criterionforum.org

David Ehrenstein wrote:Glad to hear Todd's smooching a new dude. He's such a Babe!

Seconded: not usually into men, but for him I'd make an exception. There's just something about him...

Yep! His parents are drop-dead gorgeous too. Life's not fair.

Cronenfly wrote:It was interesting to see Soderbergh's exec-producer credit: wonder if he pushed for all the Richard Lester love in the film?

There was a nod to Richard Lester in Velvet Goldmine when Brian's girlfriend asks him if he was a Mod or a Rocker and he replies, "Six of one, half a dozen of the other," in a Liverpudlian accent. (In Hard Day's Night, Ringo's answer to the same question, asked by a female reporter, is "I'm a mocker.") Interesting that both Lester and Haynes were Americans, making films about a specifically British music phenomenon.

L.S. Pan wrote:There was a nod to Richard Lester in Velvet Goldmine when Brian's girlfriend asks him if he was a Mod or a Rocker and he replies, "Six of one, half a dozen of the other," in a Liverpudlian accent. (In Hard Day's Night, Ringo's answer to the same question, asked by a female reporter, is "I'm a mocker.") Interesting that both Lester and Haynes were Americans, making films about a specifically British music phenomenon.

Forgot about that: very interesting. VG has always been very underappreciated, IMO.
EDIT- In thinking about it more, though, I always felt the VG reference was more to Quadrophenia (I'm probably wrong, but that was my first reaction), but I suppose it's all sort of fused together by the '60s, Liverpool, etc.

It's good to see Lester's spirit live on in current works: I always thought he might easily tumble into the annals of obscurity (what with his Beatles work and Petulia being well-known, but rooted enough in the '60s to be deemed "irrelevant" by some today and [especially] considering his lackluster later oeuvre), so it's good to see his work is still considered important today.

Cronenfly wrote:VG has always been very underappreciated, IMO.

I agree. And while it seems that Dylan and Glam have very little in common, Haynes has already connected a lot of the ideas in both musical genres. (Dylan's Greatest Hits album is in the record shop in VG).

L.S. Pan wrote:

Cronenfly wrote:VG has always been very underappreciated, IMO.

I agree. And while it seems that Dylan and Glam have very little in common, Haynes has already connected a lot of the ideas in both musical genres. (Dylan's Greatest Hits album is in the record shop in VG).

The two make excellent companion pieces (as you said, seemingly little in common subject matter-wise at first, but well-connected on reflection), and will be one hell of a double bill once I'm Not There hits DVD.

Cronenfly wrote:Maybe being a bigger Dylan fan might've helped

I was actually concerned that my Dylan-worship would be detrimental to my enjoyment of the movie. You know the whole “puristâ€

LeeB.Sims wrote:

portnoy wrote:Even the film's most oblique narrative strands (the Richard Gere stuff, which people are going to be screaming over)

Can you elaborate on what you mean by this a little? This is one of the segments I am most curious about and was just looking for some specifics about how it flows or fits in to the story...

There are and will be multiple interpretations as to what the Richard Gere segments mean - suffice it to say it's emblematic of the mythopoetic side of Dylan and the world of his music - it infuses various American grand narratives about the Wild West (especially Dylan's Billy the Kid/Pat Garrett stuff), the Great Depression, unionization, etc. It's very surreal, and it's introduced late enough into the film that on a first viewing it's really jarring. But on a second view, it's one of the most fascinating elements of the film. I feel as though the heart of the film might lie in there somewhere, but I probably need to see it a third time to really know for sure how I feel about it.

LeeB.Sims wrote:

Cronenfly wrote:Maybe being a bigger Dylan fan might've helped

I was actually concerned that my Dylan-worship would be detrimental to my enjoyment of the movie. You know the whole “puristâ€

I have to say that I mostly agree with Barmy. The main problem with the movie is that unless you are very, very familiar with Dylan's bio & work, much will go over your head. If the post screening Q&A had taken place BEFORE the screening I'm sure I would have appreciated it more. Haynes was very articulate in explaining his artistic choices, but going in cold, much of it made no sense to me, for example the Billy the Kid character.

Note, I am not a newcomer to Dylan -- I've seen the great Don't Look Back and have his albums -- but I haven't read anything about him nor seen him live.

The part of the film with Cate Blanchett was by far the best part. Yes her performance was good, but she was also given the most recognizable character.

So far as having a woman play Dylan, it's hardly revolutionary -- I saw Joan Baez back in an '83 Place de la Concorde, Paris concert do, in her own words, "Dylan better than Dylan ever did Dylan". She was every bit as convincing as Blanchett and did her own singing -- no costume change or makeup required...

Ted Todorov wrote: The main problem with the movie is that unless you are very, very familiar with Dylan's bio & work, much will go over your head.

Sorry if it seems I'm hounding you across the board, but this is just one of the very few topics that has captured my interest lately. Anyway, I'm not sure I agree with your stipulation concerning the film. I'm by no means an authority on Dylan and I couldn't place a few of the Dylan quotes that Haynes references, but I thought the basic premise and concepts that Haynes was attempting to get across came through brilliantly, though perhaps not in a straightforward manner. Certain scenes aren't very lucid initially, but once you assemble and examine the entire film it all fits very well and makes its points clearly.

Ted Todorov wrote:The part of the film with Cate Blanchett was by far the best part. Yes her performance was good, but she was also given the most recognizable character.

I have to agree with that. I appreciate her performance, but I actually don't think Blanchett does anything spectacular here. Her work is about as accomplished as any of the other actors who play "Dylan" (though I have a natural tendency to dismiss Ledger. Surprisingly, Gere actually impressed me), she just benefits from having the most interesting segment of the film. It also ensures that she'll get a great shot at an Oscar nomination.

I'm replying here to a post from another thread since it concerns this movie more:

Andre Jurieu wrote:I'm Not There is interesting throughout because it arranges its entire form around the concept that Dylan's persona was forever changing, thereby not allowing anyone to form a coherent interpretation of the artist or his work. The film is more concerned with how Dylan's work influenced our perception of the him, rather than how we can understand his work through knowing the various major events within his life. Instead, Haynes' film kind of posits that the entire concept of a biography will always be elusive, especially when its subject refuses to be interpreted in any uniform way. The only problem I really had with the film is that it overstayed its welcome a bit, but I thought the ideas within I'm Not There are far substantial than anything in Taymor's film.

I like the I'm Not There concept fine, but -- it's not original -- and to me only somewhat successfully executed.

I say not original, because I saw the thoroughly reviled (because Yoko endorsed it) John Lennon musical on Broadway (dir. Don Scardino) which did the exact same thing -- Lennon was played by multiple actors including a woman and an African American representing different aspects/phases of his life and personality. If Haynes had done it first, I would have been far more impressed. And I thought Scardino's version worked better, but that may simply be because I went in knowing more about Lennon than about Dylan.

Even if Haynes didn't steal the idea from Scardino, the fact that the exact same approach was taken by two different directors on what is essentially the same subject (great '60s/70s popular music icon) means the idea is not very original.

Ted Todorov wrote:I like the I'm Not There concept fine, but -- it's not original -- and to me only somewhat successfully executed.

I say not original, because I saw the thoroughly reviled (because Yoko endorsed it) John Lennon musical on Broadway (dir. Don Scardino) which did the exact same thing ...

...Even if Haynes didn't steal the idea from Scardino, the fact that the exact same approach was taken by two different directors on what is essentially the same subject (great '60s/70s popular music icon) means the idea is not very original.

I guess I'm more impressed with Haynes' film because I'm not overly concerned about whether or not the premise of the film is original, or whether others have proclaimed that it is original, or whether Haynes is receiving unjustified credit from others for being original. I think I'm more concerned with Haynes' execution of the film once he's found his idea, or essentially what he does with the concept. I would also argue that Haynes' approach/techniques/structure aren't even original within the medium of film, yet the film is successful in displaying how the obsession with generic and uniform interpretation of an artist is futile and unproductive when attempting to understand an artists' work. It also effectively exhibits how the standard film-biography is one of the worst offenders within our cultural need to create homogeneous explanations of our history.

New trailer.

soundtrack hasn't leaked yet but you can hear four songs at the soundtrack's MySpace page

domino harvey wrote:soundtrack hasn't leaked yet but you can hear four songs at the soundtrack's MySpace page

Those four tracks are dope as fuck.

chaddoli wrote:This is also awesome.

I was wondering if this was ever going show up anywhere other than that one screening.

chaddoli wrote:

domino harvey wrote:soundtrack hasn't leaked yet but you can hear four songs at the soundtrack's MySpace page

Those four tracks are dope as fuck.

Yeah I agree, very good covers. I'm definitely going to have to get this soundtrack. Was Dylan involved in this film in any capacity?

No. The way Haynes tells it is that before they really got started he sent Dylan (through his manager) a one page outline of the idea for the film and who the multiple characters would be. Dylan read it, asked his manager if these were "good people," and then gave Haynes access to his entire catalog. There are obviously many Dylan tracks in the film, but he is not involved in any other way. Haynes sent him a copy of the film on dvd, but they have not gotten any response. I doubt Dylan will ever watch it, he hasn't even seen the film he co-wrote and starred in Masked and Anonymous.

Haynes said he heard Dylan did see part of Scorsese's documentary on Spanish television, but only commented that [paraphrased] "Joan was on TV talking about me in Spanish or something. It was strange."

A TOWERING MASTERPEICE OF WORLD CINEMA, that will therefore make a lot of people very angry.

This piece of shit culture brainwashes the masses into believing that they possess all appropriate knowledge. Therefore anyone who exhibits more -- Al Gore for instance -- is to be pounced upon and torn to shreds byt ehe Media Whores hired t keep "the underlings" in line.

Todd knows more than you do about everything. DEAL WITH IT!!!!

Many won't be able to. Film critics especially.

This is not a film "about" Bob Dylan, but around Bob Dylan. It's an evocation of the 60's that "samples" 8 1/2 rather than Don't Look Back.

Cate Blanchett is a goddess. She plays the main Dylan. Heath Ledger doesn't play a Dylan but an actor in a film-within-the-film based on Dylan. His character is marreid to Charlotte Gainsbourg and they have a bad Vietnam-era marriage together. Christian Bale plays both the rising star Dylan and the Jesus Freak Dylan. A marvelous young black actor named Marcus Carl Franklin plays the folk era Dylan.

Much is made of the hatred heaped upon Dylan when he "went electric." but that's seen not in terms of Dylan himself but a much larger context.

Can't wait to read the bad reviews this is going to get.

David Ehrenstein wrote:Much is made of the hatred heaped upon Dylan when he "went electric." but that's seen not in terms of Dylan himself but a much larger context.

Can't wait to read the bad reviews this is going to get.

And there isn't a person alive who will admit to booing Dylan in '66. Everyone's so cool now, no one is poor, square Mr Jones. Yet they can't wrap their heads around this film.

I wasn't able to read the bad reviews of Velvet Goldmine, it was just too heartbreaking that the film wasn't given a chance but the bad reviews have already rolled in for I'm Not There and they are a hoot. http://im-not-there.livejournal.com/2007/10/06/

One thing that Todd said in an interview was how there was a suspicion of things that made money back in the 60s and 70s and that has completely changed. No one discussed box office over the water cooler on Monday, that was for the accountants. Now if it makes money it's good and if it doesn't it's bad, period. People are more afraid than ever to trust their own taste.

David Ehrenstein wrote: Can't wait to read the bad reviews this is going to get.

I expected bad reviews after watching the film in Venice, since the applause was decent but not overwhelming. Instead it got good reviews. So not sure how "bad" the reviews will turn out after all.