criterionforum.org

Wow.

I'm not even that much of a Dylan fan, but that trailer just made this one of my most anticipated movies this fall. Looks unbelievably great. Cate Blanchett looks like she's going to knock this one out of the park.

That looks absolutely fantastic. Blanchett is so versatile. I'm convinced she could pull a Linda Hunt and play Dylan by herself in a traditional biopic.

Interesting article about the film's theatrical roll out in today's NY Times:

[quote]Dylan Movie to Open Like a Rolling Premiere

By JOHN ANDERSON
Published: August 21, 2007

Imagine you're a film distributor, handling an experimental movie by one of the country's most iconoclastic directors. The subject is an enigmatic occasional recluse who is being portrayed by four actors, an actress and a 13-year-old boy. Where do you open that film?

Cate Blanchett as Bob Dylan in Todd Haynes's “I'm Not There.â€

[quote="NY Times"]“I may be jumping the gun,â€

Barmy wrote:In New York it's being released at Film Forum, of all places, which means it's basically being dumped.

Harvey Weinstein and Barmy's archenemies at The New York Times have stepped in to refute his silliness.

Mr. Weinstein said there was “not a chanceâ€

Jeff wrote:Harvey Weinstein and Barmy's archenemies at The New York Times have stepped in to refute his silliness.

Far be it from me to agree with Barmy about anything, but I'd have to think long and hard about who I trust less in this situation: Harvey Weinstein or the New York Times. This looks like a classic bit of PR smoke and mirrors. I think it's notable that the director was unavailable to promote his own movie and that the article's main source was Harvey Scissorhands. Does anyone else think that the quote from Karen Cooper is a little odd? "We tried this once before and it didn't work."

fred wrote:Far be it from me to agree with Barmy about anything, but I'd have to think long and hard about who I trust less in this situation: Harvey Weinstein or the New York Times. This looks like a classic bit of PR smoke and mirrors. I think it's notable that the director was unavailable to promote his own movie and that the article's main source was Harvey Scissorhands.

I have no doubt that Weinstein is very concerned about how he is going to market this decidedly odd film, and maybe they haven't figured out who the audience is yet (it's me). When Weinstein publicly declares, however, that the film will play in "100 cities, at least" and that he intends to push Blanchett for an Academy Award it does something to refute the notion that they're "dumping it."

Jeff wrote:I have no doubt that Weinstein is very concerned about how he is going to market this decidedly odd film, and maybe they haven't figured out who the audience is yet (it's me). When Weinstein publicly declares, however, that the film will play in "100 cities, at least" and that he intends to push Blanchett for an Academy Award it does something to refute the notion that they're "dumping it."

Moreover, there is no way the Weinsteins aren't going to try and milk the lucractive "musical biopic" angle for as many awards as possible, no matter how unconventional.

And they would be stupid not to eventually launch the film as wide as possible, especially when Dylan himself is going on a high profile tour this fall with Elvis Costello, not to mention A-list cast and the unbelievable soundtrack lineup.

Damn, the film practically markets itself.

Not to mention that Columbia is releasing a 3-CD set of material, and his show on XM.

"I do think though the black young man, Marcus Carl Franklin, is playing Dylan's "Woody" phase."

None of the actors is playing a literal version of Dylan. They're signposts to aspects of the 60's reflected in his life and work.

This will no more be a "biopic" than Far From Heaven was a "woman's picture." Todd's films evoke genres but have nothing to do with them in and of themselves. What he's doing isn't a "modernist" varaiation like Godard, or "post-modern" intellectual hackery like Questin Tarantino.

The filmmaker closest to Todd is Franju.

Excerpted reactions from bloggers at Telluride:

Reverse Shot wrote:It's late out here at Telluride, and no real time for a full considered review of what is sure to be one of the year's most remarkable movies. Not to be all David Poland about things, but what Haynes has accomplished here is so ingenious, intelligent, unique, and wholly entertaining that it's unfair to other filmmakers. I left the theatre shaking and stammering, wanting to make out with everyone involved (sans Harvey) and if I'd been offered the opportunity, I would have walked right back in and seen it again.

Expect a lot more on I'm Not There from Reverse Shot in the weeks to come.

Indiewire wrote:I saw three movies today at the Telluride Film Festival and without a doubt the one to write home about is Todd Haynes' "I'm Not There." A portrait with aspects of Haynes' "Superstar" and "Velvet Goldmine", the film is a downright cinematic spectacle that may leave many people surprised (and even a few a bit confused). The festival calls the enthralling film, which Haynes dedicated to his longtime editor Jim Lyons, an "essay-poem on Bob Dylan." But "I'm Not There" defies adequate description, often densley evoking 1960s cinema through stunning photography and an exceptional, eclectic soundtrack. I started to take notes during the screening, but about one-third of the way in I ended up simply writing in my notebook, "Just see it."

Surprisingly, the words "Bob Dylan" are never spoken in the film and one older couple said at the screening tonight, "I thought this was a movie about Bob Dylan." After the screening, I lingered in the lobby and witnessed both Ken Burns (pictured below with Haynes) and Laura Linney each gushing to Todd separately about the movie. And at the "Margot at the Wedding" showing following "I'm Not There", Noah Baumbach (while introducing his own movie on stage) mentioned how much he liked Haynes' film.

Just see it.

Spout wrote:I've never seen a film that manipulated my heart and mind so deftly, often in a single shot or line. I'll be very disappointed if Cate Blanchett doesn't pick up an Oscar for this, and I'm rooting for Todd Haynes for both the best screenplay and best director prizes. Is that an objective opinion? Of course not. I have an irrational crush on this movie.

As Little as Possible wrote:I'm Not There is a chase movie, and it plays like the lovechild of Cameron Crowe (the music worshipper) and David Lynch (master of splintering the psyche).

No one in the movie plays a character named Bob Dylan, but they all play physical and/or emotional representations of Dylan. Christian Bale plays a folk music hero, Heath Ledger plays the actor who plays the folk music hero in a film, Cate Blanchett plays a folk music hero who goes "electric" and alienates his fan base. Richard Gere plays Billy the Kid. Ben Whishaw plays a "poet" named Arthur Rimbaud who is under interrogation. The overly charismatic preteen Marcus Carl Franklin plays a boy named Woody Guthrie who's trainhopping away from a troubled childhood.

All these characters add up to the essence of Dylan as he changed over his career, and they are all running from something. In this way, I'm Not There is a chase movie. It's about men who are constantly trying to outrun fame, the media, conformity, themselves, their loves, the law and so on. They are trying to excuse themselves from their current reality. Look at the title.

Blanchett arrives late and owns the movie. She and Bale play the pre- and post-electric Dylan, but Blanchett is the axis on which the film spins. She is a joy to watch. She looks and acts like Dylan. There is little artifice. It is fascinating. Why did Todd Haynes want a woman in the part? I don't know. But it works as a ballsy experiment, and Blanchett proves she can pull off absolutely anything.

I like the film quite a bit, though as someone who is not totally familiar with Dylan some of it did go over my head. But man, Cate Blanchette.... for sure a nom is on the way for her. Hopefully Todd Haynes will get one too, but I doubt it since the film is prolly too dense for the usual Academy crowd.

board-wide backtrack in 5, 4, 3

Barmy wrote:Although Oscar© does like chicks who play dudes...

If that's true Tilda Swinton should have won for Orlando!

I see what you mean though: Shakespeare In Love, Boys Don't Cry, Transamerica's nomination...notice how when a woman dresses as a man they get nominated for Oscars, but when the cast of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert dress as women only their costumes and make up get nominated!

post deleted

BBC: Cate Blanchett has been named best actress at the Venice Film Festival for her role in the Bob Dylan biopic I'm Not There.

Endless "There" Review

Larry Gets it.

But I disagree with him about I Don't Want to Sleep Alone not being queer.

And Todd and "Joe" are always queer, no matter what they're doing.

Lucky lucky: seeing both this and Eastern Promises on Friday. Finally, something good about living in Toronto.

No Eastern Promises yet, but I did see this today. Saw Mr. Haynes outside the theater and made eye contact with him (well, I was staring at him and he met my stare briefly). He graciously came in for a Q and A before the movie, as he was leaving for L.A. with his parents too early to do one afterwards. Questions were standard (about Blanchett, the multiple actors playing "Dylan", etc), but it was still nice of him. Even got to see him kiss his (I think) boyfriend (it was in the theatre: I wasn't stalking).

I had too high hopes for the movie, and couldn't help but compare it to some of Haynes' other work (I found Velvet Goldmine more entertaining and Safe more accomplished overall). That probably isn't fair, but that's just where I was coming from. Maybe being a bigger Dylan fan might've helped, though, beyond some useful background info, I don't think it makes too big a difference in comprehending the larger concepts at work. The transitions between personas, while jarring at first, eventually fall into a far more successful rhythm than I anticipated, though each has their issues inside of themselves (Blanchett's being the most successful overall, IMO). It feels like Haynes has matured as a filmmaker in many ways, but I find that doesn't always lead to the most enjoyable, fresh, or even successful results. I'm definitely looking forward to giving it another try some time (with some more background, perhaps), and, reading the Larry Gross review, I'm inclined to believe that there's a good deal more there than meets the eye: I'm trying my best to keep in mind that instant gratification isn't everything in cinema. However, I've always found that Haynes' best work hits me on a gut level where this left me cold (kind of like Far from Heaven, though FrH did so to a greater extent). I'll be fascinated to see what he follows this up with.

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

I don't think I've put in my two cents yet, but...

This movie's great. Totally entertaining, evocative, formally dazzling, etc. etc. The first time I watched it it felt (like a lot of Haynes - Poison, Superstar) like a bit of an academic exercise - a conceit for a film executed perfectly rather than a film itself. The first words that came out of my mouth afterward were, "It might not be a bonafide masterpiece, but..."

But it really takes the second viewing to get to the point where you realize how amazingly involving it is, emotionally and intellectually. Even the film's most oblique narrative strands (the Richard Gere stuff, which people are going to be screaming over) are extraordinarily potent on a second viewing. The way it enfolds the touchstones of 60s cinematic/visual culture into its narrative (Lester, yes, but also Arthur Penn, Godard, Pennebaker (duh), the Drew Unit, Antonioni, etc.) never feels forced but is a consistently rewarding approach to the material. Blanchett and Bale are tremendous in their roles. It's easily my favorite film of the year, one of my favorites of the decade, and I can't wait until I see it again in November (and again (and again)).

You've definitely got me excited to see it again, and you're right about how well it incorporates '60s culture. I could see how it would become more enjoyable on multiple viewings, once you've wrapped your head around its construction.

Glad to hear Todd's smooching a new dude. He's such a Babe!