"I'm Not There"

email this story
read comments (24)
post a comment

Anyone who says Todd Haynes' I'm Not There (Weinstein Co., 11.21) isn't an essential film to see -- not just for the portions that "deliver" but the ones that are radiantly, eye-poppingly alive -- is operating without the DNA of a true movie lover...it's that simple. This is a great poetry-weave film, a reanimation of '60s spiritual-cultural energy like no feature I can recall, and a magnificent head-tease that is always arresting, even during the fumble portions.

Cate Blanchett in I'm Not There

It's not all-the-way fantastic (20% or 30% drags and meanders and sometimes confounds), but I'm saying for sure that you can't not see it. You can blow it off when it opens theatrically and wait for the DVD, sure, but this will probably incur the suspicion of trusted friends and colleagues. Honestly, do you want that?

I knew Haynes had taken a huge bite going in with this ultra-ambitious patchwork exploration of Bob Dylan's life and legend (spanning from the late '50s to late '60s), in which he uses six different actors (Cate Blanchett, Christian Bale, Carl Franklin, Richard Gere, Heath Ledger and Ben Whishaw) along with numerous styles and palettes to convey various aspects of this unique life and legend.

What I didn't anticipate was his impressive use of montage that ties together the various strands and makes a kind of harmony out of what could have been serious chaos. Nor did I expect the magnificent detail in each frame, the always-brisk pacing and the sheer "fun" aspect.

An example of the latter is a Dylan-frolics-with-the-Beatles-in-''64 moment that's absolutely hilarious in a kind of of Jacques Tati-meets-Charlie Chaplin-meets A Hard Day's Night sense.

Did I mention this is Haynes' absolute best film? That he's pulled off one of the most exciting growth-surge displays of any directorial career, ever?

I'd heard from a friend at Telluride that I'm Not There is "an inside joke for Dylanologists" and okay, yeah, it is that...but for anyone open to full-crank cinematic stimulation it's one of the most inventive and dazzling head-trip films I've ever seen. I went into it this afternoon with some trepidation, and then realized within minutes it would be much, much better than anticipated. It doesn't really have much of a "thread" (by the classic definition of that term) and it loses tension from time to time, but when it's "on" and rolling full steam it's a wild-ass thing to behold.

On top of which it has to be seen for Blanchett's knockout performance (captured entirely in black and white) as the Highway 61 Revisited/Blonde on Blonde Dylan. Forget Cate's game performance in the catastrophic Elizabeth: The Golden Age and absolutely count on the fact that she'll be nominated for Best Supporting Actress in the Haynes pic. Dylan fans are going to be blown away, but I can see others digging it as one of the best woman-playing-a man tour de forces ever put to film.

On one level her inhabiting of the '65-to-'66 Dylan doesn't feel entirely sincere -- it's a piece of performance art that feels a wee bit put-onny -- but another level it's psychologically "real" and shattering. For me Blanchett delivers as much of a knockout punch as Marion Cotillard's Edith Piaf does in La Vie en Rose or Jamie Foxx did in Ray, and perhaps even more so.

I'm speaking about much more than a physical capturing -- the frizzy big hair, black shades, tight pants, Beatle boots and whatnot -- or Blanchett's spot-on imitation of his mumbly voice and guarded manner. I'm talking mainly about a convincing communion with that Dylan-esque otherness...that sense of odd, connected whimsy and all-knowing, tapped-in power that indicated all kinds of fascinating currents in the actual guy.

Yes, the Gere-in-the-country portion (a chapter evoking the reclusive John Wesley Harding/New Morning era) slows things down a bit, but even this section has its odd carnival-like charms. I'll admit I was feeling a wee bit anxious and impatient, but Haynes saves it somewhat by cutting back to the Blanchett, Ledger, Bale and Whishaw portions now and then and thereby creating a welcome whatever-ness that at least staves off boredom.

Will those who've never listened to a Dylan album or seen Martin Scorsese's masterful No Direction Home be able to get into this film? Probably not, but the Dylan-deprived aren't going to see it in the first place so the question is moot.

I felt alive and tingly as I walked down Bloor Street after seeing this film early this afternoon. I was saying to myself "this is what it feels like to feel charged up by a movie, by transcendent thought, by ravishing lyrics...by the whole magilla."

MPAA rationales<< previous | next >>"Private" pick-up

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on September 11, 2007 at 12:55 PM

comment #1

MickTravis says ...

Hypothetical situation posed toward anybody who's ever wanted to have sex with Cate Blanchett (questioner raises both hands):

Through a series of bizarre situations, you meet Cate and Cate agrees to do you. But only in the guise of Bob Dylan with the Bob Dylan hair and the Bob Dylan voice.

Do you accept?

Anyway, I just had to get that off my chest. Interesting review. I can't wait to see the film.

Posted by MickTravis at September 11, 2007 4:00 PM

comment #2

Mike Ock says ...

I'll pass. Two friends who I respect saw this and one said it was pretentious, the other called it a disaster.

Posted by Mike Ock at September 11, 2007 4:06 PM

comment #3

115thDreamer says ...

Cooooooool. As a "Dylanologist", I am certainly looking forward to this one. What era Dylan is Ledger supposed to be, Jeff? I'm assuming by the duds, hairstyle, etc. that he's the post Blonde on Blonde / motorcyle crash era Dylan, i.e. late '66 or '67? Are there any portrayals of the "Basement Tapes" recordings with the Band in '67 in the film? If you listen to that album, it sounds like everyone was completed loaded and having a ball - that whole recording session would make a movie on its own, no doubt. Thanks for the report - this will make up for "Velvet Goldmine", it would appear.

Posted by 115thDreamer at September 11, 2007 4:08 PM

comment #4

gruver1 says ...

Wells to Ock: Like I said, either you have the DNA of a true movie lover...or you don't. Pretension to one viewer is grand ambition to another. The guy who called it a disaster is an out-and-out plebe.

Posted by gruver1 at September 11, 2007 4:12 PM

comment #5

T. Holly says ...

Yes Mick, but only with a stapping stap-on on.

How are the songs, knucklehead?

Posted by T. Holly at September 11, 2007 4:12 PM

comment #6

MickTravis says ...

I don't think the Basement is included, but I wish it was.

I've always thought Josh Lucas with a beard (like in "Wonderland Avenue") would make a good Levon Helm.

Posted by MickTravis at September 11, 2007 4:13 PM

comment #7

TheJeff says ...

"I'll pass. Two friends who I respect saw this and one said it was pretentious, the other called it a disaster."

I usually find that movies that people's friends think are pretentious disasters turn out to be brilliant and awesome.

Posted by TheJeff at September 11, 2007 4:16 PM

comment #8

Chris Willman says ...

One note. It doesn't just go through the late '60s but at least the late '70s, since there is a "born again"-era sequence with Christian Bale singing "Pressing On" from the "Saved" album in a church setting (apparently lip-synched by John Doe, if I read the end credits correctly). But otherwise the movie doesn't much reference any later-period Dylan.

Posted by Chris Willman at September 11, 2007 6:29 PM

comment #9

T. Holly says ...

Music-man, how are the songs in IO NON SONO QUI? Did Jack Frost produce any of them?

Posted by T. Holly at September 11, 2007 6:41 PM

comment #10

The Hoyk says ...

I wish somebody would have enough whimsy to blow this up to 35mm and add it as a short subject before I'M NOT THERE - I think in an odd way it's appropriate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nej4xJe4Tdg

Posted by The Hoyk at September 11, 2007 6:47 PM

comment #11

Mcflyboy says ...

What if you're a movie lover, with the DNA of such, a fan of Haynes and of most of the actors involved but you think Dylan is an overrated hack? I am most certainly not alone in this dilemma, even though I know many of you would try to make me feel like I am.

Posted by Mcflyboy at September 11, 2007 7:56 PM

comment #12

Hal says ...

"one of the best woman-playing-a man tour de forces ever put to film..."

Speaking of which, what is the point of Cate portraying Dylan? I mean, honestly, what is the point, other than as a gimmick to showcase Cate's mad acting skills? It all seems a bit twee and award-baity.

Posted by Hal at September 11, 2007 7:56 PM

comment #13

Rob says ...

"Did I mention this is Haynes' absolute best film? That he's pulled off one of the most exciting growth-surge displays of any directorial career, ever?"

I think after Velvet Goldmine, Safe, and Far From Heaven, Haynes' genius was not in question.

Posted by Rob at September 11, 2007 7:56 PM

comment #14

nemo says ...

Blonde on Blonde and Highway 61 Revisited -- Bob Dylan at his Bob Dylan-est.

Posted by nemo at September 11, 2007 7:56 PM

comment #15

buckzollo says ...

Love the enthusiasm, but could not disagree more. I saw this in Telluride and despite simply not getting it, I did not hate it. It was very pretty and of course cool music and interestingly confounding characters and settings. It is a mess and I think it is exactly what Haynes intended. You know you are going to be the "hurray I'm for the other team" guy on this one. Harvey is happy though.

Posted by buckzollo at September 11, 2007 9:50 PM

comment #16

Devin Faraci says ...

Posted by: Mcflyboy [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 11, 2007 07:56 PM"

You're not alone, Mcflyboy. The world is awash in ignorance.

Posted by Devin Faraci at September 12, 2007 1:00 AM

comment #17

JD says ...

Okay, Mcflyboy was officially born in the 80s. As I've suggested here before, people born in that decade have generally awful taste in music (not everyone, but most). Okay, so if Dylan's a hack, who's not a hack? Huey Lewis? Every worthwhile musician of the last 40 years has copied Dylan in some way so you'd be hard-pressed to find a worthy alternative.

Wells: "...either you have the DNA of a true movie lover...or you don't. Pretension to one viewer is grand ambition to another. The guy who called it a disaster is an out-and-out plebe."

This is sort of a fair point (I'm not seeing the movie until tonight, but I agree that accusations of pretension are generally just another way of saying "I didn't get it"), but aren't you the same guy who has spent most of your time in Toronto watching and re-watching Hollywood star vehicles. If anyone's a plebe...

PS - Margot at the Wedding is an underrated masterpiece. Right up there with Silent Light as the best of TIFF, thus far. Incredibly subtle, nuanced filmmaking. Baumbach's the opposite of Alan Ball in that he actually added (rather than subtracted) layers to his script in execution.

Posted by JD at September 12, 2007 6:26 AM

comment #18

buckzollo says ...

JD Much worse than NOT THERE in an apples to oranges comparison is MARGOT. What a self-indulgent self-important work. I listened to Noah and he is the very definition of pretentious. (read : expressive of affected, unwarranted, or exaggerated importance, worth, or stature) He seemingly had no particular passion for this story, look at me flavor of the month and my follow up to what was arguably similar but much better.

Posted by buckzollo at September 12, 2007 9:26 AM

comment #19

JD says ...

I think some people (ie. buckzollo) are basically incapable of a) grasping irony or b) grasping what's going on beneath the surface of a movie. Margot is not a self-important movie, she's a self-important character (but with many layers of ambivalence and vulnerability). And I don't know how you can call that movie pretentious. It's crafted in a very humble, Dardenne brothers fashion with deliberately artless lighting/compositions and an overall approach that is completely loose and naturalistic. Yes, the script is literary, but that doesn't mean it's pretentious. And when did you hear Baumbach speak? He introduced the movie for about 2-minutes and he was utterly unpretentious, making jokes at his own expense. Bizarre.

Posted by JD at September 12, 2007 9:37 AM

comment #20

buckzollo says ...

"And I don't know how you can call that movie pretentious." JD do you moonlight as a republican spin-meister? As all can clearly see, I called him not the movie. I grasped him as such during a 25 minute Q&A (and his wife) in Telluride. If you like it so much, allow me to recommend The Savages, a very humble, Dardenne brothers fashion with deliberately artless lighting/compositions and an overall approach that is completely loose and naturalistic.

Posted by buckzollo at September 12, 2007 10:04 AM

comment #21

JD says ...

Apologies buckzollo, but you called him pretentious in the context of your critique of his film. If he's pretentious and his movie's not, why even bother mentioning it? What you seem to be saying is, "He thinks he's smarter than me so I dare not respect his work." Even if he is pretentious as a person -- personally, I think people mistake dry wit for pretentiousness, but that's another story -- what does that have to do with anything?

Posted by JD at September 12, 2007 11:28 AM

comment #22

buckzollo says ...

I did not care for the movie. I wanted to...there was much promise: cast, director, Rudin, Vantage. Without the benefit of the Q&A I attended, I would have left the screening simply unsatisfied. fyi I love dry wit. I deem Noah pretentious because he basically admitted that he was not really sure where this story was going and what exactly he was trying to say. My assessment was that he proceeded without a sense of real passion for this, but more with an "oh well this is next, feels like it is in my wheelhouse, and I can get these actors and throw it up there." Apologies if I am judging the movie on what it could have or should have been. Props to him for just getting it done and especially for the elements within that are worthy. Others have said it better than I ever could:
"-a film torpedoed by its own self-indulgence
-Usually, you at least know what the director was going for, whether they succeeded or failed, but not here.
-Press reaction here is in the 'yeah, I liked it, but'
-perhaps a therapist could make sense of better than Noah Baumbach can
-For all the talent on display, many viewers will have had more than enough of these characters well before the relatively brief running time has expired.
-I'm willing to concede that there may be depths to the story that I just don't see, but if they were too deeply submerged for me to make out then I suspect the majority reaction will be similar."

Posted by buckzollo at September 12, 2007 11:56 AM

comment #23

JD says ...

What I really appreciated about the film is Baumbach's keen insight and observant ability to show how his characters' insecurities cause (and are caused by) the insecurities of those who closest to them. For example, Margot gets jealous when she sees how much her son likes Pauline so she pretends that Pauline has been critical of her son... which makes him think less of himself and behave differently toward Pauline. I also like that none of the characters overcome their various ailments or shortcomings. They attempt to change for the better, but are unable to because of the baggage they've acquired from one another. Margot wants to change, but she's not strong enough to change or even admit that she needs to change. Time has made her less capable as a parent and you almost get the sense that she needs her son more than he needs her. For me, this made the ending quietly powerful and ironic. Is she going back to help her son... or is she going back because she needs his help?

Call me (or Baumbach) pretentious but I also thought the tree was a really complex, multi-faceted metaphor. Over the course of the film, it a) puts Margot in danger worthy of the fire department, b) alienates Pauline form her neighbors, c) almost kills Pauline's daughter, and d) ruins a wedding (that Margot didn't approve of in the first place). Much like Ingmar Bergman in his heyday, Baumbach brings literary devices to cinematic life and, for me, this added significant emotional resonance to the film. Honestly, I could go on all day about this movie. In terms of character complexity, I can't think of a comparably dense studio film since Wonder Boys.

Hollywood Elsewhere

Eye-Openers

"I'm Not There"

MickTravis says ...

Mike Ock says ...

115thDreamer says ...

gruver1 says ...

T. Holly says ...

MickTravis says ...

TheJeff says ...

Chris Willman says ...

T. Holly says ...

The Hoyk says ...

Mcflyboy says ...

Hal says ...

Rob says ...

nemo says ...

buckzollo says ...

Devin Faraci says ...

JD says ...

buckzollo says ...

JD says ...

buckzollo says ...

JD says ...

buckzollo says ...

JD says ...

kimi98 says ...

Leave a comment

Essentials