15 replies to this topic

[Jigga]

Todd Haynes directed, and it has 6 people playing Dylan. I'm kinda sick of Dylan to be honest. I like him, i have praised him in the past, but the way people talk about this guy its like he invented music. He did some great stuff but why should films be made about people who are still alive, sounds like a vanity project. Muhamad Ali is the only non dead person whodeserved a hollywood bio cause he actually did some shit in the 60's unlike dylan, who just went camping with new age travellers and did some wordy music that he average rapper is better than. i like dylan, i'm not hating, but he probably feels he needs some love or something. anyone here old enough to say dyl;an changed their life? how this old man can still be winning jazz and pop lists shows old people still make up thevast number of critics in the land.

[wakingrufus]

it does seem that Dylan is overrated by a lot of people right now.

[Jigga]

Thsi is a david poland preview from hot blog

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,

[avec]

I'm looking forward to the movie because I like Dylan and it sounds interesting. It will probably be a bunch of bullshit like all movie biographies but hopefully it will be enjoyable enough. And yes, there is no point reading a critical article about the guy; he is worshipped by nearly any old white male who has a typewriter.

[MattDrufke]

I'm just interested enough to put this on my Netflix. It sounds like Haynes is undertaking an interesting project, but most "interesting art-house projects" usually get "A for effort, but D for everything else".

[RadioHitchcock]

Muhamad Ali is the only non dead person whodeserved a hollywood bio cause he actually did some shit in the 60's unlike dylan, who just went camping with new age travellers and did some wordy music that he average rapper is better than.

this movie has to be made while he is still alive cause dylan don't die, he will outlive us all, he will be around for the apocalypse.

[MattDrufke]

Muhamad Ali is the only non dead person whodeserved a hollywood bio

Shit, missed this gem. I take it you aren't waiting for the Oprah biopic, then?

[Asher Ford]

I'm looking forward to it. Then again, I also liked Masked and Anonymous. The youtube clip with Blanchett, and David Cross as Allen Ginsberg is pretty fantastic to say the least.

[Jigga]

the trailer. looks aight.

[Artem]

title of the film reminds me of a radiohead song i'd watch this film, personally.

[Jigga]

me too.

[sKinnY]

yeah this trailer looks pretty good. anyone know of a possible release date?

[Campaigner]

Well, considering we had a 50 Cent biopic reach the screens in the past few years, I would say that we absolutely need a Bob Dylan biopic, and that the choice to have six different actors (especially Cate Blanchett) play him is a masterstroke that any 'mainstream' director would never have thought of. The Blanchett clip I saw (where she meets David Cross' Allen Ginsberg) was intruiging, and if nothing else, they've got the Dylan 'look' perfect for at least three of the actors (Blanchett, Bale & Ledger). So, am I gonna watch it? Hell yes. Is it going to be good? Who knows. But in an era where people actually thought the idea aforementioned 50 Cent movie was a good one, the notion of what is 'good' has gone completely out the window.

[Mitchell]

Just like a woman: Blanchett's take on Dylan has critics raving Rachel Williams Wednesday September 5, 2007 The Guardian With hair teased into the familiar bird's nest of frizz, cigarette dangling from lips or fingers and impenetrably dark shades fixed in place, Cate Blanchett's portrayal of Bob Dylan is already being tipped for Oscar success. Yet as Todd Haynes's surreal biopic I'm Not There was premiered at the Venice film festival yesterday, the director revealed that the Australian actor's decision to take on the role had been far from instant. The prospect of tackling the legendary singer had, in fact, terrified her. Critics in Venice have been astonished by Blanchett's performance. She is one of six actors playing characters meant to represent Dylan at different points in his career, and hers is not the only unorthodox casting: a black actor in his early teens, Marcus Carl Franklin, plays the musician as he arrives as an unknown in New York at the age of 20, while 57-year-old Richard Gere represents him at the age of 32. Heath Ledger and British actors Christian Bale and Ben Whishaw take on other periods. Dylan, 66, has given his blessing to the project. It will initially open in just four cinemas in America. Yesterday Haynes said "Jude", the representation of Dylan in the mid-60s when he was becoming an international star and shocked folk followers by going electric, was always meant to be played by a woman. "I felt it was the only way to resurrect the true strangeness of Dylan's physical being in 1966, which I felt had lost its historical shock value over the years," he told reporters. He added: "Cate was scared; she told me many times that this was a very scary challenge for her. It took her a long time to commit to it ... I told her it's good to be terrified, that you're taking a risk and sometimes that's really when the surprises happen. I guess it at least convinced her to give it a shot." Dylan's approval was perhaps down to the film's open-ended nature, he said. "There have been documentaries but this is the first dramatic film about his life which he has ever given his consent to," Haynes said. "He has a tremendous sense of humour about the way he has been characterised. I think that's a really healthy attitude and he saw something similar in this film." Gere described the script as "bizarre" but said he jumped at the chance to be involved. "I think Dylan is probably the only artist in our time who will still be considered 200 or 300 years from now. It's not Picasso, it's Bob Dylan," he said. "No one has had more effect on the world of art." The film, backed by the Weinstein Company, mixes black-and-white footage with colour sequences and real news footage of American protests in the 1960s and scenes from the Vietnam war. Haynes said of its unusual structure: "The way we look back on our own lives is in fragments. Music is a way that we do time travel, that unlocks moments in our past. The best and most enjoyable way to watch the film is to let it wash over you like a dream."

[Jigga]

Just like a woman: Blanchett's take on Dylan has critics raving

Rachel Williams
Wednesday September 5, 2007
The Guardian

With hair teased into the familiar bird's nest of frizz, cigarette dangling from lips or fingers and impenetrably dark shades fixed in place, Cate Blanchett's portrayal of Bob Dylan is already being tipped for Oscar success. Yet as Todd Haynes's surreal biopic I'm Not There was premiered at the Venice film festival yesterday, the director revealed that the Australian actor's decision to take on the role had been far from instant.

The prospect of tackling the legendary singer had, in fact, terrified her.

Critics in Venice have been astonished by Blanchett's performance. She is one of six actors playing characters meant to represent Dylan at different points in his career, and hers is not the only unorthodox casting: a black actor in his early teens, Marcus Carl Franklin, plays the musician as he arrives as an unknown in New York at the age of 20, while 57-year-old Richard Gere represents him at the age of 32. Heath Ledger and British actors Christian Bale and Ben Whishaw take on other periods.

Dylan, 66, has given his blessing to the project. It will initially open in just four cinemas in America.

Yesterday Haynes said "Jude", the representation of Dylan in the mid-60s when he was becoming an international star and shocked folk followers by going electric, was always meant to be played by a woman. "I felt it was the only way to resurrect the true strangeness of Dylan's physical being in 1966, which I felt had lost its historical shock value over the years," he told reporters.

He added: "Cate was scared; she told me many times that this was a very scary challenge for her. It took her a long time to commit to it ... I told her it's good to be terrified, that you're taking a risk and sometimes that's really when the surprises happen. I guess it at least convinced her to give it a shot."

Dylan's approval was perhaps down to the film's open-ended nature, he said. "There have been documentaries but this is the first dramatic film about his life which he has ever given his consent to," Haynes said. "He has a tremendous sense of humour about the way he has been characterised. I think that's a really healthy attitude and he saw something similar in this film."

Gere described the script as "bizarre" but said he jumped at the chance to be involved. "I think Dylan is probably the only artist in our time who will still be considered 200 or 300 years from now. It's not Picasso, it's Bob Dylan," he said. "No one has had more effect on the world of art."
The film, backed by the Weinstein Company, mixes black-and-white footage with colour sequences and real news footage of American protests in the 1960s and scenes from the Vietnam war.

Haynes said of its unusual structure: "The way we look back on our own lives is in fragments. Music is a way that we do time travel, that unlocks moments in our past. The best and most enjoyable way to watch the film is to let it wash over you like a dream."

lol at richard gere. all that yoga and meditation has messed with his brain cells. thats not a diss on dylan by the way.

[Agrimorfee]

All of you folks talking about this "biopic" like it was the next Ray or Walk The Line...remember, this is from the guy who created Superstar, a depiction of the life of Karen Carpenter with Barbie dolls.

But I definitely want to see this.