I'm Not There (2007)

I could be wrong, but I believe this is probably the most challenging and befuddling film I've ever seen. Be warned though, this is not a "straight" bio-pic about Dylan, and the unconventional manner in which things are done will likely simultaneously frustrate and excite those who experience it: just like Dylan himself. Unique is a great word to describe the man and this film. It's quite ambitious, and, really, probably the only way to capture the man on film (aside from legit documentaries or concert films). SUmmarzining this film isn't easy, and it really doesn't provide much insight or answers, but I'm pretty sure that's the point. I wonder what the man himself thinks of this? Aside from song credits at the end and an opening label which states, "Inspired by the music and many lives of Bob Dylan", the name Bob Dylan is not once spoken or seen during thr film. For that ,and the way this movie unfolds, I give a big salute. That's ballsy. I mean, this is made by the same guy who made a movie about Karen Carpenter starring Barbie dolls, which in itself is unique, but to make a movie about a man and not really do it, and do so unapologetically- that takes true courage, The more you know about Bob Dylan, and the more you like and are familiar with his work, the better whe nit comes to this film. While it's not impossible for someone unfamiliar with Dylan to see this movie and get into him afterwards, it seems unlikely. I'm neither a newbie or a diehard, so some of the references and easter eggs (of which there are an uncalculable amount) went over my head, but I got a lot out of this nonetheless. One of the most talked about aspects of this movie is how six people (seven if you think the narrator counts) are cast as Dylan, por rather, various aspects of his life, career, and persona. The title of the film is probably the most appropriate film title I've seen in quite some time. So, given the enigmatic nature of the man and the movie, you can argue that the point is that it's not about him, and it's not supposed to be, but it's really about perceptions of the artist instead. The casting choice is truly inspired: the six people are made up of 5 adults, 1 youth, 5 males, 1 female, 4 caucasians, one African American, 2 Auusies, a Brit, someone who's Welsh, and two Americans. If you count the narrator, you need to add 1 white American man to the totals. Marcus Carl Franklin and Richard Gere represent young and old mythological tall tale aspects of the entity in question. Christian Bale represents both the acoustic folk and (later) born again Christian eras. LEdger makes up the personal and romantic aspects of the life, while Whishaw represents an elliptical trickster providing responses to questions. The one who garnered the most attention, and who truly steals the show, is Cate Blanchett. She represents the Mid-sixties era which included "turning electric" and being involved in a motorcycle accident that may have been anything but that. All of them do an excellent job, but the ones who shine thje most are Frnaklin and Blanchett and that's not just because they are a woman and a black kid. LEdger and Bale tie one another when it comes to how they rank. Whishaw is good, just not used too much. GEre is good, but just underwhelming. The sequences involving him are just too tedious and uninteresting to me. One could say the same about the Bale sequences since it's obvious Haynes doesn't dwell on them enough, instead focusing on the Blanchett stuff, which is the most interesting. Once again, I'll make a comparison to Dylan by saying that the film eschews traditional notions about how something is done (or should be), and presents things in a non-linear, elliptical style which uses different shooting styles, color, B & W, documentary style, etc. As I said earlier, this makes things very frustrating and hard to get into, but yet, it all kinda works somehow, well, almost. As a "movie" this doesn't work at all, kind of like "The Passion of the Christ". If you view this as an experimental art piece, it's better, but not a masterpiece. Same with "The Passion..". It works well as an "experience", but not as something else. If you've read this far into it, you should know whether or not this is for you. I'll admit that I did get a little bored, and some of it is tedious and drags here and there (the film idoesn't need to be 135 mins), but I was floored by what I was seeing. Now that I think about it, Dylan probably does get a kick out of this. We'll never know though, just like the truth about him. The movie blends fact with fiction, making it hard to discern truth and reality, and in a way ,that's good, because it spoils the mystery and the puzzle- the answer to which is probably very disappointing and underwhelming anyway. I've rambled enough about this, but it's hard to really say something concrete and definitive about this- just like how it is with the real Bob Dylan, who or whatever that may be.... ;)