I'm Not There Revisited

Whereupon Todd Hayne's masturbates on the screen and shoots his load far over the heads of even Dylan fanatics
by M.A. Fedeli




How does it feel?

Todd Haynes' I'm Not There has me feeling conflicted all over. I'll say right up front that I found almost no enjoyment in watching it and was physically uncomfortable for most of the film. It rubbed me the wrong way right from the start and it was all downhill from there. In hindsight, this is not all Haynes' (or the film's) fault. I am a Dylan fanatic. I own almost every album and box set and have seen almost every visual documentation of the man. While watching the film, I was yearning for the sweet relief and revelation of archival concert and interview footage (see: Don't Look Back, No Direction Home).

I now ask:
A) In this obsessed atmosphere, did Haynes' film even have a chance?
B) Was this Dylan film not made for die-hard Dylan fans?
C) Did Haynes miss the point or did I?

My answers are:
A) The film definitely had a chance.
B) I really don't think so.
C) I got the point, digested it, didn't like it.

Allow me to expand:

I read numerous reviews of this film both before and after seeing it. Most were very positive and written by middle-aged scribes who knew as much about Dylan as I did. Given this, I was as upbeat and excited for the film as I could have possibly been and had fairly high expectations. I wrongly assumed that despite the 6 different actors and their different un-Dylan names I would find it Dylan-centric enough to forgive whatever experimental side-streets Haynes would try to take us down.

Biopics about famous musicians are a notoriously difficult endeavor. It is challenging not only to present the story in a fresh and interesting manner but also to satisfy the die-hard fans of the subject. Additionally, there is the even larger issue of the writer/director's talent and ideas going head to head against the artist subject's genius and legend, it's a wholly risky challenge. The writer/director will never win, and if he does, it will be in a separate battle altogether, where it admittedly belongs. If you choose the large-scale, melodramatic Ray/Walk the Line structure, you skirt around the problem as most conversation ends up being about the acting performances and the integration of the music rather than about the film itself. In other words, the story and film may be trite and overproduced but at least you got out of the way of the musical and personal gifts that make your subject so appealing. Not a small victory if it is done even somewhat convincingly.

If you try what Todd Haynes has done in I'm Not There, you take the opposite approach. Haynes has gone for multiple, non-linear and narrow storylines from highlighted points in Dylan's life. Unfortunately, his cerebral and intellectual vision of the artist Dylan as multiple legendary personalities eschews Dylan's musical gifts and artistry almost altogether. In turn, the film at times can seem like a flickering tabloid that gets its camera, gets on its scooter, and chases its subject through the streets. But are we not all gathered here today because of the music of Bob Dylan? The personalities of Bob are interesting only because of the musician who stands in front of them. We care about their evolutions because of how they affected his music and how his music affected us, for better or worse. Haynes' chooses not to focus too much on the music, though, and when it is made a focal point (Bale/Blanchett, for example) the film veers into parody, making the songs seem secondary to the cult of personality. The excellent 'Dylan as black soul child' segment, with it's direct references to Dylan's own imaginary and actual pre-fame past, comes closest to exploring Dylan's relationship to his music, and on that level is the most rewarding.

There is a section in I'm Not There where visuals are put to Dylan's song lyrics in an attempt to connect the celebrity and his art. This method can only ever be full of silly assumptions that in the end rob the words of the true power they harvest in their original, intended medium. I mean, do we need a Prufrock movie? This is the artist director doing battle against the artist subject. Is Haynes' visual interpretation of "Ballad of a Thin Man" any more valid than his satirical and amusing Black Panthers', who in the film decode the song's meaning as related to them? No, so why should we take Haynes' version any more seriously? That juxtaposition alone sits the entire film in a steamy vat of satire, which was something that this Dylan fan found abhorrent.

Dylan die-hards will be the few who understand all the references in the film, but they will also be the ones who will not feel much Dylan in them. This is the unfortunate side-effect of combining the different actors/names/tones with many relatively obscure facts and rumors. The film admirably bypasses traditional forms and makes an honest attempt to exist as it believes Dylan existed, making you feel it. That is noble, and I normally love that type of approach. But is it successful in capturing this? Well, if the "I" in I'm Not There is Bob Dylan, then yes, he is nowhere to be found. Was that one of Haynes' points? Probably, but there are the die-hards like myself who do not find the man to be as unaccessible as he is conveniently made out to be by legend and lore. How can someone who has consistently churned out barrels of quality music for almost a half a century be considered unaccessible? The only way he is unaccessible is if you are trying to become his best friend or his analyst.



I'm Not There focuses more on Dylan's personal life, his romantic relationships, without really attempting to connecting them to his subsequent art. The film is beautiful and certainly built on an interesting concept, and Haynes should be saluted for giving Dylan a go, regardless. Perhaps though, like Lennon, JFK, and Sinatra, Dylan is too well-known, too peerless, too above and beyond interpretation to be satisfactorily explained on film in a way that can rise to the levels of his own artistic output. A conundrum for sure, and maybe why it is not too often done. For this reason, Haynes' should get all the credit in the world for taking a stab.

But I will digress for a moment. In his evolution Dylan did seemingly change persona's in order to stay fresh and relevant. This is a common instinct of great artists. However, would a film of 7 different actors with 7 corny names painting 7 different canvases that seem like 7 different Picasso period's be any better of an idea? Maybe you think so, I don't. I see it as novel; the easier way out for the writer, director, and actors of an extremely difficult cinematic subject. I would have rather seen some cohesive view of the man; one actor trying to capture and convey the many changes and contradictions that arise. That's hard to do, as evidenced by the traditional linear structured biopics that take a run at it and almost always fail.

Throughout, I'm Not There says more about the genius of the director than the genius of the subject. So the challenge remains: how to present a multi-faceted and ridiculously well-known celebrity/artist honestly and without cliche, exploring their life and art and effect, all while maintaining entertainment value and satisfying the fanatics who will surely be ready to nit-pick?

Robert Sullivan, in his New York Times Magazine review (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/magazine/07Haynes.html?_r=1&ref=magazine&oref=slogin), quotes Cate Blanchett as follows:

“I don’t know that it does make sense,” Cate Blanchett says of the film, “and I don’t know whether Dylan’s music makes sense. It hits you in kind of some other place. It might make sense when you’re half-awake, half-asleep, in the everyday lives in which we live. I don’t think the film even strives to make sense, in a way.”

I disagree completely. Or, I feel like I disagree completely because I felt like the film does make sense, just doesn't scratch the surface of Dylan. The film feels like something, but I don't know what it is. It's not complicated or obtuse, it's just not very effective. It tries to tackle the imposing subject of Bob Dylan, but it only gets a few fingers on him, falling flat in the process. If it's about Dylan at all it's about the atmosphere that surrounded him. The Cate Blanchett section goes full steam ahead in exploring this aspect, and she is wonderful in her portrayal, though nowhere near as good as the real thing, which is the film's ultimate failing.

For the genuine feeling, it's better to stick with No Direction Home, or D.A. Pennebaker's Don't Look Back and 65 Revisited, which in five minutes show more of the madness, the wit, and the skill of Dylan in the face of a swirling media circus than I'm Not There does as a whole. After all, Dylan, regardless of his wandering imagery or cryptic metaphors, was a genius at making you deeply feel and understand the overall point. His ability to effect his audience is seemingly effortless, even as they stumble over some of the language and ideas. In attempting to mirror and explore this admirable facet of Dylan, Haynes get mired in his own intellect and analyzation, proving he can not do the same.





For similar views, I highly recommend Alan Bacchus' review for Daily Film Dose:
http://dailyfilmdose.blogspot.com/2007/12/im-not-there.html

and

Lauren Wissot's review for The House Next Door blog:
http://mattzollerseitz.blogspot.com/2007/11/not-quite-there-im-not-there.html