Ray reviews I'M NOT THERE

By Ray DeRousse / July 1, 2011

Available at Amazon priced at £12.98 Director TODD HAYNES is a weirdo, and he makes weird movies that always sit off-kilter from societal norms. Films like SUPERSTAR: THE KAREN CARPENTER STORY enacted with Barbie dolls launched him into the public consciousness, while VELVET GOLDMINE set him up as a critical darling. Many of Haynes' films uncomfortably blend innovative techniques with pretentious, look-at-me posturing that alienates large sections of the viewing public ... me included. I enjoy films that can make me think while also making me feel something; the films Haynes makes usually come off as cold, pseudo-intellectual research papers rather than full-fledged films. Such is the case with his latest experiment, the Bob Dylan-inspired I'M NOT THERE. THE FILM First of all, this is not in any way a documentary or strict biography of the famed musician. Instead, Haynes crafts a "story" out of the music of Bob Dylan. To do this, Haynes uses seven wildly different actors to personify what Haynes sees as Dylan's various personas over the decades. Much of your appreciation of the film depends largely on your appreciation for the music of Dylan. Personally, I have never much cared for Dylan's music. He sings like someone is shredding his testicles in a cheese grater. His lyrics come off like an intelligent eighth-grader's free-association poetry. His accompanying music is usually fairly typical chord progression and blandishly meandering strumming. Similarly, the film meanders between time periods and personas. We see a young Dylan as a young black boy who hitchhikes across the country expounding on the blues. Then we see his folky side as he joins the beat musicians of the sixties. Then we see him as an actor portraying the singer. Then we see him as a full-fledged star, and the trappings of his fame. And finally, we see him as a broken recluse in a little town called Riddle. Get it? While nobody is explicitly called "Bob Dylan" here, his presence is felt through music and body language. Haynes allows his script and direction to follow his muse through various incarnations, hypothesizing mightily on who makes up the real Bob Dylan through faint glimpses of character. The actors assigned the task of personifying these aspects of Dylan's character are uniformly inspired. CHRISTIAN BALE tackles the young, fiery protesting folkie with considerable restraint and thoughtfulness. HEATH LEDGER brings shades of ego and and charisma to the Hollywood side of Dylan. And RICHARD GERE, barely recognizable, shines as a mystical recluse in a lonely town. The truly astounding performance, though, is CATE BLANCHETT. She is completely transformed here, convincingly playing a male character at the height of his creative and charismatic powers. Not only does she believably convey Dylan at his most iconic; she also perfectly captures the self-important hipster nonsense of the late sixties. She rightfully deserved her Oscar nomination. Haynes deftly uses a variety of film stocks and clever edits to craft his period-hopping film. Some points in Dylan's life are rendered in deep, rich color, while others are seared onto the screen in high-contrast black and white. The cinematography by EDWARD LACHMAN is superb, bringing vibrant life to Haynes' interesting shot composition. Despite the radical storytelling device used here, this might be Haynes' most accessible film to date. While there is much to recommend here, the film remains a cold and fairly clinical fictional recreation of Dylan's supposed personas. This is definitely an art-house film, filled to the brim with the trappings and techniques that so enrapture the indie audience. This is the type of film that those types love to discuss over coffee or white wine, bantering politely about layers of meaning and subtextual imagery. For me, I think it's an interesting experiment that left me feeling slightly empty. Perhaps it's because I feel like Dylan, much like the film, is a detached, over-intellectualized, and overrated artist. Some would say that is then the great achievement of the film - that it so elegantly captures the truth of the artist - but all I can say to that is SO WHAT? However, I get the feeling that Haynes is truly a fan of Dylan, and attempted to make a film that both honors him as an artist and a human being ... and if that's the case, then the film falls flat with me because I simply do not agree with its adoration. EXTRAS For a film with such a unique approach and a an acclaimed cast, the extras seem a bit wanting. One thing vitally necessary to the collection is a detailed textual discussion of the film itself. Clicking through it allows the viewer to understand what Haynes attempted to do with this film. It details much about each phase of his life, and how the film portraye it thematically. However, I would have liked to see more interviews with each cast member on their approaches to the character. Instead of this, we get some deleted scenes and outtakes that deservedly belonged on the cutting room floor. There are two extended conversations with Haynes himself; one as a film commentary, and another as an interview. While it was Haynes' original vision, I would have liked to hear more from those who managed to bring this vision to breathtaking life. OVERALL The film is interesting but cold. To fans of Dylan's work, this is a must-have; his music is showcased wonderfully here. To non-fans like myself, the film is a curiosity filled with marvelous cinematography and some interesting ideas. The performances are mostly extraordinary. The collection might end up being the best this film will get, so if you're interested in the subject at all, then now is the time to buy.