← Back to Reviews
in
I'm Not There (Todd Haynes, 2007) I kept the original review but did change the rating
This certainly qualifies as one of last year's most audacious and entertaining films, but after my initial viewing, I'm actually a little bit disappointed with it. I'm planning on watching it again to see if I should go back up to which is what I was locked into after about the first two-thirds of the film. Also, even though I'm a Dylanaholic, I understand that others aren't, so if you are a Dylanaholic, you should probably already raise it up to . I just want to make it clear that no matter how deluded I am, I DO believe that it is possible to objectively "review" films. My first photo pretty much shows what the film's conceit is: Bob Dylan will be honored, dissected, criticized and discussed, but his name will never be mentioned. AND he (or his spirit) will be embodied by six different actors.
The conceit is actually more seemless than you would expect, especially during the early majority of the film. Whether he's portrayed by a left-handed black adolescent named "Woody Guthrie" (Marcus Carl Franklin) or a spot-on impression by Cate Blanchett of his Don't Look Back era, the multiple personalities/performances tend to enlighten the man and his contradictions. They also provide tons of inside jokes, entertaining music, and name the references, actors, meanings, etc. In fact, although near the end of the film, co-scripter/director Haynes seems to obfuscate his meaning of what Dylan TRULY represents, you can almost forgive him because the bald implication is that Dylan himself hides/transforms himself more than this film ever can.
Although it's occasionally uncertain what inspired a few scenes in the film, it's amazing how close the film actually depicts Dylan's life, at least in spirit. He was obviously never really a film star or a lead character in an American West recreation of his life and inspirations by way of Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid, but if you don't really know that much about the man, you may be surprised by how accurate some of the more seemingly-farfetched scenes are. Plus much of the symbolism works well, at least for those in on what's true and what's symbolic. That's one of the film's flaws. Although I believe most everyone will be entertained enough to WANT to watch the film, how much you actually enjoy it will depend on if you have all his albums, have memorized most all of his lyrics, followed his career and personal mood/creative swings, watched Don't Look Back, Renaldo and Clara and No Direction Home: Bob Dylan. This film is obviously a labor of love by director Haynes, and I really felt it. I am also glad that I find Haynes maturing as a filmmaker. I just hope when I watch it again, I don't find a noticeable downtick when the Richard Gere episodes take center stage. I really have no problems at all with Gere here, but I found his section to be the most muddled and least successful in the picture.
Overall, I find this a welcome addition to the discussion of the mystique of Bob Dylan, and hopefully I'll feel some of the latter portions just a little bit more next time. I admit that I sound like a Grinch because just thinking about the scene with the Beatles or the bits with "CoCo", "Alice Fabian", THE Gorgeous George, the Black Panthers (HA!), and Allen Ginsberg, as well as the Bruce Greenwood scenes and all the wonderful music, and even the ending, where the real Dylan makes his only appearance visually, it makes me feel like I should add that extra half. I will check back for those who might care.
This certainly qualifies as one of last year's most audacious and entertaining films, but after my initial viewing, I'm actually a little bit disappointed with it. I'm planning on watching it again to see if I should go back up to which is what I was locked into after about the first two-thirds of the film. Also, even though I'm a Dylanaholic, I understand that others aren't, so if you are a Dylanaholic, you should probably already raise it up to . I just want to make it clear that no matter how deluded I am, I DO believe that it is possible to objectively "review" films. My first photo pretty much shows what the film's conceit is: Bob Dylan will be honored, dissected, criticized and discussed, but his name will never be mentioned. AND he (or his spirit) will be embodied by six different actors.
The conceit is actually more seemless than you would expect, especially during the early majority of the film. Whether he's portrayed by a left-handed black adolescent named "Woody Guthrie" (Marcus Carl Franklin) or a spot-on impression by Cate Blanchett of his Don't Look Back era, the multiple personalities/performances tend to enlighten the man and his contradictions. They also provide tons of inside jokes, entertaining music, and name the references, actors, meanings, etc. In fact, although near the end of the film, co-scripter/director Haynes seems to obfuscate his meaning of what Dylan TRULY represents, you can almost forgive him because the bald implication is that Dylan himself hides/transforms himself more than this film ever can.
Although it's occasionally uncertain what inspired a few scenes in the film, it's amazing how close the film actually depicts Dylan's life, at least in spirit. He was obviously never really a film star or a lead character in an American West recreation of his life and inspirations by way of Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid, but if you don't really know that much about the man, you may be surprised by how accurate some of the more seemingly-farfetched scenes are. Plus much of the symbolism works well, at least for those in on what's true and what's symbolic. That's one of the film's flaws. Although I believe most everyone will be entertained enough to WANT to watch the film, how much you actually enjoy it will depend on if you have all his albums, have memorized most all of his lyrics, followed his career and personal mood/creative swings, watched Don't Look Back, Renaldo and Clara and No Direction Home: Bob Dylan. This film is obviously a labor of love by director Haynes, and I really felt it. I am also glad that I find Haynes maturing as a filmmaker. I just hope when I watch it again, I don't find a noticeable downtick when the Richard Gere episodes take center stage. I really have no problems at all with Gere here, but I found his section to be the most muddled and least successful in the picture.
Overall, I find this a welcome addition to the discussion of the mystique of Bob Dylan, and hopefully I'll feel some of the latter portions just a little bit more next time. I admit that I sound like a Grinch because just thinking about the scene with the Beatles or the bits with "CoCo", "Alice Fabian", THE Gorgeous George, the Black Panthers (HA!), and Allen Ginsberg, as well as the Bruce Greenwood scenes and all the wonderful music, and even the ending, where the real Dylan makes his only appearance visually, it makes me feel like I should add that extra half. I will check back for those who might care.