I'm Not There (Todd Haynes, 2007)

[dadaistnun]

Video of an introduction to, and post-film discussion of the film by Haynes & Jim Hoberman at Cornell.

[bkimball]

Video of an introduction to, and post-film discussion of the film by Haynes & Jim Hoberman at Cornell.

Information like this is greatly appreciated. I'm Not There is hands down one of my favorite American films last year. So much to explore and discuss on how Haynes invoked the spirit of the narrative structure of the French New Wave.

I wonder how many people leave this movie completely confused and frustrated as I'm sure they went to it simply because of the topic.

[MichaelB]

Talking of Todd Haynes, he's got a career retrospective at next week's Sarajevo Film Festival (which I'll be attending).

I wondered whether a certain notorious early Haynes film that's never ever going to get commercial distribution thanks to the unwavering opposition of Richard Carpenter and Mattel Inc. would be screened, and, sure enough, it isn't formally listed in the programme...

...but they are showing a "surprise film", in a double bill with a Haynes short.

That's almost as subtle as the late lamented Scala cinema screening "a timely and fruitful surprise film" in a double bill with If..., back in the days when A Clockwork Orange was withdrawn from UK distribution!

[domino harvey]

a timely and fruitful

Brilliant

[aox]

was this the movie about Bob Dylan or Fellini?

[Cde.]

Wasn't it about Fellini and Richard Lester?

[domino harvey]

This was the two hour commercial for Netflix

[zedz]

I wondered whether a certain notorious early Haynes film that's never ever going to get commercial distribution thanks to the unwavering opposition of Richard Carpenter and Mattel Inc. would be screened, and, sure enough, it isn't formally listed in the programme...

...but they are showing a "surprise film", in a double bill with a Haynes short.

I'm not sure how this works, but it seems that certain 'banned' films can be shown without reprisal if the filmmaker is in attendance. I know this film has been shown in Haynes-hosted sessions in New York in recent years (the screening got a tiny plug in The New Yorker). Les Blank used to screen the similarly unreleasable A Poem Is a Naked Person during personal appearances.

[Poncho Punch]

I wondered whether a certain notorious early Haynes film that's never ever going to get commercial distribution thanks to the unwavering opposition of Richard Carpenter and Mattel Inc. would be screened, and, sure enough, it isn't formally listed in the programme...

...but they are showing a "surprise film", in a double bill with a Haynes short.

I'm not sure how this works, but it seems that certain 'banned' films can be shown without reprisal if the filmmaker is in attendance. I know this film has been shown in Haynes-hosted sessions in New York in recent years (the screening got a tiny plug in The New Yorker). Les Blank used to screen the similarly unreleasable A Poem Is a Naked Person during personal appearances.

Cocksucker Blues comes to mind, as well. Anyone know the legal precedence for this, if there is any? Blank's website states he's allowed to show his personal print of A Poem if he is in attendance and a non-profit organization is sponsoring the screening, and that that was specifically stipulated in his contract. Is it common for filmmakers to have these kinds of screening rights (presumably written up before their films were "banned" by whomever) in order to a) preserve their ability (their right?) to show their work while b) likewise protecting the commercial interests of the rightsholders, to be the only ones directly profiting off of the film (theater rental fees or percentages notwithstanding)? If so, the implication would be that Haynes' work is likely not protected in this fashion, since its troubles arise more from Haynes' failure to acquire licenses for the music beforehand, something which I would imagine both Blank and Frank had under control.

[Guido]

Back in February of this year, the Cinémathèque Québecoise ran a Haynes retrospective, which did in fact include a (great) print of Superstar, along with his short films. Of all the films I saw, that screening was by far the busiest, probably due to the fact that it had been well advertised in the cinématheque's program...

[Adam]

I'm not sure how this works, but it seems that certain 'banned' films can be shown without reprisal if the filmmaker is in attendance. I know this film has been shown in Haynes-hosted sessions in New York in recent years (the screening got a tiny plug in The New Yorker). Les Blank used to screen the similarly unreleasable A Poem Is a Naked Person during personal appearances.

Cocksucker Blues comes to mind, as well. Anyone know the legal precedence for this, if there is any? Blank's website states he's allowed to show his personal print of A Poem if he is in attendance and a non-profit organization is sponsoring the screening, and that that was specifically stipulated in his contract. Is it common for filmmakers to have these kinds of screening rights (presumably written up before their films were "banned" by whomever) in order to a) preserve their ability (their right?) to show their work while b) likewise protecting the commercial interests of the rightsholders, to be the only ones directly profiting off of the film (theater rental fees or percentages notwithstanding)? If so, the implication would be that Haynes' work is likely not protected in this fashion, since its troubles arise more from Haynes' failure to acquire licenses for the music beforehand, something which I would imagine both Blank and Frank had under control.

I think it's a rare issue, and the number of cases for which it might apply can be counted on two hands or less.
But there is often more flexibility in showing a "banned" film if:
1. It's not advertised
2. No admission is charged
3. Filmmaker is present
4. It's for educational purposes - at a university

Cocksucker Blues, to the best of my knowledge, can only be screened publicly (advertised, etc) if Frank or the editor is present.
Superstar, who knows, but I'm sure it's shown lots without publicity from bootlegs. I don't know of any bootlegs of Cocksucker Blues, do you?

[Poncho Punch]

Back in February of this year, the Cinémathèque Québecoise ran a Haynes retrospective, which did in fact include a (great) print of Superstar, along with his short films. Of all the films I saw, that screening was by far the busiest, probably due to the fact that it had been well advertised in the cinématheque's program...

I wonder if this was possible specifically because it was in Quebec, not because Carpenter' and Mattel's rights aren't protected there (I'm sure they are), but because of the international and language barriers providing something of a mask for the film in terms of the parties in question not being aware of it before the screening date. Was Haynes in attendance, or were there any other mitigating circumstances (proceeds benefiting a non-profit organization, sponsorship by a university, etc) that may have had a factor in this?

Cocksucker Blues, to the best of my knowledge, can only be screened publicly (advertised, etc) if Frank or the editor is present.
Superstar, who knows, but I'm sure it's shown lots without publicity from bootlegs. I don't know of any bootlegs of Cocksucker Blues, do you?

I don't know of any bootleg prints firsthand, but I've seen DVD-Rs available for sale and (more commonly) download. The one copy I have personally seen of it was a digital copy that was evidently made from an nth-generation VHS dub. In any case, my understanding of official screenings of Cocksucker Blues is much the same as yours (though I wasn't aware that Frank's presence wasn't necessary if another production member was there - does this only apply to the editor?). And does anyone know if I'm going to have to outlive the Stones to ever own a legitimate copy of this on a home video format?

[broadwayrock]

Cocksucker Blues, to the best of my knowledge, can only be screened publicly (advertised, etc) if Frank or the editor is present.

I saw Cocksucker Blues in London a few years ago and Robert Frank wasn't present at the screening. Robert Frank's own print of Cocksucker Blues was in such poor condition that they had to borrow the Rolling Stones' personal copy from their archive.

[aox]

I saw Cocksucker Blues in London a few years ago and Robert Frank wasn't present at the screening. Robert Frank's own print of Cocksucker Blues was in such poor condition that they had to borrow the Rolling Stones' personal copy from their archive.

That doesn't make any sense to me that the Stones would loan this out since they are the ones who personally don't want this film shown.

[Guido]

I wonder if this was possible specifically because it was in Quebec, not because Carpenter' and Mattel's rights aren't protected there (I'm sure they are), but because of the international and language barriers providing something of a mask for the film in terms of the parties in question not being aware of it before the screening date. Was Haynes in attendance, or were there any other mitigating circumstances (proceeds benefiting a non-profit organization, sponsorship by a university, etc) that may have had a factor in this?

The language barrier was more than likely the reason this screening was held; I hadn't thought of it myself. Haynes was not in attendance, and, like most (all?) of the cinematheque's programs, there didn't seem to be any kind of affiliation with an external organization or university. If there was, it wasn't apparent. Perhaps someone with a better understanding of this could enlighten us both...

[MichaelB]

For the record, Haynes will be in attendance in Sarajevo.

[pianocrash]

The one time I saw him speak in Austin a long long time ago, he arrived to the room shortly after Superstar was screened, and didn't take any responsibility for either providing or endorsing its inclusion in the evening's festivities. He was also careful to word his responses regarding the short in a sort of broken lawyeresque that neither approved nor denied the aforementioned transpirings prior to his entrance. It kind of hurt my brain, but it was worth it!

[Poncho Punch]

The one time I saw him speak in Austin a long long time ago, he arrived to the room shortly after Superstar was screened

I wouldn't be surprised if he was on the premises the whole time - he's probably getting sick of watching it by now!

[zedz]

The one time I saw him speak in Austin a long long time ago, he arrived to the room shortly after Superstar was screened, and didn't take any responsibility for either providing or endorsing its inclusion in the evening's festivities. He was also careful to word his responses regarding the short in a sort of broken lawyeresque that neither approved nor denied the aforementioned transpirings prior to his entrance. It kind of hurt my brain, but it was worth it!

In an incredible series of flukes, Haynes just stumbles around the world happening to wander into theatres where Superstar has just been screened. It's starting to freak him out.

[GaryC]

Superstar was shown as a "surprise item" after Haynes and Julianne Moore's on-stage interview, after a preview of Far From Heaven, at the National Film Theatre in London in 2003. I was there!

What was the situation with Titicut Follies when that was banned? If I remember rightly that could only be shown for "educational purposes" and/or if Frederick Wiseman was present.

[hearthesilence]

Alliance in Canada apparently issued this twice on Blu-Ray disc.

The first version has the same artwork as the U.S. DVD (a silhouette of Cate Blanchett's Dylan, smoking a cigarette), and is basically a single disc with everything found on the two-disc DVD. It's still pretty expensive.

The second version is a dual format package, and it has new artwork, used on a cardboard slipcase and the insert for the plastic case. Here's how it looks without the slipcase (which is kind of redundant anyway):



The DVD mirrors Disc One of the double-DVD version, which means it has the film and a good commentary track by Todd Haynes. The Blu-Ray disc however only has the feature with no extras, not even the commentary track. All of the extras on Disc Two of the double-DVD version has been dropped too (deleted scenes, extended scenes, helpful featurettes, etc.) Very unfortunate, I don't know why they didn't just re-use the Blu-Ray disc from the previous release, since that retains all of the extras, but it may explain why this version is so cheap. You can currently buy these new for about $6 shipped on ebay and for about $7 or 8 elsewhere. Got mine and it does indeed look great. Will have to hold on to my DVD set just to retain the extras, but not bad for a supplemental upgrade, this was always a film that screamed for an HD release.

FWIW, this is still an excellent film, just short of a truly great one. Messy in spots, the "Billy" section is especially muddled and confused. (Haynes confirmed that it's based on the "The Basement Tapes" era, but throwing elements of Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid in there was a mistake. Billy rediscovering his guitar at the end is a great touch though.) But there's so much to like, and again, if you're familiar with Dylan, a lot of this is a brilliant representation of his life and work.