Todd Haynes' "I'm Not There"

[RainDogToo]

Today is the day!!! Too bad it only opens limited and it's playing nowhere near me! Hopefully it will open wider very soon. I'm very excited to see this!

[Guest Rufer]

Perhaps I'm simple but I didn't get it and was completely bored by this movie. Anyone thinking they're going to see a 'Dylan biopic' is in for a big surprise.

[Sir Stewart]

I wouldn't say 'simple' so much as 'didn't hear a thing about the movie before going to see it' - from all accounts, it doesn't look like it's even trying to be a standard biopic.

[Guest Rufer]

I wouldn't say 'simple' so much as 'didn't hear a thing about the movie before going to see it' - from all accounts, it doesn't look like it's even trying to be a standard biopic.

 

Ah yeah, I was referring to the title of this thread as being a Dylan Biopic. I was well-prepared going into the theater. The Washington Post last week even gave a cheat-sheet of sorts. It didn't help--I'm just too darn dim-witted.

[Sir Stewart]

Ah yeah, I was referring to the title of this thread as being a Dylan Biopic. I was well-prepared going into the theater. The Washington Post last week even gave a cheat-sheet of sorts. It didn't help--I'm just too darn dim-witted.

It does say that up there, doesn't it.

[Beltmann]

I thought it was great. It's not really about Bob Dylan, though--it only uses the familiar celebrity of Dylan as a catalyst for introducing other ideas, the real subjects of the movie.

[boywiththorninside]

I really liked this. For me, the film - particularly the Cate Blanchett sequences - recalled both 8-1/2 and Stardust Memories. Yeah, the film is more about themes of art and identity than about Bob Dylan's life, but, still, it doesn't hurt to be a Dylan fan going in. However, that said, I'd probably recommend this to anyone, Dylan fan or not. In a lot of ways, it's just a beautiful film.

[Analogman]

Neil Young had 'missing' Dylan track

 

November 18, 2007

BY DAVE HOEKSTRA dhoekstra@suntimes.com

 

The Bob Dylan song "I'm Not There" is one of the darkest songs from the 1975 "Basement Tape" sessions. The title track of the Todd Haynes film has been a holy grail among Dylan bootleggers, which was previously unavailable on any official release.

 

That is until the Haynes camp got the song back from Neil Young.

 

"We wanted to get it remastered for the film and Jeff (Rosen, Dylan's representative) said, 'Use the bootleg, it's better than anything'," Haynes said over a recent dinner in Chicago. "Randy (Poster, the film's music supervisor, also music supervisor for Wes Anderson's "The Darjeeling Limited") went on a hunt to find out where the real 'Basement Tapes' are. One would think they would be owned by Dylan. It sounds like (the Band's) Garth Hudson owns the 'Basement Tapes' recordings."

 

While Dylan was on hiatus from his 1966 motorcycle accident near his home in Woodstock, N.Y., his manager Albert Grossman wanted other artists to cover Dylan's songs to bring in publishing royalties. Haynes learned that roughly 30 "Basement Tape" songs were re-recorded with the Band and handed over to Elliot Mazer, who had worked with Grossman and who produced Young's earliest records. Manfred Mann's 1968 hit version of Dylan's "Mighty Quinn (Quinn the Eskimo)" also came out of this effort.

 

"A few years later Neil Young asked Elliot to produce 'Harvest'," Haynes said. "As a present, Elliot gave Neil a copy of the 30-song batch. But he got the boxes mixed up. So all this time Neil Young has had the [band's] 30 batch."

 

Dylan bootleggers had been trafficking in Dylan's acoustic, raw version of "I'm Not There." The "I'm Not There" soundtrack features the fully realized Dylan and the Band version. Sonic Youth also contributes a version of the song that runs over the end credits. The double-CD soundtrack also includes Yo La Tengo's playful take on "Fourth Time Around" and the barrelhouse "Cold Irons Bound" covered by Tom Verlaine and the Million Dollar Bashers (Sonic Youth drummer Steve Shelley, Wilco bassist Nels Cline, session guitarist Smokey Hormel and long-time Dylan band bassist Tony Garnier among others).

 

"I picked songs for the film that told the story the best and not necessarily my favorite songs," Haynes said. "I looked for songs that could maybe say something surprising or unknown like 'Going to Acapulco.' "

 

The "Basement Tapes" track is performed in a funeral cadence by a white-faced Jim James ("My Morning Jacket") and Calexico in the film. "That song has such mournful beauty and absurdity that I found really poignant," Haynes said. "Calexico became a house band of our own that did all these different things for the film and brought in other artists."

[giraffo]

I saw this tonight. Now, I'm all for the ambition proposed by the film, but, it was really unremarkable a lot of the time or plain terrible in some of the parts. Richard Gere served no purpose and never had to be included at all...His scenes were the most boring drawn out parts. The kid, "Woody" could have also been consolidated into the first actual Dylan character, he really served no purpose too. It seemed to me like Haynes was trying to get a kick out of the whole thing by having a little black kid play Dylan, as if somehow that embodied who he was at the time. Cate Blanchett's parts were mediocre'ly acted, (give her a break though, playing someone as idiosynchronatic as Dylan in '66 is difficult) and were given the same pretentious bullshit treatment as Dylan's Eat The Document instead of trying to attempt anything of a cohesive narrative. Heath Ledger's scenes were either fantastic or mediocre but good by comparison. And did we really need to see two versions of shaggy Dylan, and see anyone at all portraying Christian Dylan?

Also, I felt at times like i was watching a well made Youtube parody Documentary when they insisted on adding the fake documentary scenes. Having a fake documentary drew me out of those scenes, then seeing people act as if they were somone else in a fake documentary made it seem even faker... Overall, if you're a big Dylan fan and you've seen Don't Look Back, Eat the Document and No Direction Home, this movie is boring. Once again, the mediocre and unbrilliant personality of Bob Dylan is hyped up again and mythologized. Why doesn't anyone who proposes to make a film out of this guy not add to the preposterous "enigma" of some lucky chump who hit it big? It blows my mind how every time Dylan is even written about in a few sentences he's spoken as if he's some mysterious shaman whose state of mind is elusive and constantly on the run. He's really just a pretty boring guy whose been constantly trying to make it seem like he's always known what he's been talking about; everytime an utterance comes from his mouth everyone stares with jaw agape as if it took real insight to say something anyone with common sense and vocal chords could articulate.

I enjoy his music and I think if you submit to the mythologization of him you appreciate him more, but sometimes I get so taken aback by how studied he is. Bob Dylan is not on a different level from any of us, and I'm sure he's probably not even as bright as some of us or our friends. Baby boomers in control+intense nostalgia= hyper focused love and mythologizing of specific individuals. It has nothing to do with Bob Dylan actually being more of an outstanding individual than all of us. But really, give me a break. I hope I'm not the only person who thinks that Bob Dylan is the Eichmann of popular music.

[RainDogToo]

Okay, so I changed the title heading so others won't be confused later. I knew is wasn't a so-called biopic but that's how it was being described. Sorry for the confusion. And thanks for the reviews- I'm still dying to see this film. But it's playing no where around me! Hopefully, this week it will open wider!

[Beltmann]

Richard Gere served no purpose and never had to be included at all...

Huh. And here I thought those were some of the most interesting moments. Damn, I wish I had noticed that they serve no purpose.

[Sir Stewart]

Neil Young had 'missing' Dylan track

 

November 18, 2007

BY DAVE HOEKSTRA dhoekstra@suntimes.com

 

The Bob Dylan song "I'm Not There" is one of the darkest songs from the 1975 "Basement Tape" sessions. The title track of the Todd Haynes film has been a holy grail among Dylan bootleggers, which was previously unavailable on any official release.

 

I can't read an article that opens with such blatant misinformation.

[Analogman]

I can't read an article that opens with such blatant misinformation.

 

That is when the album came out - the dude was going by that I suppose. Or - that was a song to be put on the album and then left off.

[Atticus]

I hope I'm not the only person who thinks that Bob Dylan is the Eichmann of popular music.

 

[lost highway]

I enjoy his music and I think if you submit to the mythologization of him you appreciate him more, but sometimes I get so taken aback by how studied he is. Bob Dylan is not on a different level from any of us, and I'm sure he's probably not even as bright as some of us or our friends. Baby boomers in control+intense nostalgia= hyper focused love and mythologizing of specific individuals. It has nothing to do with Bob Dylan actually being more of an outstanding individual than all of us. But really, give me a break. I hope I'm not the only person who thinks that Bob Dylan is the Eichmann of popular music.

 

I didn't think the movie came out all that great either, but I don't think that has to do with Bob Dylan being great. Any of your friends put out a dozen albums that push the artistic and lyrical envelope while garnering unprecedented popularity for what traditional music fans would consider a 'bad' singing voice?

 

Why is he on you're avatar?

[Guest Rufer]

Huh. And here I thought those were some of the most interesting moments. Damn, I wish I had noticed that they serve no purpose.

While I wouldn't say the Billy the Kid stuff served no purpose--I would say I have no idea what that purpose was in the movie. You said earlier that the movis "only uses the familiar celebrity of Dylan as a catalyst for introducing other ideas, the real subjects of the movie". While I could grasp many of these "ideas" (however developed they were), I have no idea what idea was being introduced by the Billy the Kid (Gere) parts. I'm sure the town's unheval, Garrett, and the suicides must have been some kind of metaphor to me it wasn't at all apparant what they represented. And I agree that these were the most boring parts of the movie. Would you care to explain what you got out of it? I'm not trying to challenge you--I'm really just curious.

 

At least this storyline gave us the Jim James/Calexico rendition of Going to Acapulco.

[giraffo]

I didn't think the movie came out all that great either, but I don't think that has to do with Bob Dylan being great. Any of your friends put out a dozen albums that push the artistic and lyrical envelope while garnering unprecedented popularity for what traditional music fans would consider a 'bad' singing voice?

 

Why is he on you're avatar?

 

yeah, but at the same time, I can't imagine Dylan ever doing that with the intent of revising songwriting states and revolutionizing. From all I've read of him, his interviews (an enitre book composed of them) and seen of him, he's never really shown he ever knew what he was doing. A good deal of his material in the mid sixties just looks like the product of a good writer with an inflated ego, not somone who was changing songwriting. He was in his early 20's when he made those albums, and anyone whose ever followed art knows that the only place where 20 year olds can be geniuses is in popular music. Real geniuses have never really proven their worth until later in their life. I never said he was bad, but I hate how overblown his personality is as a genius. He's definitely a good writer with a poetic mind, but good poets or writers can still be mediocre at heart.

[boywiththorninside]

He was in his early 20's when he made those albums, and anyone whose ever followed art knows that the only place where 20 year olds can be geniuses is in popular music. Real geniuses have never really proven their worth until later in their life.

 

Orson Welles made Citizen Kane when he was 25. Hemingway wrote The Sun Also Rises when he was 25. Fitzgerald wasn't much older when he wrote The Great Gatsby. Picasso's "Blue Period" ended before he was 25. Rembrandt's best known work was created before he was 30. Mozart proved his genius pretty early on. He was something of a child prodigy, but I guess that was the popular music of the time. Also - Dylan related - there's Rimbaud. He gave up writing when he was 20.

 

I think the term "genius" is used way too liberally today. I'm guilty of overusing the word myself, but I would, without hesitation, call Dylan a genius. I wouldn't discount any of his work merely because it was created in his youth. If anything, I think the fact that he was so young only makes his mid-60's work more impressive. He hadn't really lived or experienced things many others had, and yet he had far greater insight. At least I think he did, and I'm not a baby-boomer. My parent are baby-boomers.

[lost highway]

yeah, but at the same time, I can't imagine Dylan ever doing that with the intent of revising songwriting states and revolutionizing. From all I've read of him, his interviews (an enitre book composed of them) and seen of him, he's never really shown he ever knew what he was doing. A good deal of his material in the mid sixties just looks like the product of a good writer with an inflated ego, not somone who was changing songwriting. He was in his early 20's when he made those albums, and anyone whose ever followed art knows that the only place where 20 year olds can be geniuses is in popular music. Real geniuses have never really proven their worth until later in their life. I never said he was bad, but I hate how overblown his personality is as a genius. He's definitely a good writer with a poetic mind, but good poets or writers can still be mediocre at heart.

 

I see, I can't say that I agree but you clarify your point well. Genius (or no) aside, I think the wealth of material on Dylan has in part sprung up from our eras thirst for new mythologies, new figures that are easier for modern folks to identify with. The worship of Dylan may be Christ-like at times, but really we love him for existential reasons. We love that he has done great things of a seemingly contradictory variety while never claiming to be essentially anything.

[giraffo]

Orson Welles made Citizen Kane when he was 25. Hemingway wrote The Sun Also Rises when he was 25. Fitzgerald wasn't much older when he wrote The Great Gatsby. Picasso's "Blue Period" ended before he was 25. Rembrandt's best known work was created before he was 30. Mozart proved his genius pretty early on. He was something of a child prodigy, but I guess that was the popular music of the time. Also - Dylan related - there's Rimbaud. He gave up writing when he was 20.

 

I think the term "genius" is used way too liberally today. I'm guilty of overusing the word myself, but I would, without hesitation, call Dylan a genius. I wouldn't discount any of his work merely because it was created in his youth. If anything, I think the fact that he was so young only makes his mid-60's work more impressive. He hadn't really lived or experienced things many others had, and yet he had far greater insight. At least I think he did, and I'm not a baby-boomer. My parent are baby-boomers.

 

Rembrandt is a product of a different time (when youth is not ascribed the ideas it is now); Orson Welles never made a movie worth virtually anything ever again, Picasso's (he, too, is of a different time) Blue Period is significant but nowhere near as dauntingly revolutionizing as his work in his 40's and 50's, Hemingway needed an incredible editor to give his books anything of a coherent narrative. Mozart was a genius, but far surpassing the extent of any "genius" since then. We're talking somone who with ease could carry numerous numerous melodies in his head before even putting his pen to the paper. Dylan has none of the traits of these people...He has never proved he is a genius, just a good writer. Like I said, I've watched those videos, read his interviews, listened to his music, and he is truly just an average person, if not below average. I think the only reason he's accredited to even being better than guys like Tweedy or Neil Young is simply because he came first, not because he's actually better. Sure, Dylan invented the techniques they used, but after seeing enough of him, I truly can say that I believe his inventions of these techniques was birthed out of his high horse, big head, and (in the mid sixties especially) speed.

Does that negate his contributions? no, but at the same time you can appreciate his music and contributions without deifying him. There was a small comment made by Greg Kot about Jeff Tweedy's birth as a real inventive songwriter when he says something to the effect of "Tweedy realized that the creative act was not property of sole geniuses or mystics." This type of attitude is attributed to Dylan. The same Bob Dylan who made Highway 61 Revisited, Blonde on Blonde...The same Bob Dylan who wrote "Tarantula", directed Renaldo and Clara and Eat the Document.

[boywiththorninside]

The same Bob Dylan who made Highway 61 Revisited, Blonde on Blonde...The same Bob Dylan who wrote "Tarantula", directed Renaldo and Clara and Eat the Document.

 

I don

[Sir Stewart]

Orson Welles never made a movie worth virtually anything ever again

Have you ever seen Touch of Evil or The Magnificent Ambersons (to name just a couple of wonderful Welles films)?

 

EDIT: just read your post, boywiththorn

[Hi my name is Lee]

Orson Welles never made a movie worth virtually anything ever again

 

 

"F is for Fake," no?

[jc4prez]

I saw this tonight. Now, I'm all for the ambition proposed by the film, but, it was really unremarkable a lot of the time or plain terrible in some of the parts. Richard Gere served no purpose and never had to be included at all...His scenes were the most boring drawn out parts. The kid, "Woody" could have also been consolidated into the first actual Dylan character, he really served no purpose too. It seemed to me like Haynes was trying to get a kick out of the whole thing by having a little black kid play Dylan, as if somehow that embodied who he was at the time. Cate Blanchett's parts were mediocre'ly acted, (give her a break though, playing someone as idiosynchronatic as Dylan in '66 is difficult) and were given the same pretentious bullshit treatment as Dylan's Eat The Document instead of trying to attempt anything of a cohesive narrative. Heath Ledger's scenes were either fantastic or mediocre but good by comparison. And did we really need to see two versions of shaggy Dylan, and see anyone at all portraying Christian Dylan?

Also, I felt at times like i was watching a well made Youtube parody Documentary when they insisted on adding the fake documentary scenes. Having a fake documentary drew me out of those scenes, then seeing people act as if they were somone else in a fake documentary made it seem even faker... Overall, if you're a big Dylan fan and you've seen Don't Look Back, Eat the Document and No Direction Home, this movie is boring. Once again, the mediocre and unbrilliant personality of Bob Dylan is hyped up again and mythologized. Why doesn't anyone who proposes to make a film out of this guy not add to the preposterous "enigma" of some lucky chump who hit it big? It blows my mind how every time Dylan is even written about in a few sentences he's spoken as if he's some mysterious shaman whose state of mind is elusive and constantly on the run. He's really just a pretty boring guy whose been constantly trying to make it seem like he's always known what he's been talking about; everytime an utterance comes from his mouth everyone stares with jaw agape as if it took real insight to say something anyone with common sense and vocal chords could articulate.

I enjoy his music and I think if you submit to the mythologization of him you appreciate him more, but sometimes I get so taken aback by how studied he is. Bob Dylan is not on a different level from any of us, and I'm sure he's probably not even as bright as some of us or our friends. Baby boomers in control+intense nostalgia= hyper focused love and mythologizing of specific individuals. It has nothing to do with Bob Dylan actually being more of an outstanding individual than all of us. But really, give me a break. I hope I'm not the only person who thinks that Bob Dylan is the Eichmann of popular music.

 

 

I agree with some of your points. The documentary aspect did really ruin a lot of the movie for me. But everyones different for instance I hated the scenes with Ledger; in my mind he was the worst actor in the film (what was up with the scene were he rips on female artists anyone know where that was coming from?).

 

They could have done a lot better with the dialogue; especially with the press there is so much great dialogue in Don't Look Back and random interivews they could have ripped which would have said a lot more.

 

I also thought if you don't know Dylan your probably not going to understand the narrative; its pretty.

 

 

This film had a lot to live up to; people have known about it for a while. That said I thought it was still pretty good.

[Sir Stewart]

Does Mark Ruffalo play Al Kooper in this? Because he should, in some movie, sometime.