![]() ![]() |
![]() |
| |
|
The Many Faces of ‘Dylan’Posted on Nov 28, 2007
By Eunice Wong Todd Haynes’ film “I’m Not There,” “inspired by the music and many lives of Bob Dylan,” shows that art reveals truth when it has the imagination to move away from the imitation of reality. Six actors (Christian Bale, Cate Blanchett, Marcus Carl Franklin, Richard Gere, Heath Ledger and Ben Whishaw) embody varied facets of Dylan, whose name is never mentioned. Each incarnation has a different name and narrative. These nonlinear narratives collide and overlap but remain independent of each other. Franklin, a 13-year-old African-American, is Woody, a juvenile vagrant who hops boxcars. His beloved guitar is marked ”This machine kills fascists.” Whishaw plays Arthur (the poet Rimbaud as Dylan), seated at a table throughout the film, facing the camera. He is eternally cross-examined by invisible interrogators. Bale is Jack Rollins, the “Troubadour of Conscience” for a generation. He wears the acoustic guitar and harmonica rig of Dylan’s early years but with his lean, long face more resembles Woody Guthrie. Ledger is Robbie, a womanizing, self-centered movie star who once played Jack Rollins in a film. Charlotte Gainsbourg plays Claire, Robbie’s wife and mother of his children. Gainsbourg is the emotional center of the Robbie sequences, transmitting, often through silence, the suffering of being caught between her love for Robbie and constant, subtle humiliation and loneliness. Blanchett, in an exhilarating performance that transcends gender, is Jude Quinn, the “star of electricity.” Jude, in a tapered black suit, with wild hair, hooded eyes and high cheekbones behind dark glasses, is an eerie invocation of Dylan in the mid- ’60s. Blanchett deftly sidesteps the trap of “playing a man.” She cuts to Jude’s wiry cynicism about a world ravenous for celebrity, and the flash-bulb isolation of an intelligent, sensitive artist who sees and feels more than those who throng around him. The final Dylan figure is Billy (the Kid), played by Gere, a grizzled cowboy. Billy lives on the outskirts of the frontier town Riddle: “Here I’m invisible, even to myself.” Riddle faces annihilation—plans for a six-lane highway through the center of town—in the name of progress. This shape-shifting extends to Haynes’ kaleidoscopic directorial vision. Grainy black-and-white sequences mingle with shots artificially saturated with color: tender yellow-green fields outside an open boxcar, the deep blue-green of an urban evening, sallow yellow hospital light. Clips of the civil unrest of the ’60s, race riots, John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King are mixed into the fabric of the film. The different Dylan figures and their time lines break in upon each other, sometimes for only seconds, reminding us of their parallel existence. Billy looks out over the forested mountains in his Wild West era, sensing an unseen menace. It coalesces into napalm explosions in Vietnam, underscored by the raucous crashes of “All Along the Watchtower.” The explosions draw us through a television screen into Robbie and Claire’s world, revealing a wordless snapshot of their collapsing marriage before the camera abruptly returns us to Billy’s mountains. The realism of Jack Rollins, or Robbie and Claire, bumps up against surreal images of a massive tarantula crawling across a blank screen, a sperm whale animated in jerky Godzilla fashion, and dirty children with a dead pony. A girl with her head on fire stands ominously amid a crush of rabid fans. Jude Quinn appears in a puff of smoke, in a tribute to ”A Hard Day’s Night,” with four dark-suited young men with bowl cuts. They tumble over each other in accelerated, helium-voiced hilarity. When Jude is whisked away by his handlers, the four young men with bowl cuts are seen in the distance, pursued by hordes of screaming girls. And in a brilliant paraphrasing of Dylan’s ”going electric” at the Newport Folk Festival in 1965, Haynes conjures up a vision of Jude and his band spraying the stunned audience with machine gun fire. Carnies, freaks and outcasts filter in and out of the film. Disguise and performance are intertwined. “There’s something sort of freakish, I suppose, in setting someone up on stage apart from all the rest,” says young Woody. He boasts to two hobos of getting his start in a carnival, singing under a banner reading “From Far-Off Lands: Strange Humans!” Jude performs “Ballad of a Thin Man” and is abruptly replaced by a large cage containing Eeka the Geek. The highbrow audience laughs uproariously when the longhaired Geek decapitates a chicken with his teeth. The Halloween shop is open all year in the town of Riddle, and its townspeople wander the streets masquerading as Vikings, pirates, jesters and ghouls. “No town ever loved Halloween like the town of Riddle,” says Billy. “Who a fellow really was never really mattered. ... It was my kind of town.” And after suffering a lethal overdose, Jude bobs limply in the sky, tethered by the foot to the top of a circus big top, unable even in death to escape the garish lights below. “I’m Not There” is enigmatic, sometimes difficult, and answers no questions. Billy is scrambling onto a moving train to flee the authorities when his missing yellow dog, Henry, reappears, streaking through a meadow alongside the tracks. Billy calls to the dog, but she can’t keep up and soon drops out of sight. What we have lost and searched for in vain only comes back to us when we have moved on and can’t turn back. Jude, in words lifted from Dylan’s 1966 interview with Nat Hentoff, says: “What I’m talking about is traditional music ... with all these songs about roses growing out of people’s brains and lovers who are really geese and swans that turn into angels—they’re not going to die. ... You’d think these traditional music people would gather that mystery is a traditional fact. These things are so full of mystery ... contradictions ... chaos, clocks, watermelons, it’s everything. People think I have some kind of fantastic imagination. It gets very lonesome. Traditional music ... it’s too unreal to die. ... And in that music is the only true valid death you can feel today off a record player. Like everything else in great demand people try to own it. ... I think it’s the meaninglessness that’s holy.” “I’m Not There” is a passionate fugue on the selves we cast off and yet unconsciously retain in our deepest layers. It celebrates mystery, uncertainty and the eternal process of becoming.
Eunice Wong is an actor based in New York City.
Previous item: Streisand Gives Clinton the Nod Next item: Cristina Nehring on What's Wrong With the American Essay Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment |
By GrammaConcept, December 9, 2007 at 7:55 am #
“He not busy being born is busy dying”
-Bob Dylan
Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, December 8, 2007 at 6:08 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
118796 by Frank Cajon on 12/07 at 6:21 pm
(94 comments total)
“… he was the most important antiwar protest singer of the early 1960s”
Maybe if you discount Pete Seeger & The Weavers.
“Recommended: ‘Masters of War’, ‘Gates of Eden’, ‘Subterranean Homesick Blues’, ‘Idiot Wind’, ‘Dignity’, ‘It’s All Right, Ma (I’m Only Bleeding’, ‘Blowing in the Wind’”
Actually, my favorite was “Desolation Row” and a more appropriate piece for this campaign season doesn’t exist! BUT one line in “Lilly Rosemary & the Jack of Hearts” also applies “...anyone with any sense had already left town”
Report thisBy Frank Cajon, December 7, 2007 at 6:21 pm #
I doubt I’ll see this until it comes on cable. No matter. To dismiss Dylan’s body of work with a flippant ‘irrelevant’ sounds so cool and erudite. And probably so easy when those who do it likely never heard 95% of it.
Report thisAs a person, Dylan always struck me as an arrogant, private man who never sought personal notoriety-not an interesting guy. As a poet and songwriter, he was the most important antiwar protest singer of the early 1960s and incorporated civil rights themes into his music during that movement as well. I have recommended to friends playing his song ‘Masters of War’ while muting telecasts of Chancellor Bush on television. In 1965 he invented the folk-rock music idiom, and many of you folks my not have liked it, and it still exists over 40 years later, but the best of it was made by him, and bands playing his music like the Band, the Byrds, many others. He wrote a body of work that had it ended in 1974 with the album ‘Blood on the Tracks’ would have marked him as the greatest singer/songwriter of his generation; he has continued to make music for 45 years-not always great like his early days, and his voice, a folk-singer’s voice, is now a shadow of the Woody Guthrie echo it once was. Somebody here said ‘entire output was less profound than 30 seconds of Bach’. I have quite a bit of his music, and I have a bunch of Bach’s. First, Bach’s isn’t as good as 30 seconds of Mozart. Second, it isn’t valid to compare drastically different music made hundreds of years apart with one another. Unless it is to sound cool and erudite. First, listen to it. Recommended: ‘Masters of War’, ‘Gates of Eden’, ‘Subterranean Homesick Blues’, ‘Idiot Wind’, ‘Dignity’, ‘It’s All Right, Ma (I’m Only Bleeding’, ‘Blowing in the Wind’.
By Mick, December 3, 2007 at 8:56 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Mention of 1963 and Joan Baez reminded me of song written in 1963 but sung on this occasion in 1966. Do watch and listen carefully, especially to the last verse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pih1hVdflnQ
Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, December 3, 2007 at 8:18 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
117623 by Kwagmyre on 12/02 at 10:56 pm
“… Dylan could care less”
I agree with that! That is precisely why he is irrelevant.
Report thisBy Kwagmyre, December 2, 2007 at 10:56 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Being the free thinking, irreverent artist he was and still is, Dylan could care less what any of the comments on this thread are. If he did, he wouldn’t have had the prodigious creativity he did!
Report thisBy Joe R., December 2, 2007 at 8:32 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Dylan sucks, and he has always sucked.
Report thisBy mackTN, December 1, 2007 at 12:46 pm #
I absolutely hated this film--thought it was depressing and degrading. The film has nothing to do with Dylan, actually--it’s more about the image of Dylan created in the media and the suffering of a celebrity under the weight of stardom.
While I totally agree that the press, or paparazzi, who’ve become mercenary in their quest for the photograph and interview, is despicable, I disagree that stardom has to be one of exploitation only. Unlike a writer who executes his craft in solitude, a performer must have an audience--that’s the deal. A performer has to learn to communicate with his audience and bring them along throughout his evolution. Hard, yes...not impossible.
The time in Dylan’s young life when he changed course, left folk for rock, electrified--he left one community for another. In Don’t Look Now, Dylan was surprised and upset by the reaction to his new style, perturbed that his audience wanted the old stuff--wouldn’t let him grow. Cate Blanchett’s Dylan shoots the audience in response. As Dylan looks back, I’m sure he sees that his growth had to be accompanied by some pain; if he’s held on to hostility, I’d be surprised.
Blanchett was indeed brilliant as Dylan; her Dylan was the film’s centerpiece. But the movie as a whole was a series of notes plummeting down the musical scale. Before it ended, I wasn’t there either.
Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, December 1, 2007 at 7:50 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
117339 by Non Credo on 12/01 at 7:23 am
“I leave you to your lowbrow clichés.”
My family’s definition of “lowbrow” included insulting folks who maintain a differing opinion.
However, if “highbrow” denotes residents of a place above the mundane, everyday drudge of listening to music on a car radio while traveling too and from work… I guess you got me!
Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, November 30, 2007 at 2:38 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
117074 by JNagarya on 11/30 at 9:46 am
Let them explain that in a way persuasiave instead of personal atack on the messenger.
I guess the question is; “Was he indeed the messenger?”
There has been a riddle in the Jewish community since I was a boy; “Can a monster (Wagner) create acceptable and beautiful music. This year (or last) was the first time ever his music was played in Israel...the place didn’t fall apart.
Personally I liked Dylan’s music… It was Dylan himself that I avoided.
Report thisBy GrammaConcept, November 30, 2007 at 12:52 pm #
....PS… to Eunice Wong:.......Good Work!....really well-done....
Report thisBy GrammaConcept, November 30, 2007 at 12:09 pm #
My, my.......All these comments and opinions about whether or not Bob Dylan is “Real”!.....It’s as good as having Dylan have an opinion about whether or not I’M real....(or you)......The issue at hand is.....’How does it feel?’....................
How does it feeeeel?......For myself, it feels like this....If it weren’t for a Bob Dylan album being discovered by me in a remaindered album bin in the Discount Dollar Store in Kankakee,Illinois in late 1963, I might have taken Many More years of my precious life to realize and to act on the need to move on out.... into MY own Real life.....Between Bob and Joan, I actually became Encouraged to discover Reality far more thoroughly…
Now, at 62, I have to say that while I have, indeed, not loved Everything Bob has said and/or done over the last 40+ years, I also haven’t loved Everything I have said and/or done over the last 40+ years, either...(though mostly in both cases...
....Tthe Truth is....Bob Dylan and I are both VERY REAL........and Striving Mightily to move forward each and every day in our chosen work.... I continue to enjoy his philosophical company and his vast musicality and his poetic enormity on this long and difficult journey uphill.....
BTW....GrammaConcept says:...This movie really is “there”.. and really covers the territory....also, Cate Blanchett Rocks....I present her with my personal “Amazing"Award".....
Warmly,
Report thisGrammaConcept
By Conservative Yankee, November 30, 2007 at 11:58 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
117108 by Non Credo on 11/30 at 11:36 am
“His entire output taken together is less profound than any 30 seconds of Bach.”
Eye (or ear) of the beholder! I find Bach (more than 30 seconds of him) boring predictable, and gruelesque. Also, comparing Bach and Dylan, is quite like comparing Hank Williams to Verdi.
Bach’s repetition, and mathematical progressions are really quite mundane. Hyden, on the other hand…
Report thisBy JNagarya, November 30, 2007 at 9:46 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Yeah. Dylan’s a fake, a phony. And those who know that fact so well could write a better “Blood on the Tracks” than the actual Dylan did.
Let them explain that in a way persuasiave instead of personal atack on the messenger.
“You’re Gonna Make Me Lonesome When You Go”—so “no there there,” eh? I’ve felt that too.
Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, November 30, 2007 at 7:07 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
“In the Jingle Jangle morning I’ll come following you.”
“Jeeze I can’t find my knees”
“The beauty parlor is filled with sailors”
“Anyone with any sense has already left town”
I loved Dylan’s music....... Dylan himself is another story! Follow the money!
Report thisBy thunderboltfan, November 30, 2007 at 1:59 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
As a long time fan of Dylan and Haynes, I found the movie by turns tedious and exasperating. Don’t believe the hype, it’s a bore. Dylan’s music speaks for itself. Just listen. It’s all there. He’s there.
Report thisBy anonymous, November 29, 2007 at 7:12 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Joan Baez?
what about Howdy Doody?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howdy_Doody
Report thisBy Douglas Chalmers, November 28, 2007 at 11:17 pm #
What about Joan Baez? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Baez
Report thisBy Tony Christini, November 28, 2007 at 6:32 pm #
And there are other kinds of art that celebrate and illuminate and engender principles and progress or resistance like Victor Hugo’s great novel of the people, Les Miserables, or movies like Missing, and Romero....
The sort of art described in the article certainly has its place, an important one, but it’s far from the end-all, be-all. As V. F. Calverton noted in The Liberation of American Literature - an important book and author long since buried and forgotten by the art world:
“That the attempt to be above the battle is evidence of a defense mechanism can scarcely be doubted. Only those who belong to the ruling class, in other words, only those who had already won the battle and acquired the spoils, could afford to be above the battle. Fiction which was propagandistic, that is, fiction which continued to participate in the battle, it naturally cultivated a distaste for, and eschewed. Fiction which was above the battle, that is fiction which concerned only the so-called absolutes and eternals, with the ultimate emotions and the perennial tragedies, but which offered no solutions, no panaceas – it was such fiction that won its adoration.”
Report thishttp://liblit.wordpress.com/lib-lit-views/