Flickgrrl

This film will go down the road of being swallowed by cheap parody, too intellectual for most movie goers. Even in the more dramatic season, Walk Hard, National Treasure (and that's a stretch) 2, The Golden Compass and Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium will take the box office which is not to deprive any of these films of whatever value they possess. But in a time when more narrative driven, character oriented films are supposed to thrive, we're left with more action-adventure, lower key blockbuster-type movies. I'm Not There, regardless of its quality, of which I see a great deal, will make not but a minor dent in the machine that is the blockbusted driven Hollywood.

cant you see this is the land of confusion

Dylan said "I've got a headful of ideas that are drivin' me insane." I was ecstatic to suspend my disbelief and step into the universe of the guy who has thrown out an endless stream of phrases that have since been used as colloquialisms -- "everybody that was hangin out," "ain't gonna work on Maggie's farm no more," "far out," "you don't know what's happenin, do you, Mr. Jones?" and . . . As much as many times I haven't had a clue what he was talking about, I have felt fortunate to have been touched by his poetry. Similarly for the film, it was an experience to be stepped inside of . . . if others can't/won't do that, that's their problem. I believe that there are enough of us who have and will again. I'm looking forward to being with Dylan again -- even if only in the movie.

I can still feel the thrill that "Like a Rolling Stone" gave me while an impressionable 13-year-old in 1965. Compared to other music icons, Dylan would continue to be a cut above, larger than life, his particular genius largely amorphous, its essence often impenetrable. Now Haynes steps in--attempting a cinematic equivalent of Dylan at his most abstract. His choices of and deployment of the music are outstanding, his craftsmanship often superb. How to respond to a film whose scenes just as often gave me chills of joy as other scenes gave me pause to reflect, "Why this?--it doesn't work..." Overall, I have to fall in on the side of admiration, giving Haynes the benefit of the doubt for his vision even if the whole of the film lacks the intensity of its best parts. Like playing over an uneven LP with some outstanding tracks, I'll want to see this film again. I have a feeling its hooks will intensify.

Haynes is an extraordinary and inventive filmmaker, and there are moments of brilliance in I'M NOT THERE--for example, the scene of Blanchet machine-gunning the crowd at the "New England Folk and Jazz Festival"--but why did I feel more emotion for Charlotte Gainsbourg's character than ANY of the six Dylans? If it's better than VELVET GOLDMINE, it's still no SUPERSTAR.

Carrie, it seems that your main criticism of the film is that it denies you the narrative structure and catharsis that a standard biopic would give you.

And that makes me wonder: are films nothing more than paint-by-numbers? Could you expand on what, exactly, you found wrong (or: lacking) with I'M NOT THERE?

John,

Thanks for your question. I found the film impressionistic, that is, a series of anecdotal sketches performed by some excellent actors. This is not a crtiicism of the film, I value impressionism, but the individual elements did not add up to something larger, as tiles contribute to the greater mosaic. (Derek Jarman's "Caravagggio" and Julie Taymor's "Frida" are likewise impressionistic biopics about artists, but they had a structure and through-line. Not so "I'm Not There." Haynes' film, which I like in its component parts but not its whole, requires inside-Dylan knowledge. Though I possess that, I feel that Haynes condescended to his audience by expecting that.

Best,

Is that what criticism is about? What audiences prefer? What about what you prefer?

Anon,

I made it clear what I thought.