| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| randall |
Posted - 10/06/2007 : 18:43:40
This is the one you've heard about, the Bob Dylan "biopic" where he's portrayed by different actors in an attempt to explicate the self-transformations the artist went through. Despite IMDB, there are only five actors playing the Dylan "character" -- a sixth plays a film actor who starred in a fictional biopic, and Dylan himself appears at the end -- but none of them are called "Bob Dylan." IMDB wrongly lists seven, probably because yet another character, "Charlie," representing Dylan's early Village days in which his stage hijinx invited more than one comparison to Chaplin, was originally scripted but dropped prior to shooting. This info came from director Todd Haynes after this morning's NYFF screening.
The picture is far more fascinating than I had expected. No doubt you've heard that Cate Blanchett plays the '65-'66 DON'T LOOK BACK-era Dylan, here called "Jude Quinn." She's beyond striking: you can't take your eyes off her. Likewise, Christian Bale is the TIMES THEY ARE A-CHANGIN' denim-era protest singer, and damn if he doesn't nail it as well. [None of the principals except for a young black boy playing Dylan as "Woody Guthrie" do their own singing, but they all do their own speaking: Blanchett and Bale come spookily close to the famous rasp.] Richard Gere plays "Billy" [can't reveal any more; you'll understand why when you see it] in a Fellini-esque Western town: Godard and Richard Lester are also nodded to vigorously.
This might be the result of a Dylan biopic project if Dylan himself were in charge. Although the musician has a DVD copy of the movie, Haynes hasn't heard back yet. There are definitely problems and certain self-indulgences, but it's one of the most original things I've seen all year. BONUS: Julianne Moore as a Joan Baez type -- remember, no real names -- is hilarious.
Don't miss it. |
| 6 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 12/18/2007 : 00:38:03
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
Just saw this and, though I've never been a big Todd Haynes fan, he may just have pulled off the first existential movie that has a whisper of a chance to reach more than a mere Cinematheque audience.
I kept thinking of Martin Buber as I watched -- not for the Zionism but the theory of The I And The Thou, for this is a film about the elusive nature of self -- how appropriately it's titled.
Nice notice. Ever since the day I saw this, I've always wanted to hear opinions from other friends.
FYI, I'M NOT THERE is the title of a legendary Dylan song which was previously unavailable except on deep bootleg [and perhaps made more legendary than it deserved, like Coors beer once was when you couldn't legally get it east of the Rockies]. The song's here, and performed in the movie.
Right to point that out, Professor Randall! And while we're on the music, apparently it's only Marcus Carl Franklin who does his own singing.
|
| randall |
Posted - 12/17/2007 : 23:36:37
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
Just saw this and, though I've never been a big Todd Haynes fan, he may just have pulled off the first existential movie that has a whisper of a chance to reach more than a mere Cinematheque audience.
I kept thinking of Martin Buber as I watched -- not for the Zionism but the theory of The I And The Thou, for this is a film about the elusive nature of self -- how appropriately it's titled.
Nice notice. Ever since the day I saw this, I've always wanted to hear opinions from other friends.
FYI, I'M NOT THERE is the title of a legendary Dylan song which was previously unavailable except on deep bootleg [and perhaps made more legendary than it deserved, like Coors beer once was when you couldn't legally get it east of the Rockies]. The song's here, and performed in the movie. |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 12/17/2007 : 23:22:42
Just saw this and, though I've never been a big Todd Haynes fan, he may just have pulled off the first existential movie that has a whisper of a chance to reach more than a mere Cinematheque audience.
I kept thinking of Martin Buber as I watched -- not for the Zionism but the theory of The I And The Thou, for this is a film about the elusive nature of self -- how appropriately it's titled. And, just as strongly, it's an attempt at an expressionistic depiction of a process: what it means to be an artist.
I felt particularly attracted to Haynes's attempt to visualise such a concept not least because when I ran The Wherehouse LaMama we used the same technique in the early 1970s in our stage adaptation of David Benedictus's novel Hump [which features a levitating dwarf]. At various points in the play we passed on the role of Hump among ourselves to emphasise the fact that everyone has such unique powers, and it's for our uniqueness that we're both admired and pilloried.
Lenny Bruce began his autobiography by trying to answer the question of who had influenced him. He went on for pages and pages, finally concluding that he'd been influenced by everyone he'd ever known. Todd Haynes focuses on a contemporary icon who's reinvented himself even more times than Madonna in order to try to grab the current of air that flows from decade to decade.
People get nervous when their icons morph before their very eyes. It wasn't just the music that incensed the crowd at Newport when their acoustic folk hero blasted them with electricity. It wasn't just a religious sensibility that kicked in against his Christian conversion. And it wasn't just waves of sympathy when he crashed his bike. Every moment of change which Dylan offered to his public forced them to re-evaluate themselves.
People don't necessarily like to go through that process, but they dislike even more that someone they thought they admired is forcing them to do something. Anything. People don't like to be forced.
Dylan's the last person who'd define himself as some kind of fascist tyrant. But in a sense all artists need to be, since they're obsessed with their own vision and force you into seeing the world their way.
That's the process Todd Haynes is trying to make visible in the film. That he succeeds as often as he does is testament to his skill at manipulating images, making them constantly surprising.
The whole never quite comes together, and the film is bound to disappoint fans of the singer/songwriter. But it's such a brave effort. And the acting is marvellous - though the very nature of the structure means that you're never presented with any one actor's through-line. The African-American child Marcus Carl Franklin absolutely shimmers with a talent way beyond his years, but all the rest are wonderful as well, and it wouldn't be fair to single out anyone.
Most of the film's "messiness" - for which it's been criticized - is entirely appropriate, but there are slices of the narrative that could go without causing harm.
If you want a remarkable biopic about Dylan, head for Scorsese. If you want an inkling of what it feels to go through the kind of process that Dylan went through to create his oeuvre, of the process any great artist must go through, then you could do worse than watch this.
|
| randall |
Posted - 10/06/2007 : 23:59:19
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
In case anyone wants to ask "What's the film about?" it's about 135 minutes. 
Hey, do I wrongly recall you as a Dylan fan? [If so, appypollyloggies.] If I'm right, I advise: don't knock it until you've tried it. It is like a Dylan song from the "Visions of Johanna" days: what it's about isn't what it means. |
| randall |
Posted - 10/06/2007 : 20:46:08
Here's a great story about the movie. |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 10/06/2007 : 18:56:54
In case anyone wants to ask "What's the film about?" it's about 135 minutes.
|
|
|
