The Hot Blog: Sixy Muthaf-er

« The Id & The Wail | Main | Friday Estimates by Klady - 8/31 »

September 01, 2007

Sixy Muthaf-er

It seems just like a gimmick, yes, it does
It jumps time just like a gimmick, yes, it does
And it aches just like a gimmick
But it breaks down just like a classic tale.

I’m Not There is all there. Six, six, yes, six Bob Dylans in all, the latest from Todd Haynes seems to aspire to an excess of clever and a dangerous dance with pretense, but remarkably, in a 2 hour 18 minute running time, turns out to be a very demanding, but very clear-minded piece of filmmaking.

The “clever,” as you have probably heard, is that the start of Dylan’s artistic life thorough the period slightly after Nixon resigns/he was divorced by Sara Lownds, when in the film, Dylan gives up on the idea that his music could change the world in a politically weighty way, is portrayed by six sides of his personality, represented here by young Marcus Carl Franklin, Ben Wishaw, Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, Cate Blanchett, and finally, in repose, Richard Gere.

Haynes and his co-writer Oren Moverman’s screenplay jumps through time hoops with the seeming abandon of wild animals in a circus act, but as at the circus, any thought of it being a natural act is a false one. It is well rehearsed and considered to create the feeling of spontaneity and even randomness. Each of the Dylans – none actually named Bob or Dylan – is simply a manifestation of one man’s complex personality. And remarkably, as the circus passes you by on screen, you are still free to make your own decisions about who this man was (and I use was because the film really does end with the end of the period in which Dylan wrote his most famous songs).

Dylan was, apparently, a quiet collaborator here… at the very least, allowing his songs, his vocals, and his personal life to be used for the project. You may recall the Scorsese doc on Dylan, which assiduously avoided discussion about his wife and mother of his children and even the songs that many have ascribed to being reflections of that relationship. Haynes clearly had no such restrictions here, as he not only uses Dylan’s first/major marriage (albeit rather loose on details), but the alleged relationship with the pseudonymonous Edie Sedgwick (a subject which caused great rage by Dylan against the film Factory Girl last year), and even his near-decade as a born-again Christian.

In fact, one could easily say that this film puts all the blame on Dylan’s plate and almost mocks the born again period by dispatching it so quickly, while all the while making Dylan’s shoulders seem so big that they could easily carry any weight. At times I felt like Haynes was falling into hero worship, but by the end of the film, I think that even my feelings were just a reflection of some pretty direct propositions. Basically, watching a guy who thinks he is King Shit can be infuriating, not because the filmmaker is necessarily agreeing, but because that guy is simply infuriating. Rage is, on some level, proof of the filmmaker’s honesty.

The six performances are all quite good. The standout is Blanchett, who also has the challenge of two breasts and no scrotum, though there is a purpose to “Dylan’s” faminization in that period of his life as well.

I’m Not There is a classic example of a film with a singular conceit that the filmmaker deserves accolades for and which at the same time needs the audience to – perhaps in multiple viewings – get past the conceit to see what the filmmaker is really after. I would argue that understanding the time jumping conceit makes plain why the excellent-but-overrated Pulp Fiction is so overrated (the time leaps are less significant than sold and mostly keep the film from a weak ending that was a story flaw from the start). Here the metaphor of the different sides of the man, which evolved over time, but each of which also made “appearances” at time when other “Dylans” were the primary, is much, much more than a gimmick.

I also think this movie is a classic example of one where the first viewing is really just a toe in the water. If ever there was a movie made for the DVD era, this is it. (I wouldn’t bother to try to watch any longer clip than four minutes on an iPod… even the larger screen version due this Christmas.) Haynes & Moverman find a richness in this 10 year sliver of Dylan’s life – again, a conventional biopic choice to narrow the breadth of the story that is not really consciously on the surface of the film, which never feels like any conventional bio-pic – that is further set throbbing by Haynes’ choices as a director.

(Note: I am making a point of mentioning Haynes’ co-screenwriter in no small part because of how disturbed I have become at the movement to make all films connected in any way to Judd Apatow into “Apatow’s films,” which is a horrible throwaway of the work of a lot of very talented people – directors and screenwriters included – and an overstatement of Apatow’s current muscle, based on commerciality as much as anything else. Those of us who cover this stuff for a living should be the first ones to hold ourselves in check about stuff like this, as opposed to leading the charge for a premature mythologizing of any talented person, which Apatow obviously is.).

Unlike something like Eyes Wide Shut, I don’t think this puzzle is a Puzzle Movie, designed to be uncoded by exacting eyes and minds. Haynes always brings layers to his work. But the film is so densely packed – even if it is 20 minutes overlong for ticketbuyers who distinctly put their energy on low flame in the theater at about 1:40 and rejoined the film in full around the 2 hour mark – that you can’t really read it in one sitting. You can, as Greil Marcus commented while presenting Haynes before the film, take away moments that you feel are definitive. (Personally, I did not. For me, it was the collage that drew me in.) But that is mostly, I think, because you need to make your choices on first viewing about what you want from that viewing. And I am pretty sure that the next time and the time after that and probably a few times after that, you will be finding new flavors in a soup that is a pleasure to each every time it is served,

Posted by poland at September 1, 2007 09:13 AM

Comments

Huh. Just finished reading your Assassination review and now this... They sound like similarly difficult films -- just one went one way for you and this went the other.

I'm willing to give both Andrew Dominik and Todd Haynes the benefit of the doubt. But I'm certainly tempering my expectations.

Posted by: fnt at September 1, 2007 03:25 PM

I really don't want to start anything, but I have to ask: What is the "flaw" in the concluding passage of Pulp Fiction? I don't want to turn this thread into a QT discussion, but DP brought it up. The leaps in time in Pulp Fiction are crucial because they provide the movie with a sense of closure that wouldn't exist if the movie had been told in a linear fashion. Also, the time leaps allow the movie to literally resurrect a character as a demonstartion of the movie's theological discussion about redemption.

Posted by: Jimmy the Gent at September 1, 2007 04:42 PM

It sort of sounds like he means a weak ending/story flaw in I'm Not There...but maybe not.

Posted by: jeffmcm at September 1, 2007 04:46 PM

I had a similar thought but wasn't sure. This is the single miggest problem with Internet Journalism: editing. By being his own editor, Poland and his ilk always have to trust their own judgment when it comes to editing for clarity, grammar, and punctuation. Old Media oulets may be slow and grumpy, but at least they check their sentence structure. A degree in Journalism is NOT the same as a degree in English.

Posted by: Jimmy the Gent at September 1, 2007 05:57 PM

Actually, Jimmy, to obtain a degree in journalism, you do have to take courses in editing.

Posted by: Joe Leydon at September 1, 2007 08:49 PM

And journalism school usually makes a point of teaching and reinforcing grammar, whereas a degree in English is mainly about literature. But he had a point up until the flawed finish.

Posted by: Me at September 1, 2007 09:02 PM

Does DP have a degree in journalism?

Posted by: jeffmcm at September 1, 2007 09:05 PM

I must watch Scorsese's Dylan film before seeing I'm Not There. Dylan is a musician whose catalogue I've never really delved into and apparently it helps while watching I'm Not There to sort of know how him beforehand (unlike Ray or Walk the Line, where they tell you everything you could possibly need to know.)

It's Haynes so I'll be seeing it no matter what.

Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0 at September 2, 2007 12:09 AM

KCamel: FYI, one major element of Johnny Cash's life that was not featured in Walk the Line was his deep religious background, which he carried to the end of his life. Its exclusion from the movie was, I thought, a big flaw.

Posted by: jeffmcm at September 2, 2007 12:59 AM

Another major flaw of Walk the Line is the simple fact that a CMT 60 Minutes -- special cobbled together from an early 80s 60 Minutes interview that they showed when Walk the Line was released -- covered Cash's life more deftly in 30 minutes then that 2 hour freaking movie. Also; Jeff, I do agree that ignoring Cash's religious belief is a major flaw of Walk the Line. Religion played a big part in the man's music and his life. He was tormented and lifted up by it, but a biography of his life ignores it? Too nonsense.

That aside; Camel, you could always just listen to Dylan's records from the beginning. You can tell by listening to them when he's in a peak or when he's in a valley. Few artist have such distanct phases in their career that it makes sense to have him played by six freaking actours.

Posted by: IOIOIOI at September 2, 2007 02:03 AM

Yeah... the last part of that Cash paragraph made no sense to me either. It's freaking sweltering up in my place. Nevertheless; Cash's religious beliefs remain a rather large part of his work to this day. To ignore them in a freakin biopic remains rather fucking odd. Especially where they play up his drug use more than his relationship with his wives, his mother, his children, and his religious beliefs. Hopefully this paragraph makes up for the above paragraph. If not; nuts.

Posted by: IOIOIOI at September 2, 2007 02:09 AM

DP, The reason why Scorses's film didn't discuss Dylan's first wife is because he is famously private about his marriages and children. This is a guy whom most peple didn't even know was married to his second wife until years after their divorce. That being said, I lvoe that all of these projects about him, no matter is level of involvement, have yet to pin the man down. No Direction Home is the best of the bunch because he comes away as being as honest as he has ever about this bygone era, despite the fact that he is famous for not being honest about much.

Won't see this film for a while, most likely, but being a Dylan fan means that you have to take the man for all he is. Yes, he is one of the most important artists of the last, and, of this century. He is still writing amazing, powerful songs.

Frankly, i think Dylan gets a kick out of all this stiff, seeing his life projected here and there and no one getting any the wiser to the essence of the man. That is what an enigma is all about.

Posted by: EOTW at September 2, 2007 02:15 AM

EOTW, you hit it on the head. No Direction Home is the best one because Scorsese has always gotten it. Best use of a Dylan song is in a Scorsese movie: Life Lessons when Nick Nolte blasts Like a Rolling Stone. Second best, The Last Waltz when Scorsese's camera pans down and lands on Dylan's hat. Great scene.

Watching No Direction Home drove it home finally that what Dylan was wasn't what everyone said he was - he chafed against profit, protest singer, etc. He has a gift for putting words together brilliantly. His effort to dodge whatever category he was being dropped in is why he has been so mysterious and enigmatic.

This makes him a great subject for a film and hats off to Todd Haynes for taking it on in such an inventive way.

"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 forget
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."

Posted by: bipedalist at September 2, 2007 10:15 AM

I enjoyed your review of I'm Not There, I thought you brought up a lot of good points. Whenever a movie of revolved aroudn music like this comes out I think it's important to discuss the soundtrack as well.

Too get to the point I'm really excited to hear this soundtrack come October 30th... I think that's the date. I heard that Eddie Vedder, Sonic Youth, Sufjan Stevens , Yo La Tengo, Jeff Tweedy, and John Doe all covered Dylan songs. Have you heard the soundtrack yet? If so, what did you think?

Posted by: come.on.rocknroll at October 17, 2007 10:55 AM

sorry for all the posts, my computer was freezing!!!

Posted by: come.on.rocknroll at October 17, 2007 10:57 AM

The Hot Blog

September 01, 2007

Sixy Muthaf-er

Comments

Post a comment