Why not Sherman Helmsley, Dakota Fanning, Shields and Yarnell. Shaun Cassidy, Parker Stevenson, Rula Lenska, JoAnn Pflug, John Schuck, Bonnie Tyler, Rodney Allen Rippy, Mason Reese, Jackee, Yahoo Serious, Demond Wilson, Conan O'Brien, Lola Falana, Anson Williams, Meeno Peluce, Rex Smith, Quinn Cummings, Philip Baker Hall, Terry Bradshaw, Kristy MacNicol, Fred Thompson, Shaquille O'Neal, Dick Butkus...surely all of these talents are qualified to play Bob Dylan!
Posted by George Prager at September 20, 2007 4:36 PM
Yikes. This makes "Across the Universe" seem like "Citizen Kane" or something. And I'm sorry, but that title just HANDS the ammo to critics ready to pounce on this thing!
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.
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."
I think they ought to run a promotion so that anyone who dresses up like Dylan and mumbles gets in to see the film for free, although I would feel sorry for the employees that sell the tickets.
Posted by anti-sardine at September 20, 2007 4:56 PM
What, Prager? No Larry Storch? How soon we forget. Somewhere, Corporal Agarn sheds a tear.
Plus, I hear Ruta Lee, Donny Most, Soleil Moon Frye, Parker Stevenson, Bonnie Franklin, Lindsay Wagner, Bobby Sherman, Fred Williamson, Sid Haig, Dick Gautier, Linda Evans, Bea Benederet, Brett Somers, Polly Holliday and Bill Daily are also available. Bert Convy is not returning my calls, but perhaps that's because he's dead.
Went to the doctor and he told me that my movie loving DNA count was just fine, expecially after seeing and enjoying the hell out of Superbad, Breach, Sicko, and that brilliant little film starring Alfred Molina and Richard Gere whose name I can't recall this year.
This film seems way too gimmicky for me. May catch it on cable some day.
It's an excellent movie, and the new one sheet clearly is meant to echo a famous 1967 poster from Milton Glaser. The fact that none of you seemed to realize it and a few of you probably wouldn't care even if you had, suggests that the film (as I feared) might not fare well in the marketplace. Too bad.
It sounds gimmicky, it's true, but I think the gambit of using multiple actors to portray Dylan merely underscores something that movies such as "Walk the Line" and "Ray" try to obscure -- that its subject ultimately is unknowable. This fact is central to the movie's conception.
"I'm Not There" is more honest than most biopics. Its form reflects its content.
"And I'm sorry, but that title just HANDS the ammo to critics ready to pounce on this thing!"
Any critic who would snipe at the title of a movie is not a critic worth listening to, since that can be done without seeing the movie and has nothing to do with actual film criticism.
And anybody who would criticize naming a film after an obscure but brilliant Dylan song (finally guaranteeing said song a release 40 years after the fact) is probably not the target for this film.
"Any critic who would snipe at the title of a movie is not a critic worth listening to, since that can be done without seeing the movie and has nothing to do with actual film criticism."
Um, like Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, perhaps?
comment #1
BurmaShave
says ...
DIARY OF A MAD FOLK SINGER
Posted by BurmaShave
at September 20, 2007 4:12 PM
comment #2
George Prager
says ...
This looks like the worst movie ever! AAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by George Prager
at September 20, 2007 4:15 PM
comment #3
Craig Kennedy
says ...
George Prager is not there
Posted by Craig Kennedy
at September 20, 2007 4:19 PM
comment #4
BurmaShave
says ...
Also, since smoking is now an R-rated act, will the MPAA still let posters with cigarettes be displayed in theaters?
Posted by BurmaShave
at September 20, 2007 4:19 PM
comment #5
Mike Ock
says ...
I'm So NOT There to see this pretentious piece of shit.
Posted by Mike Ock
at September 20, 2007 4:22 PM
comment #6
Mike Ock
says ...
I'm SOO NOT There to see this pretentious piece of shit.
Posted by Mike Ock
at September 20, 2007 4:23 PM
comment #7
Monument
says ...
Do you guys give yourselves high fives when you come up with these snappy rejoinders?
Posted by Monument
at September 20, 2007 4:24 PM
comment #8
Mike Ock
says ...
I'm SOO NOT There to see this pretentious piece of shit.
Posted by Mike Ock
at September 20, 2007 4:24 PM
comment #9
George Prager
says ...
This film sucks dead moose cock.
Posted by George Prager
at September 20, 2007 4:30 PM
comment #10
George Prager
says ...
Why not Sherman Helmsley, Dakota Fanning, Shields and Yarnell. Shaun Cassidy, Parker Stevenson, Rula Lenska, JoAnn Pflug, John Schuck, Bonnie Tyler, Rodney Allen Rippy, Mason Reese, Jackee, Yahoo Serious, Demond Wilson, Conan O'Brien, Lola Falana, Anson Williams, Meeno Peluce, Rex Smith, Quinn Cummings, Philip Baker Hall, Terry Bradshaw, Kristy MacNicol, Fred Thompson, Shaquille O'Neal, Dick Butkus...surely all of these talents are qualified to play Bob Dylan!
Posted by George Prager
at September 20, 2007 4:36 PM
comment #11
Craig Kennedy
says ...
I just pulled a muscle trying to high five myself. It wasn't pretty. Kind of funny if you were in the room at the time, but still not pretty.
Posted by Craig Kennedy
at September 20, 2007 4:36 PM
comment #12
Stephe96
says ...
Yikes. This makes "Across the Universe" seem like "Citizen Kane" or something. And I'm sorry, but that title just HANDS the ammo to critics ready to pounce on this thing!
Posted by Stephe96
at September 20, 2007 4:39 PM
comment #13
Arran
says ...
This film looks like it'll be Bland On Bland. AM I RIGHT?!?!?!
High five?
Posted by Arran
at September 20, 2007 4:50 PM
comment #14
BurmaShave
says ...
I'm going to assume that Mike Ock is having TypeKey problems and is not in fact Howard Hughes.
Posted by BurmaShave
at September 20, 2007 4:52 PM
comment #15
gruver1
says ...
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.
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."
Posted by gruver1
at September 20, 2007 4:56 PM
comment #16
anti-sardine
says ...
I think they ought to run a promotion so that anyone who dresses up like Dylan and mumbles gets in to see the film for free, although I would feel sorry for the employees that sell the tickets.
Posted by anti-sardine
at September 20, 2007 4:56 PM
comment #17
Rich S.
says ...
What, Prager? No Larry Storch? How soon we forget. Somewhere, Corporal Agarn sheds a tear.
Plus, I hear Ruta Lee, Donny Most, Soleil Moon Frye, Parker Stevenson, Bonnie Franklin, Lindsay Wagner, Bobby Sherman, Fred Williamson, Sid Haig, Dick Gautier, Linda Evans, Bea Benederet, Brett Somers, Polly Holliday and Bill Daily are also available. Bert Convy is not returning my calls, but perhaps that's because he's dead.
Posted by Rich S.
at September 20, 2007 5:52 PM
comment #18
christian
says ...
i would go see this but it looks like there might somebody smoking cigarettes in it...gross!
Posted by christian
at September 20, 2007 5:54 PM
comment #19
Mike Ock
says ...
Went to the doctor and he told me that my movie loving DNA count was just fine, expecially after seeing and enjoying the hell out of Superbad, Breach, Sicko, and that brilliant little film starring Alfred Molina and Richard Gere whose name I can't recall this year.
This film seems way too gimmicky for me. May catch it on cable some day.
Posted by Mike Ock
at September 20, 2007 5:55 PM
comment #20
Larry
says ...
In case you're not joking, Mike Ock, I assume you're referring to The Hoax.
Posted by Larry
at September 20, 2007 7:04 PM
comment #21
Mike Ock
says ...
Right. The Hoax. Loved it!!
Posted by Mike Ock
at September 20, 2007 7:34 PM
comment #22
buckzollo
says ...
This film is a steaming turd.
Posted by buckzollo
at September 20, 2007 7:36 PM
comment #23
Higgy Hackford
says ...
It's an excellent movie, and the new one sheet clearly is meant to echo a famous 1967 poster from Milton Glaser. The fact that none of you seemed to realize it and a few of you probably wouldn't care even if you had, suggests that the film (as I feared) might not fare well in the marketplace. Too bad.
It sounds gimmicky, it's true, but I think the gambit of using multiple actors to portray Dylan merely underscores something that movies such as "Walk the Line" and "Ray" try to obscure -- that its subject ultimately is unknowable. This fact is central to the movie's conception.
"I'm Not There" is more honest than most biopics. Its form reflects its content.
Posted by Higgy Hackford
at September 21, 2007 12:42 AM
comment #24
Sean
says ...
"And I'm sorry, but that title just HANDS the ammo to critics ready to pounce on this thing!"
Any critic who would snipe at the title of a movie is not a critic worth listening to, since that can be done without seeing the movie and has nothing to do with actual film criticism.
And anybody who would criticize naming a film after an obscure but brilliant Dylan song (finally guaranteeing said song a release 40 years after the fact) is probably not the target for this film.
Posted by Sean
at September 21, 2007 8:27 AM
comment #25
Rich S.
says ...
"Any critic who would snipe at the title of a movie is not a critic worth listening to, since that can be done without seeing the movie and has nothing to do with actual film criticism."
Um, like Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, perhaps?
Posted by Rich S.
at September 21, 2007 1:24 PM
comment #26
carla kolchak
says ...
Ooh. Touche. :-)
Posted by carla kolchak
at September 21, 2007 2:15 PM
comment #27
louboutins57
says ...
Are you Searching forChristian Loubotuin Leather Butterfly Bootie? Christian boots,Christian Louboutin Banana Cork-Heel christian louboutin Louboutin Sale slingback peep toe, Louboutin boots and Christian Louboutin other sale?Christian Louboutin Fifi 85 patent? There is a good fresh.Christian Louboutin Lady Glitter Slingback GoldCatch here louboutin sale,Christian Louboutin Mater Claude Nude Christian Louboutin boots, Christian louboutin pumps and Christian Louboutin.Nearly all the people know something about Christian Christian Louboutin No Prive Slingback Metallic Fabric Louboutin in Christian Louboutin Bianca Cork Pump BLACK the style world.Christian Louboutin Lady Glitter Slingback Gold Both shaped the distinctive features of louboutin boots and Christian Louboutin boots are well known Signature red sole and high heel. A great number of stars looking for Christian Louboutin Lady Glitter Slingback Nudethe fever of Christian Louboutin and other top designers sale sale Christian Louboutin pumps
such as jimmy Christian Louboutin New Decoltissimo 85 patent pumps choo and manolo blahnik, In United States,Christian Louboutin Rolando Hidden-Platform Pump United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, France, Germany, Zimbabwe, ZambiaChristian Louboutin Very Prive Satin Platform , South Africa,tory burch wedges and christian louboutin sandals sale Christian Louboutin UK Yemen. You can Christian Louboutin Simple Pump Nude definitely figure it Christian Louboutin Very Prive Patent Pump ? out and say thatChristian Louboutin Very Prive black suede is the Christian Louboutin shoes Tory Burch Coralee leather ballerina flats when you meet a Signature Christian Loubotuin Leather Butterfly Bootie red sole . From the time when it Christian Louboutin Bana 140 patent Pump appeared, signature red sole has become Christian Louboutin Banana Cork-Heel? the brand . However, you can in no Christian Louboutin Lady Glitter Slingback Gold way put behind you the elegance that the Christian Louboutin take to you.
The fashion industry is based on the louboutins57 indisputable fact that girls in fact even men love to groom Christian Louboutin Mater Claude Nude themselves and look good. The way someone platform wedges looks originally can be modified Christian Louboutin No Prive Slingback Metallic Fabric and moulded and improved by carrying the right garments and accessories the best way. The shoes industry came up and saw expansion because ladies generally have Christian Louboutin Rolando Hidden-Platform Pump foot fetish. Not just that designers accepted Christian Louboutin Simple Pump Nude how much girls wish to look taller and how much their legs are accentuated by high heels. You need not be a millionaire heiress to be in that league as a fashion expert. A Christian Christian Louboutin Simple Pump Nude Louboutin reproduction as an example is generally available at costs which are extraordinarily much in your reach.?Christian Louboutin Very Prive Patent Pump? A Christian Louboutin fake would possibly not be as bad as an option as these designers or others put as.
Posted by louboutins57
at April 25, 2011 6:47 AM