Monday, November 26, 2007

Not Quite There: I'm Not There

By Lauren Wissot

Todd Haynes has always struck me as less filmmaker than conceptual artist -- a man with grand ideas whose mind works faster than 24 frames per second, the screen never quite able to contain the weight of his brain. He’s a man working in the wrong medium, like Tarantino striving to be an actor before thankfully realizing his talent lies elsewhere. Haynes’ spirit is simply not conducive to the formal requirements of film. But because Haynes doesn’t suck at moviemaking the way Tarantino sucked at acting, he’s unaware that he can scale to greater heights. If Haynes can demonstrate this level of artistic quality in his experimental-posing-as-accessible films, just imagine what he could do guest-directing a Wooster Group production, exhibiting at the Whitney Biennial. For Todd Haynes has a masterful eye for lush set design and sharp cinematography, for period costumes and jarring camera angles, all readily on display in I’m Not There, his tribute to the “many lives” of a fellow visionary, the legendary Bob Dylan. Unfortunately, what works for music -- or painting or poetry, or any of the abstract arts for that matter -- rarely works for the screen. After all, how does one shoot a concept?

Thus, instead of tackling Bob Dylan as subject head-on, Haynes films the paradox that haunted the American icon throughout his career, namely his needing to change in order to stay the same. Dylan knew that as an artist he had to evolve in order to remain the artist he was -- and he felt frustrated by those fans that wanted to stop him from being what they themselves expected him to be. Pretty heady stuff. And near impossible to tell in a literal manner, which is why Haynes divides his central character between six different actors (four of whom are non-American!), eschewing any sense of linear time and place. On paper it sounds like a brilliant move, but as the film chugs along on its 135-minute way, from the rail-riding vagabond kid named “Woody” to the dandy “Arthur Rimbaud” to Richard Gere in the guise of Billy (as in “The Kid”), you get the feeling Haynes has one too many balls (i.e., Richard Gere) in the air. That the film holds together as long as it does is a testament to Haynes’ formidable talent, but alas, the collision of the director and his subject is a train wreck waiting to happen.

But at least it’s a beautiful wreck, one worth rubbernecking for. As with Velvet Goldmine, Haynes is so in love with his fantastic visuals -- band members machine-gunning from the stage, a dwarf in yellow top hat -- that he loses control of the movie. The director’s ideas cannot last feature-length (though he’d be unrivaled if he stuck to shorts). The one thespian to emerge unscathed is, of course, Cate Blanchett, an actor so talented it’s scary. To Haynes’ credit, he assembles a worthy cast -- Heath Ledger and Christian Bale have never been known to disappoint -- but the movie belongs to Blanchett as Jude, Dylan at his speed-freak height of fame. Her gender bending notwithstanding, Blanchett is just at another level, period. She’d be mesmerizing even if Jude were played female. It’s like gathering the greatest ensemble around Vanessa Redgrave channeling a Mastroianni character.

But when all is said and done, I’m Not There merely adds up to a series of colorful set pieces. Julianne Moore’s former folk singer delivers talking-head commentary about Christian Bale’s coffeehouse Jack. Marcus Carl Franklin’s black Woody serenades two 1950s white couples in a living room straight out of Far From Heaven. Heath Ledger’s shade-wearing Robbie threatens a paparazzi in a park. And then there’s Blanchett’s Jude -- flying high above the crowd in black-and-white long shot, tethered to the earth like a breathing balloon. This is a glimpse of Haynes’ tiny masterpiece buried beneath all that distracting rubble. Another scene in which Jude is accosted by questioning reporters, the camera gliding along in close-up with the gorgeous grotesquerie, feels like a lost outtake from 8 1/2. Which makes one wonder why Haynes didn’t just assign all the roles to his newfound muse, especially since every one of Blanchett’s scenes are shot in this most loving nod to Fellini (who, like Dylan, knew how to place his concepts within an accessible context). What gives Fellini’s films their joyride thrill is that his passion always threatens to overflow the frame, his glass filled to the rim, not a single drop spilled. Haynes' cup continually runneth over.

Dylan was a provocateur because he cared enough to force people to think for themselves. He understood that music is a visceral medium, became enraged when labels and definitions threatened to drain its lifeblood. Haynes, being a non-visceral filmmaker, his work passively cerebral, isn’t quite there. He’s too afraid to lose himself in his passion -- a requisite of all great artistry. Instead he enlists Blanchett, a visceral performer who thrives on tightropes, to do it for him. In fact, she’s the only visceral actor (save for 11-year-old Franklin -- keep an eye out for this kid in the coming years) in the film, the one thus able to elevate the material to the level of Dylan’s poetry. There’s a scene midway through in which Arthur lays out some rules, one of which is to speak so the person standing directly in front of you can understand. Dylan’s genius lay in this ability to take huge concepts and pare them down to a simple song. Haynes, conversely, takes a magnifying glass to even the most magnificent ideas.

__________________________________________

Brooklyn-based writer Lauren Wissot is the publisher of the blog Beyond the Green Door, the author of the memoir Under My Master's Wings, and a contributor to The Reeler.

26 comments:

alsolikelife said...

Looks like after two reviews The House has an official line on this film. (My review from October's NYFF, sympathetic with yours, Lauren, is buried somewhere in the archives)

KcM said...

It's my favorite film of the year, but one I find hard to see with clear eyes, being very much into the whole Dylan thing. (For example, the movie didn't feel nearly as episodic to me, because I already had a very good sense of the "master narrative" that Haynes was working from, enough that instead I was instead relishing all the in-jokes and liner notes scrawled all over the film.)

I do find it surprising that almost every other review of it I've read thought Cate Blanchett was so miles above the rest of the performers. She was very, very good, no doubt. But I thought her Dylan also veered closer to gimmickry/mimicry than did Bale, Ledger, or even Whishaw's, all of whom were doing less in-your-face impressions of the man.

I also liked the Richard Gere section more than most people, because it was Haynes' chance to play with "The Old Weird America" Dylan, which (coming from a US history background) is arguably my favorite side of Dylan, next to his relationship (Ledger) stuff. From "Bob Dylan's 115th Dream" ("'I think I'll call it America,' I said as we hit land") to "As I Went Out One Morning" (Bob's Civil War buff side, and the best three-verse encapsulation of the freedom/slavery question in US history I've ever heard) to countless other songs, Dylan's carnival-of-sorts American landscape is as much a part of his mythos as his folk or Christian periods, and I'm glad Haynes recognized that. (Plus, Gere is the late '80s, pre-comeback Dylan of World Gone Wrong and Good As I Been to You, hiding undercover in the "real" American folk tradition (i.e. murder ballads rather than "finger-pointin' songs."))

But, see, I'm talking about Dylan here again rather than Haynes' movie, proving again I'm having trouble divorcing the two. I can't get my head around how I'm Not There would play to those people who aren't particularly fond of the guy. But for me, Haynes was one fan's enthusiastic mash note to Dylan, and while I can see how it'd seem disjointed and overly artsy to people who haven't drunk the Dylan Kool-Aid, I found it a joyous experience, and one that's brimming over with passion for the man and his music without being smug about it.

Ryan B. said...

Wait, what's wrong with a film bursting at the seams with rich ideas and formal brilliance? I agree it's a mess, but it's one conceived as such. I also agree the Blanchett segment is the best, but I don't know that the film would be any stronger if it was the only segment.

Keith Uhlich said...

The review alsolikelife (aka Kevin B. Lee) speaks of is here.

Steve said...

One of the more interesting things I'm watching for, post-movie, is the defense of "Dylanesque".

It seems like Haynes could've cut the movie 25 different ways and it would only have to make a limited amount of linear sense to be received as a fitting biography.

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

There's no official line here, Kevin -- Keith reviewed the movie for NYFF, Lauren wrote last week asking if we wanted a second review and I said sure, sight unseen. The chips just fell that way. N.P. Thompson, who we linked to the same day Lauren's review ran, loved the movie, and N.P. doesn't turn ecstatic very often.

An unofficial line, though? Maybe.

Lauren Wissot said...

KcM’s reaction is quite telling. I’m not a Dylan fan, but my last review of Temple’s Joe Strummer doc was written wearing those same rose-colored glasses. If you don’t know the members of the Pistols from The Clash, you’re not gonna be able to keep up with Temple’s film. If you’re not already a fervent believer in Dylan as artistic genius, Haynes’ mash note is, like Ryan B. acknowledges, a mess. And if you like your films that way, well, that’s what makes the movie reels go ‘round.

kenjfuj said...

Interesting, and above all, very fair review of this film, Lauren. Thanks for writing it!

This film may essentially be incoherent, but I'm inclined to think coherence is beside the point in a film that can be said to explore an artist's shifting persona---in other words, incoherence personified.

I saw I'm Not There Saturday evening at an art-house theater in Princeton, and while I was frustrated by it for about its first hour, I eventually got onto its wavelength and found much to enjoy and admire---and afterward, much to think about. I'm still thinking about the film and its implications, and I'm loving thinking about it...so much so that it finally inspired me to update my blog for the first time since forever just so I could pool my own (incoherent) thoughts on it here.

As for the whole "do you need to be a Dylanologist in order to get this movie" issue: I'm hardly what one would consider an obsessive Dylanophile. I've listened to much of his '60s and '70s output, granted (and most of that came in the past few weeks before the release of this movie), and while I enjoy his music, I don't exactly bow down to the altar of Dylan or anything. And, as someone who didn't live through those two decades, the only familiarity I have with both his personal life and the circumstances surrounding his popularity is, frankly, via Wikipedia's entry on Dylan. Despite all that, I still found myself actively engaged with this movie---maybe on different (lower?) levels than more knowledgeable Dylan fans, but I think Haynes give us enough to reflect and meditate on a more universal, less Dylan-specific level.

In fact, I'm starting to wonder if looking at this through Dylan-colored glasses is rather counterproductive to understanding what the movie's trying to say and/or do...

Keith Uhlich said...

Correction Matt. It was Kevin who reviewed the film for NYFF. Credit where it's due, which is why I linked to Kevin's piece.

I think he just meant the House official party line tended towards the negative in light of both pieces.

Steve said...

"In fact, I'm starting to wonder if looking at this through Dylan-colored glasses is rather counterproductive to understanding what the movie's trying to say and/or do..."

I posted an epically long entry about the movie this weekend, but my basic response to this idea is: yes and no. The Billy the Kid chunk is essentially worthless to people who haven't scrutinized the Dylan canon (see KCM's post), and has the added disadvantage of being the least breezy, pace-wise, of the six segments.

But I would agree otherwise that the movie is geared towards forcing people to reexamine their attitudes about Dylan. I feel Haynes tried to have it both ways and the movie suffers because of it.

(Sidenote - I saw this with the most devout Dylan fan I've ever met, and ironically, he couldn't enjoy it because he was too busy nitpicking the performances.)

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

I'm still recovering from Thanksgiving, Keith and Kevin -- sorry for being foggy-headed.

Anonymous said...

For something decidedly more character focused and less 'messy' than this latest Haynes, Far from Heaven sucks terribly.

John Lichman said...

Right, right. Haynes, auteur, mainstream art films, non-linear, not Assassination of Jesse James, zomg Nick Cave is better, etc.

All are very important, but let's put all that aside for the bigger question:
What does the Whale dream mean to you?

And better yet, Bruce Greenwood. He alone is worth sitting through Heath Ledger's contract required crotch shot.

alsolikelife said...

The Mr. Jones character is excellently portrayed by Greenwood, but the concept of the character itself is part of what smells about the film and its pedestalizing regard for Zimmerman.

Having said that, the Fellini/Lester regurgitations were amusing.

My nominee for a seventh Dylan: Bobby Brown singing "My Prerogative": "everybody's talking all this stuff about me / why don't they just let me live..."

http://youtube.com/watch?v=f5YWqtOQq8s

Steve said...

"The Mr. Jones character is excellently portrayed by Greenwood, but the concept of the character itself is part of what smells about the film and its pedestalizing regard for Zimmerman. "

Exactly what's wrong with the movie. I was having such a nice time peering into Pat Garrett's face trying to figure out if it was, indeed, Bruce Greenwood - a nice little bit of ambivalence, like casting Bill Murray's son at the end of "Broken Flowers", practically making the movie an interactive experience - when Haynes SMASH CUT to Mr. Jones in the backseat of the car in the Pennebaker scenes. Unnnggh!

kenjfuj said...

Exactly what's wrong with the movie. I was having such a nice time peering into Pat Garrett's face trying to figure out if it was, indeed, Bruce Greenwood - a nice little bit of ambivalence, like casting Bill Murray's son at the end of "Broken Flowers", practically making the movie an interactive experience - when Haynes SMASH CUT to Mr. Jones in the backseat of the car in the Pennebaker scenes.

Forgive me, but I'm not exactly sure how that smash cut furthers Kevin's point about the film's "pedestalizing regard for Zimmerman"...

Steve said...

Forgive me, but I'm not exactly sure how that smash cut furthers Kevin's point about the film's "pedestalizing regard for Zimmerman"...

Because if Greenwood is truly playing Mr. Jones as Dylan's nemesis, then to equate Mr. Jones to Pat Garrett - aiming to destroy Billy the Kid and, later, Billy the Kid's community - is to victimize Dylan in a disproportionate way. Without the smash cut, Haynes might be inviting this discussion, but in using it, he's establishing a self-repeating cycle of Dylans and their antagonists.

It suggests a kind of saintly purity to Dylan that's always being messed with by outsiders, when the real Dylan's track record is much spicier and more interesting. It's like Lee said in his review: he needed the press just as badly as they needed him.

That was just my reading, though.

KcM said...

"All are very important, but let's put all that aside for the bigger question: What does the Whale dream mean to you?"

Well, the last I heard of Arab, he was stuck on a whale, that was married to the deputy sheriff of the jail...

In the biblical story, Jonah is a reluctant prophet thrown overboard and swallowed by the large mammal in question. After several days in the belly of the beast, he repents and becomes one of God's most effective prophets. So, perhaps you could read Woody and the fish as a metaphor for Dylan's experience and later religious awakening?

I didn't take it as such during the movie, though. Other than just a brief moment of whimsy, I saw it as symbolic of Woody/Dylan getting swallowed by his own fish stories. After telling so many whoppers or whales to the press (and to kindly white folk) about his traveling'-the-rails, union-card past, Dylan sorta created for himself the folkie-prison public expectation made for him in his Times They Are A-Changin' period.

As for Bruce Greenwood x2, I didn't like the cut back to Mr. Jones either, just because it was patently obvious it was Greenwood in both scenes, and spelling it out oversells the moment. And there's a tension there, since in the first scene Mr. Jones is a defender of the cultural Old Guard, while Pat Garrett comes across as an agent of modernity (he's backing the new highway).

But in both scenes, Greenwood is trying to bring an outlaw to justice, or at least to have an outlaw conform to what society at large expects of him. Put another way, Greenwood is a fixed point, and he's trying to pin down Dylan in the same fashion. I had no problem with using Greenwood in both scenes -- it helps further tie the disparate storylines together.

Is I'm Not There overly hagiographic? As I said above, I'm the wrong person to ask, being a Kool Aid-drinking member of the Dylanologists. (I know this is true, because I thought the phrase "pedestalizing regard for Zimmermann" sounded like a sneer and made me feel, probably unreasonably, defensive.) But, while there are plenty of well-reviewed musical biopics I missed this year -- Control, La Vie en Rose, the aforementioned Strummer doc -- I'd say putting the subject on a pedestal isn't an uncommon failing of the genre.

I also don't think it's quite fair to say Dylan needed the press as much as they needed him, unless you think his finally attempting to hide out in Woodstock and live a normal life was a disingenuous press tactic. Sure, he wanted to be Famous and he wanted his music to be Important, but from pretty early on Dylan is wearing down from all the myth-making about and scrutinizing of him.

Joan Baez wanted to be the voice of her generation...Dylan, it seems, did not, and balked when the label was thrust upon him. (The film doesn't have time to go into all the myriad other ways Dylan tried to shake off people's expectations, from cutting a country-and-western album (Nashville Skyline) to putting out a thoroughly (and, Dylan later said, intentionally) terrible album of covers, Self-Portrait (prompting Greil Marcus' famous RS review: "What is this shit?")

My point being that I think the press-Dylan relationship was less symbiotic than it was predatory, so having Greenwood stalk him in various vignettes seems less hagiographic than it did an accurate reflection of what happened. (Then again, I'd probably say the same thing about most artists or entertainers. Whatever Britney Spears' sins or lack of talent, nobody deserves the feeding frenzy that passes for celebrity journalism these days.)

Steve said...

My point being that I think the press-Dylan relationship was less symbiotic than it was predatory, so having Greenwood stalk him in various vignettes seems less hagiographic than it did an accurate reflection of what happened. (Then again, I'd probably say the same thing about most artists or entertainers. Whatever Britney Spears' sins or lack of talent, nobody deserves the feeding frenzy that passes for celebrity journalism these days.)

I appreciate your response, and it elucidates a few things - but the basic premise of Dylan-as-outlaw just seems wrong to me. Operating on the presumption that Any press-celebrity relationship is predatory, it's rare to think of someone who used the attention to further their own agenda like pre-crash Dylan did.

And furthermore, I didn't really read the Billy scenes as Dylan hiding out from the press or the "voice of a generation" stuff so much as from society at large - Greenwood being the chief bad guy enforcer in both sections. This, again, struck me as untrue and soft-headed, given Dylan's Never Ending Tour, radio show, TV commercials, memoirs and discography. Obviously he's not Sean Combs, but the guy is still a shrewd self-promoter, and I think Haynes ultimately refused to accept that, opting instead for a put-upon artiste - as if the two were mutually incompatible.

Finally: hagiography isn't an uncommon failing of the genre, which is why it's all the more unfortunate to see Todd Haynes fall into it.

Anonymous said...

You start your review with:

Todd Haynes has always struck me as less filmmaker than conceptual artist -- a man with grand ideas whose mind works faster than 24 frames per second, the screen never quite able to contain the weight of his brain.

And that's where you lost me. You might want to consider broadening your definition of "filmmaker." Like it or not, were not the pleasures of I'm Not There primarily filmic? For me, at least, intellectual pleasures of playing spot-the-reference trail as a distant second.

- SR

Chris Goldstein said...

Lauren:

Here are some recommendations for you since I'm Not There didn't seem to be your cup of tea:

1. The Buddy Holly Story
2. Great Balls of Fire
3. The Doors
4. Elvis (John Carpenter/Kurt Russell 1978 T.V. movie)
5. Sweet Dreams

All of these movies are very straightforward. You shouldn't have a problem following them, and they certainly don't suffer from any overreaching conceptual snafus.

Your idea that Todd Haynes is better suited to some other type of art form (or better yet, just stick to short films, Todd) is as ridiculous and facile (keep an eye on the 11 year old people, he's going to be a star!; is that supposed to be your impersonation of Joel Siegel or Gene Shallit?) as your review. Maybe what you should do is stick to writing capsule reviews of big-budget blockbusters for your local community newspaper. I don't know if you're ready for such a large word count yet.

Sorry I'm not telling you what a great job you did on your analysis of the film. Because I don't think you did. I think the movie intimidated you or maybe you just don't like Dylan. But to suggest that Todd Haynes is not "really" a filmmaker is not only asinine, but calls into question, for me at least, your purpose in reviewing the film.

alsolikelife said...

CG:

1) Have you seen the movie yet? If so I look forward to reading what you have to say, even if your opinion seems as predetermined as Jonathan Rosenbaum's for No Country for Old Men.

2) Have you been notified that "asinine" is a top entry in the Most Overused section of the ROFL (Reactionary Online Feedback Lexicon)?

Anonymous said...

Alsolikelife:

Have you been notified that

1)Using geeky pseudonyms is for cowards

and

2) Honing in on the usage of one word to discredit someone's opinion is the number one weapon in the critical arsenal of a twleve year old boy?

Matt Zoller Seitz said...

All right, all of you, cut it out.

Chris, please refute Lauren's assertions with evidence, or at least counter with something besides generic insults of the sort that I would have round-filed if they came to me at a newspaper. You've become one of my favorite regulars here. Don't make me regret that affection by offering insults instead of argument.

I'll publish profanity, incredulous sarcasm, seething hostility and pointed debate as long as it connects directly with the author's text, and as long as there's a point being made beyond "you suck, you're stupid, go watch movies for stupid people." That's the kind of nonsense that readers come here to escape.

The responses to Chris' initial comment are no better.

If the thread doesn't move beyond this, I'm closing it.

Anonymous said...

Lauren -

I'm with you: parts of the film worked well, but the overall concept was a lot more interesting than the execution. And I do think Haynes should be commended for having HUGE balls for making this.

-j

Anonymous said...

While all good works of art benefit from a second viewing, I think IMN is one that is especially hard to review off of a single screening. Given its fractured narrative and free-floating symbolism, most of my first viewing of it was spent trying to keep a mental inventory.

Once an overall map is in place, it's a lot easier to lean back and appreciate the film on its own terms.