I'm Not There (Todd Haynes, 2007)

[Antoine Doinel]

As I mentioned earlier, there is much I admire about I'm Not There and it specifically relates to its narrative construct and most importantly to the melding of its themes (myths, dreams, celebrity, art, fate, life, death - I have rarely been wowed in such a way). I wouldn't go so far as to call the approach clinical, but for me, I need something more to involve myself in any art than how it was executed.

I do think I'm Not There is an important work - and I'm happy to see something this brave handled by a mainstream studio. But I think Haynes' greatest work is still ahead of him and it will arrive when he is able fuse his clearly inspired ideas with a strong emotional core. And knowing Haynes', it won't be in a Spielbergian way (and I wouldn't want that at all) but in a way we are not expecting at all.

[zedz]

But I think Haynes' greatest work is still ahead of him and it will arrive when he is able fuse his clearly inspired ideas with a strong emotional core.

Well, I suppose I agree with you because I think there is a strong emotional core in what I consider his greatest work: Superstar, Safe and Far from Heaven (and maybe you can toss in the 'Homo' section of Poison). Although in all of these works he accesses that emotion in non-traditional ways, often by subverting / converting to his own ends traditional modes of and models for expressing cinematic empathy.

Which is indeed very cerebral, but, as David noted, intelligence doesn't preclude emotion. Maybe we're just too used to filmmakers evoking emotional responses by bypassing the brain, but it ain't necessarily so.

[justeleblanc]

Antoine, I agree that he hasn't peaked yet, but I don't understand why you are using a lack of emotional response to criticize the film. I feel its just as absurd to criticize a film for not having jokes or suspenseful moments.

Also, for what it's worth, I did find the Goin to Acapulco scene quite moving, especially if you read it as "Billy the Kid" watching people use his song as a funeral dirge, which I'm sure is a misreading.

[Antoine Doinel]

Antoine, I agree that he hasn't peaked yet, but I don't understand why you are using a lack of emotional response to criticize the film. I feel its just as absurd to criticize a film for not having jokes or suspenseful moments.

Also, for what it's worth, I did find the Goin to Acapulco scene quite moving, especially if you read it as "Billy the Kid" watching people use his song as a funeral dirge, which I'm sure is a misreading.

I think you misunderstand my criticsm. It's not lack of jokes or suspenful moments I'm talking about. The film didn't move me. For me, what Haynes missed is an opportunity to show how Dylan utterly captivated a generation. And yes, the part of the point of the film is that Dylan's power lies within his intangibility. But for me the film spends far too much time being coy when, like the "Goin' To Acapulco" sequence, and the Woody Guthrie hospital sequence (which nearly brought me to tears), it could've spent some time showing how Dylan elbowed his way out of the folk niche. The Black Panther sequence in particular, with Bobby Seale and Huey Newton deconstructing Dylan, is disappointingly played for laughs when it could've been someting far more meaningful.

I don't want my criticism to overshadow the things I did like about the film, which are numerous. But I do think it is a major failing, and for me keeps it off my year end best of list.

[David Ehrenstein]

For me, what Haynes missed is an opportunity to show how Dylan utterly captivated a generation.

After those scenes at Newport where Jude machine guns the crowd, someone tries to cut off the sound system by hacking at the power chords with an axe, and a long line of disgruntled ex-fans whine about how he had betrayed them? I don't think so.

[Antoine Doinel]

The Newport scene is good (if a bit hamfisted with the machine gun bit), but for me, the betrayal isn't as powerful without showing what drew those fans to Dylan in the first place. Like the Black Panther sequence, this one is played more than laughs rather than going deeper.

[cinemartin]

I think this entire film is hamfisted. I think the only way to make a film about Dylan is to play it for laughs most of the time, but personally I didn't think this film was funny at all. It's too bad because I think the concept is a great idea but Haynes relied too much on this concept to get him through the movie: he seemed to set up a structure and then tried to jam as many Dylan quotes and, in my opinion, rather pedestrian connections as he could. There were some scenes with Ledger that I felt were really working and I thought Franklin's performance was terrific, but the rest was just smoke and mirrors. It seemed to me a film that easily covered its tracks: if you didn't like it you were either too big a Dylan fan and were being too literal, or you were not intelligent enough to understand the "deep" references to sixties culture. I felt the performances (other than Ledger, Gainsbourg, and Franklin) were embarrassing, and yes that includes Cate Blanchett. The Ben Whishaw character was particularly annoying to me, to the point where I wondered if it was intentional.

[justeleblanc]

I think it depends on whether or not you see this as a film about Dylan or a film about idolatry that uses Dylan to prove his point.

Similarly, I wonder if Haynes left things a bit colder and cynical (like the Black Panther moment) to make a comment about the biopic itself being a mode of turning a human being into a myth. Maybe not, just something I'm thinking about.

[David Ehrenstein]

"Similarly, I wonder if Haynes left things a bit colder and cynical (like the Black Panther moment) to make a comment about the biopic itself being a mode of turning a human being into a myth."

BINGO!

[David Ehrenstein]

BTW

[Antoine Doinel]

"Similarly, I wonder if Haynes left things a bit colder and cynical (like the Black Panther moment) to make a comment about the biopic itself being a mode of turning a human being into a myth."

BINGO!

That just offers further evidence that the film is an exercise in thought rather than emotion. Which is fine, but after I left the theater, impressed as I was with Haynes cerebral accomplishment I found little else to treasure.

[David Ehrenstein]

"That just offers further evidence that the film is an exercise in thought rather than emotion"

Thought IS emotion!!

[HerrSchreck]

David. You're an insightful, truly incisive man. Seriously now... surely you understand the distinction these guys are making here.

[justeleblanc]

Antoine, do you have similar problems with Godard and later Kubrick?

[HerrSchreck]

(fwiw, I never saw this film and have no opinion either way..)

[Antoine Doinel]

Curiously, no I don't. Speaking broadly about Godard, I think it's safe to say that he really isn't interested in emotion in the traditional sense. His films are very much about being films and I accept and enjoy them on those terms.

As for Kubrick, I think Eyes Wide Shut doesn't get the recognition it deserves. Kubrick dissects marriage and fidelity coldly, but it's makes the last moments, and Kidman's last look at the camera at the end of the film all the more shattering.

So in short, yes, films can be deeply cerebral and powerful at the same time. I'm certainly not indicating they can't.

But for better or worse, in aligning I'm Not There with Dylan, Haynes ends up subverting his own efforts at deconstructing the biopic (if indeed that was even his goal). It may as well have been about someone completely fictional and it would've achieved the same effect. But rightly or wrongly, in a film that draws heavily on Dylan there are going to be expectations. And while Haynes is clever in subverting many of them, for me the film borders on a stunt after a while rather something measured between man and myth.

[bkimball]

To each his own, really.

I've discussed this film with my wife at length the last few days as we had differing opinions about it. I enjoyed it quite a bit while she did not. It definitely reminded me of a Godard film in that while I was viewing the film, I didn't know what to think; however, as I let myself recall the various pieces of the film, I think it's quite brilliant.

The wife didn't really care for it because she has no context of Dylan. It seemed to be an experimental film for those who know about Dylan and his various life stories.

I feel sorry for anyone who sees this film without knowing anything about Bob Dylan.

[justeleblanc]

in a film that draws heavily on Dylan there are going to be expectations.

I doubt this was meant to be a po-mo parallel, but not living up to expectations was kinda the point of the film. Take the journalist's criticisms with Dylan when he was no longer the folk rocker people wanted him to be, or Charlotte Gainsbourg's expectations when Ledger's Dylan ended up not being the amazing mythical husband that she wanted him to be. There was the disappointment then the anger, and neither of which should be the fault of Dylan.

If you are expecting the film to be bigger because you see Dylan as being a large human being, then imho you've misunderstood the film.

I feel sorry for anyone who sees this film without knowing anything about Bob Dylan.

I'm kinda one of those people.

[Antoine Doinel]

If you are expecting the film to be bigger because you see Dylan as being a large human being, then imho you've misunderstood the film.

I wasn't expecting the film to be "bigger", but just more deeply felt. I don't need any big speeches or moments but something that at least acknowledges that yes, for all his enigmatic mystery, Dylan did bypass the brain and hit the heart.

[David Ehrenstein]

"David. You're an insightful, truly incisive man."

Merci.

"Seriously now... surely you understand the distinction these guys are making here."

I understand it but do not accept any of it. Thought in this crippingly anti-intellectual culture, is viewed as antithetical to emotion -- a sacred category of expressivity in which money and time is extracted from suckers on a wholesale basis (see Herman Melville.)

In my 60 years of experience (61 come February) thought is inextricable from a very particular emotion -- anger.

Always has been.

You've seen the ads: "The more you know. . ."

Trouble is it's not followed by "the most enraged you'll become."

Todd is of course obliged to either weep copious tears or create an "emotional experience" with Dylan's songs on par with that excreable fraud called Once.

The is only one truly "emotional" moment in the film (as required by Unwritten Cultural Law) and it appears in the dedication.

I'm sure you all recall it.

If not, I have nothing further to say to you.

[Andre Jurieu]

Speaking broadly about Godard, I think it's safe to say that he really isn't interested in emotion in the traditional sense. His films are very much about being films and I accept and enjoy them on those terms.

If that's the case, then I'm puzzled by why you aren't allowing Haynes the same leeway. Considering Haynes spends significant time paying homage to Godard within the film, I don't believe I'm Not There is interested in emotion in the traditional sense. I also think it's apparent that I'm Not There is also very much about being a film. Shouldn't it also be accepted and enjoyed on those terms?

It may as well have been about someone completely fictional and it would've achieved the same effect. But rightly or wrongly, in a film that draws heavily on Dylan there are going to be expectations.

Considering Dylan constantly created fictional characters/personalities for his own public persona and frequently struggled with his own identity, I think the film is actually often about someone completely fictional. That's why its structure and style seem so appropriate for handling Dylan's work throughout the 60s.

[Antoine Doinel]

Speaking broadly about Godard, I think it's safe to say that he really isn't interested in emotion in the traditional sense. His films are very much about being films and I accept and enjoy them on those terms.

If that's the case, then I'm puzzled by why you aren't allowing Haynes the same leeway. Considering Haynes spends significant time paying homage to Godard within the film, I don't believe I'm Not There is interested in emotion in the traditional sense. I also think it's apparent that I'm Not There is also very much about being a film. Shouldn't it also be accepted and enjoyed on those terms?

That's an excellent point, and I would otherwise agree. But music in an of itself is an emotional subject and to approach it so clinically is somewhat bizarre.

And for the record David, I had my issues with Once as well and I'm not looking for Todd to send me Across The Universe either. But I am looking for him to least offer some vulnerability here rather than just an exquisitely wrapped performance piece.

[David Ehrenstein]

If you can't sense Todd's vulnerabilty I really don't know what to say. Maybe you should move to Portland and hang out with him.

The chief Godard reference in the film is a direct quote from Masculine Feminine. Otherwise there's a lot of Fellini -- especially the giant curved white chair from the spa scene in 8 1/2.

[Andre Jurieu]

But music in an of itself is an emotional subject and to approach it so clinically is somewhat bizarre.

In my mind, Haynes isn't especially concerned with Dylan's music. So music might be an emotional subject, but music isn't really the subject of I'm Not There. Haynes seems more concerned with exploring the concept of creating a portrait of any artist rather than worrying about the art that the artist produces. Dylan simply serves as an exquisite starting point because he spent years of his life attempting to subvert mundane expectations and resist conventional interpretations.

[David Ehrenstein]

Quite true, Andre. Dylan also serves as a vantage point from which to view the 60's.