddies the waters even more.
Did anyone read 'Chronicles'? A friend tells me that the basic premise is that Dylan feels like he made some lasting music early in his career and has been sort of drifting since then trying to figure life out. Of course he doesn't just say that but the message is contained in seemingly random choice of events that he details, such as the Oh Mercy sessions and the like. Events that seem totally unimportant in a career marked by such towering artistic heights. Their importance lies in the fact that they document his struggle to deal with his post "Canonical" period as an artist.
I asked my friend who is buying all of Dylan's paintings (see above if you missed it) why Bob was doing this. He assured me that it had nothing to do with money and that it was Bob's attempt to branch out from music into another creative sphere. According to him, Bob is looking for other avenues to engage himself. In the same vein, he still tours 120 nights a year not because he wants the dough but he hasn't found anything else to replace it with. According to my friend, these were his business managers words not his.
Did anyone else see the other movie he made recently, Masked and Anonymous? Curious how it fits into his recent spate of work dealing with his "persona".
Watching any Reese Witherspoon movie is torture.
Yes, and people might be more interested in it now than they were at the time, given that it's the film director Larry Charles made prior to Borat.
I thought Masked and Anonymous was a mess, but fitfully enjoyable -- and for all its flaws much preferable to I'm Not There. It felt like Dylan attempting to engage with the here-and-now more than he has for decades, and it had a few moments that really connected with me.
My wife is/was a big Dylan fan and left Blood on the Tracks in my car. I've never been a fan of his, but I thought I'd give him a chance and I was pretty blown away by some of his lyrics. So, I started to ask her what she thought certain things meant and she said the same thing; it is what it is. She also said sometimes he just says bullshit.
People tend to read too much into him and I can sort of see why. I think that's what makes a good artist. Someone who can create something anyone can identify with.
There was a documentary on last weekend and someone asked him what was the meaning behind the Triumph shirt he wore on the cover of his album. The guy said he spent a lot of time thinking about it and insisted there was some sort of message in the image.
Dude said "I like motorcycles."
Darkness at the break of noon
Shadows even the silver spoon
The handmade blade, the child's balloon
Eclipses both the sun and moon
To understand you know too soon
There is no sense in trying.
Pointed threats, they bluff with scorn
Suicide remarks are torn
From the fool's gold mouthpiece
The hollow horn plays wasted words
Proves to warn
That he not busy being born
Is busy dying.
Temptation's page flies out the door
You follow, find yourself at war
Watch waterfalls of pity roar
You feel to moan but unlike before
You discover
That you'd just be
One more person crying.
So don't fear if you hear
A foreign sound to your ear
It's alright, Ma, I'm only sighing.
As some warn victory, some downfall
Private reasons great or small
Can be seen in the eyes of those that call
To make all that should be killed to crawl
While others say don't hate nothing at all
Except hatred.
Disillusioned words like bullets bark
As human gods aim for their mark
Made everything from toy guns that spark
To flesh-colored Christs that glow in the dark
It's easy to see without looking too far
That not much
Is really sacred.
While preachers preach of evil fates
Teachers teach that knowledge waits
Can lead to hundred-dollar plates
Goodness hides behind its gates
But even the president of the United States
Sometimes must have
To stand naked.
An' though the rules of the road have been lodged
It's only people's games that you got to dodge
And it's alright, Ma, I can make it.
Advertising signs that con you
Into thinking you're the one
That can do what's never been done
That can win what's never been won
Meantime life outside goes on
All around you.
You lose yourself, you reappear
You suddenly find you got nothing to fear
Alone you stand with nobody near
When a trembling distant voice, unclear
Startles your sleeping ears to hear
That somebody thinks
They really found you.
A question in your nerves is lit
Yet you know there is no answer fit to satisfy
Insure you not to quit
To keep it in your mind and not fergit
That it is not he or she or them or it
That you belong to.
Although the masters make the rules
For the wise men and the fools
I got nothing, Ma, to live up to.
For them that must obey authority
That they do not respect in any degree
Who despise their jobs, their destinies
Speak jealously of them that are free
Cultivate their flowers to be
Nothing more than something
They invest in.
While some on principles baptized
To strict party platform ties
Social clubs in drag disguise
Outsiders they can freely criticize
Tell nothing except who to idolize
And then say God bless him.
While one who sings with his tongue on fire
Gargles in the rat race choir
Bent out of shape from society's pliers
Cares not to come up any higher
But rather get you down in the hole
That he's in.
But I mean no harm nor put fault
On anyone that lives in a vault
But it's alright, Ma, if I can't please him.
Old lady judges watch people in pairs
Limited in sex, they dare
To push fake morals, insult and stare
While money doesn't talk, it swears
Obscenity, who really cares
Propaganda, all is phony.
While them that defend what they cannot see
With a killer's pride, security
It blows the minds most bitterly
For them that think death's honesty
Won't fall upon them naturally
Life sometimes
Must get lonely.
My eyes collide head-on with stuffed graveyards
False gods, I scuff
At pettiness which plays so rough
Walk upside-down inside handcuffs
Kick my legs to crash it off
Say okay, I have had enough
What else can you show me?
And if my thought-dreams could be seen
They'd probably put my head in a guillotine
But it's alright, Ma, it's life, and life only.
Thanks for the reminder. That was the first song that really did it for me. (checkthisout)
(Full Disclosure: Tarantula was one of the first books I read of my own accord, cover to cover, without some dense elementary teacher telling me about symbolism or stream of consciousness or any other shit. I suffered my first bout of completism with Dylan records. I studied that 400+ page of book of lyrics when it was published in the '80s, I've read the biographies, learned the songs, went upstate to visit the "pump" that "don't work 'cause the vandals took the handle", etc.)
There's something that should be said for the bullshit-to-truth ratio with Dylan. His tactics in obfuscation, reflection and indifference shouldn't translate to "it's about a heavy rainstorm," literally. That's ridiculous. I think, like most songwriters, Dylan realized early that the substance of his craft was in the writing/recording/performing, not in holding some dimwitted journalist's hand through all 34 verses. For example, his Lifetime Achievement Award acceptance speech--where he plagiarised Rabbi Shimshon Rafael Hirsch's prayer book before mumbling all the words to "Masters of War" (amidst the Gulf War) during his performance--shows that he's smart enough to not be that dumb.
For those that look, the symbolism and references are everywhere in his words, for those that don't it's like rhyming jibberish.
Dylan's a fraud. He's overrated. And he understands that better than Martin Scorsese who missed him completely by trying to capture him. This movie tries to say it like Dylan did, and that's not for everyone, but it's worth something. Dylan had a lot, but lacked the "voice of a generation" garishness. I think this was deliberate, because the more you look, the more you don't like what you see. He let people draw their own conclusions while keeping himself likable. Why do you think his Self Portrait album is among his worst?
Who among them can think he could outguess you?
Check out Chronicles first, then start with everyone else's point-of-view.
That's a solid record. If you want more, try Blonde on Blonde, Time Out Of Mind and Desire.
There's a recording available of his recitation of a piece called, "Last Thoughts On Woody Guthrie" that is the most well-built biography on Guthrie that has nothing to do with him at all. Also, his "George Jackson" 45. Listen to him sing the slave song, "No More Auction Block For Me," and try to keep your eyes dry.
"Ramblin' Jack Elliott had a lot to do with it"
Could you expand on this a little?
Thanks
Agreed, big time, re: Last Thoughts. Also: Moonshiner, Who Killed Davey Moore? (vis-??-vis Rashomon) and the rest of the the early material on the Bootleg Sessions, vol. 1.
I agree that Dylan knows that he's a fraud or is, anymore, fraudulent on purpose. How else do you explain Wigwam (a song I love)? I mean, how do you explain this?:
"Now THAT," as John Madden famously said in Madden '94, "Is big-time football."
I'm a big Dylan fan and apologist. But I know the scope of things.
Dylan is like the Wizard Of Oz.
He gives you whatever it is that you need to fill an intellectual/philosophical/emotional void and does it so generically that it speaks to a wide variety of people and multiple generations.
I hope he knows this and does it with a smirk on his face.
Pure Genius!
Well, I certainly wouldn't call Dylan's best work "generic." If you're saying this with his entire oeuvre in mind, then that's pretty baby/bathwater. But the man purposefully released bad albums just to fuck with people. That is pretty funny.
By generic I just mean that he never pigeonholed himself by writing about a specific and well defined life experience.
He used characters, metaphors and fiction that was easy to relate to and appealed to a wide spectrum of people.
Maybe generic isn't the right word.
Blood On The Tracks is my favorite Dylan LP.
People see me all the time and they just can't remember how to act
Their minds are filled with big ideas, images and distorted facts.
Even you, yesterday you had to ask me where it was at,
I couldn't believe after all these years, you didn't know me better than that
Kurt Cobain reminds me of a 21st century visitant of Dylan, especially when he said, "People think I'm original because they don't know who I'm ripping off."
I was enchanted by Dylan as a kid because I hadn't heard Leadbelly, Guthrie, Ramblin' Jack Elliott, Van Ronk, among others.
Conversely, as a teenager I wasn't particularly impressed with Nirvana because I was already listening to Scratch Acid, Rapeman, Gang of Four, Flipper, Melvins, Meat Puppets, among others.
Dylan has more staying power, for me, than Cobain. (Childish sums it up pretty good.)
This is tackled in I'm Not There by using many appropriated quotes from those Dylan "borrowed" from; Guthrie, Rimbaud, Lord Randal, etc.
Journalists and industry stooges went out of their way to proclaim Dylan king of uniqueness and bestow upon him all those spectacular crowns. The deflection and runaround that he was so famous for makes sense, then, when you think of him feeling like he's cribbed his way to the high peaks. Being contrary became his standard procedure against such accolades.
While all the hippies, beats, folkies and intellectuals were getting zooted and chasing loose cootch around Bard and the village, Dylan was among them, but he was grinding something of his own out of everything around him.
Up on Housing Project Hill
It's either fortune or fame
You must pick up one or the other
Though neither of them are to be what they claim
I have never really thought of Dylan as an original, except in his "protest/symbolist" phase (from Freewheelin to Blonde on Blonde) when he combined literary poetic elements with folk music idioms. To me Dylan reached across the chasm and brought the two artistic vines together for the first time. One of the few truly evocative moments in 'No Direction' is Ginsberg's description of hearing "Hard Rain" for the first time. As a poet he wept seeing that the torch had been past from his generation (of poets) to the next even though it was been done under the auspices of folk/pop music. To me that is why that music will always remain the best of his extraordinary career. There is a uniqueness in the totality of what he is grasping for, the ambition is huge. The songs sound like anthems (or simply are). No question he later, and too some extent still does (Blind Willie McTell), make great music. But that early stuff just blows the mind in its scope and quality.
I was also very surprised to learn this was the first film where Dylan approved the use of his songs for it. That seems astounding...what the hell was in the prvevious flicks?
The more casual Dylan fans at the party who had seen the film didn't make all the same connections as the Dylanophiles, but they all said they enjoyed it. Some even saw it twice. From that small pool (7 or 8 people), the movie seemed to have something for both the average movie goer as well as the die-hard fan. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that so many people in this thread hate the movie (or even just the idea of the movie). When I saw it, there were 3 people that came late and sat right behind me. They reminded me of Soulstrut. I could hear them whispering through the first hour trying to make sense of everything. They spent a good 20 minutes trying to decide if Michelle Williams was Michelle Williams or not. I wanted to lean back and tell 'em Bob threw a fuck on Edie Sedgewick during his Warhol screen test days, but I didn't know if that would help. The 3 of them left an hour before the film ended, with much exhaustion. So I guess it's a terribly confusing movie for everyone who wasn't at that party?
I have to disagree with Oliver. I thought the performances were horrible. The lip-sync parts were painful. If you've seen the actual Albert Hall or other footage that Blanchett was miming, it just looks like a high school talent show. I make an exception for Richie Havens. He is goddamned fantastic singing "Tombstone Blues" on that porch. He's aged so gracefully, and seeing him sing and smile and put all of himself into that song (even though he was lipsyncing) was moving. Everyone else was phoning-it-the-fuck-in.
As far as the actual soundtrack goes, how many hundreds and hundreds of Dylan covers are there? Of all those that I've heard, they don't make me want to listen to them more than the Dylan originals (excepting Hendrix's "All Along the Watchtower" and The Band's "I Shall Be Released"). The thing is, Dylan's got a weird voice, he's logorrheic, and he says ridiculous things, but it's that style that he's made his own. Other people singing his songs usually sound like their going through the motions. Or, in the case of the Staple Singers doing "Hard Rain," 9 verses can get a little monotonous.
Hearing Eddie Vedder and Charlotte Gainsbourg and Cat Power and The Hold Steady make me want to puke. Like the Mark Ronson remix, these cover songs serve a purpose--getting non-sexagenarians into Dylan?--but the world doesn't need a Dylan song with a breakbeat under it. They all sound like novelty.
My thoughts on the movie?
I agree with onetet in many respects. It was heavy-handed and over-literal in most cases. It was about as obvious as it could get, but I chuckled when "Positively 4th Street" came blaring out of the speakers after Bob/Blanchett got booed off the stage for performing with electric instruments. I've always liked that song as a hearty "eat shit" to traditionalism and obeying formula (I wish that for just one time/ You could stand inside my shoes/ And just for that one moment, I could be you/ Yes, I wish that for just one time/ You could stand inside my shoes/ You'd know what a drag it is, to see you).
I didn't think it was too long. I have developed a certain patience for his Dylan's own longwindedness, so it seems fitting that the film should be longwinded. If you want long, you should try Renaldo and Clara. That shit's long!
I have to agree by disagreeing, I suppose. More than anything else, the movie seemed like a vehicle to "show" something, with more importance on the act of showing than content. With all the focus on stars, some kind of high (yet predictable) concept, mime-like footage, cool kids to cover Dylan songs, I think the movie missed making any substantial point.
That is to say, the movie's main thrust was to authenticate Dylan's inauthenticities. It's common knowledge that Dylan was contrary and went out of his way to confuse those who tried to pin him down. The movie took these behaviors, gave them names and faces, and made a story out of them. Why? That, to me, is not the interesting part of Dylan's behavior.
Instead, why not shed light on the tension between his genius and his falability: those things that challenged him, enraged him, and made him scared of standing up for what he sings; his tendency towards idol worship; his extensive appropriations; his changeling behavior; why he wrote protest songs but didn't want to be a protest singer, etc. That would be a much more interesting film, in my opinion. But I suppose that stuff is personal, and it's that kind of personal stuff that Bob Dylan often obfuscates, so we're stuck with this...
I admire Dylan for being able to create so many characters that can speak with such conviction and stir people so deeply. I admire him almost as much as I admire those people who did the same, genuinely engaging people, without creating characters to do so.
--Wow... that was a lot more than I intended to say. Sorry.--
Anyway, I'd be interested in hearing more of what you guys think,
~B
[color:#666666]
As a bonus, for those who've stuck around. Here's an mp3 with an hour's worth of old music that Dylan used as the source for many of his songs: "How Much Of It Is Yours?"
(Like any good "source" mix: Dylan snippets followed by the original)
Anyone with a serious interest in field recordings, folk music, Woody Guthrie, The Carter Family, etc., won't be shocked, but those who aren't aware of these songs will probably be amazed at how blatant Bob is with his appropriations.
It's not uncommon in americana music to update standards. Practically everyone in country and folk and bluegrass does it. Dylan, however, rips it off, changes it around, calls it his own, and quite often makes it better. This mix includes songs from the very beginning of his career up through his latest album. This, by no means, covers it all. Many people make it their life's work to uncover Dylan's plagiarism. This mix is just to stir conversation. Perhaps some of the folks here who don't listen to this music much will find similar arguments in Dylan's approach to that of the arguments for and against sample-based music.
If you're not familiar with talkin' blues, union fight songs, the Lomax archives, hollers, country, folk, bluegrass... here's a shortlist of folks in the mix I suggest checking out if you're interested:
The Bently Boys
John Greenway
The Carter Family
Woody Guthrie
Leadbelly
Sonny Terry
A.L. Lloyd
Doug and Jack Wallin
Ernest Williams and Group
Leadbelly
Hank Williams (Luke The Drifter)
Earl Robinson
Gene Austin
Kelly Pace [/color]
Some thoughts on the mix. For me it reinforces the notion that once he got his sea legs Dylan didn't need to lean too much on anybody. Most of the songs date from his early folk period, when he didn't have as much under his belt to draw on. His borrowings from Woody are pretty well self-acknowledged. Even still, many were never released until the bootleg/basement series (paths, angelina, cane). Of the songs that you posted, only Hard Rain and God on Our Side are truly canonical Dylan works. In the case of Hard Rain, he completely reimagines the context of the work. The theme is totally different. To me that represents the best of artistic borrowing. I just don't hear the Joe Hill-St Augustine connection, the melody is completely different and of course the lyrics other than the three shared words show no connection. Same goes for the Hank-Frankie Lee. I just don't see the relation. Lately, Dylan has reverted to a new folk phase where he is again actively stealing/borrowing from the old sources (sometimes shockingly striaght forwardly). It's good work but not his best. Not surprisingly, what is largely absent from the mix is his 'classical' (or, for that matter, his 1980s lost years) phase (1965-75), where he really broke ground lyrically and musically.
Doesn't 'Every Grain of Sand' borrow heavily from an Emerson or Whitman poem? I know I have heard that metaphor before.
I think there have been a number of very good Dylan covers over the years. The Staples do an excellent John Brown. I like the Byrds' version of "You Ain't Going Nowhere". Truthfully, I have a soft spot for Cher's cover of 'All I Really Wanna Do'. The Band's 'When I Paint My Masterpiece' is pure joy (but they don't really count do they). Baby Blue is one of Dylan's best songs but I think he never really got it right on tape. THEM and The 13th Floor Elevators both recorded versions that exceed Dylan's own. My new favorite Dylan cover however is this version of 'The Times They Are A Changin'. Ain't nobobdy phoning in nothing here.
PS I just bought the Vanguard Squad and Mingering Mike (he has one copy left) releases at Jump Jump yesterday. Loving them.