criterionforum.org

I'm talking about the U.S., not Venice.

The fact that it's all about money now is something every thinking feeling person was might with the very marrow of their being.

I know this review has been up awhile and it's probably been posted elsewhere on this site in reference to other things, but, Rex Reed on the ball as usual...

F___ing hysterical.

Rex has no understanding of Todd, and certainly isn't in sympathy with anything 60's.

I love Reed's demand that the movie teach us something about Dylan that we didn't already know. "Movies are pulpits by which great artists teach us their banal lessons through indirect means!" Ehrenstein's right, the literalists are going to hate this.

I really want to take this sentence :

Wandering in and out of the melee is a cast of 142 names, including Julianne Moore, Kris Kristofferson, Richie Havens, and Michelle Williams, playing characters based on Joan Baez, Edie Sedgwick, the Beatles, Malcolm X and Allen Ginsberg.

literally, as in:

Julianne Moore is Joan Baez
Kris Kristofferson is Edie Sedgwick
Richie Havens is the Beatles
Michelle Williams is Malcolm X and Allen Ginsberg

Now that's a movie!

It's a 135-minute Cobb salad, what I call jerk-off filmmaking.

Next time I order a Cobb salad, I'm asking them to hold the dressing.

Kris Kristofferson is nowhere in the film.

David Ehrenstein wrote:Kris Kristofferson is nowhere in the film.

I believe he has a bit of narration and the Gere parts are an indirect homage to him/Billy the Kid.

Svevan wrote:Ehrenstein's right, the literalists are going to hate this.

It's not as if Dylan is a literalist. Renaldo and Clara, Masked & Anonymous, Chronicles all have so much in common with Haynes' work.

"I believe he has a bit of narration and the Gere parts are an indirect homage to him/Billy the Kid."

You are misinformed. The Billy the Kid part bears no resemblance whatsoever to Peckinpah's film or his role in it.

David Ehrenstein wrote:

"I believe he has a bit of narration and the Gere parts are an indirect homage to him/Billy the Kid."

You are misinformed. The Billy the Kid part bears no resemblance whatsoever to Peckinpah's film or his role in it.

Even though Gere plays Billy the Kid, Bruce Greenwood plays Pat Garrett and Knockin' On Heaven's Door is on the soundtrack.

And Bruce Greenwood's Pat Garrett bears no resemblance to James Coburn.

Todd is using the fact that Dylan appeared in Peckinpah's Pat Garrett snd Billy the Kid (where he did not play either of the title roles) to make his own miniature Billy the Kid movie -- which has a lot more in common with early Fellini than anything else.

David Ehrenstein wrote:And Bruce Greenwood's Pat Garrett bears no resemblance to James Coburn.

Todd is using the fact that Dylan appeared in Peckinpah's Pat Garrett snd Billy the Kid (where he did not play either of the title roles) to make his own miniature Billy the Kid movie -- which has a lot more in common with early Fellini than anything else.

You misunderstand me. I didn't mention Peckinpah. I said using Kristofferson to narrate was a nod to him and the fact that he played Billy the Kid in the film for which Dylan wrote the soundtrack. I remember that Dylan played 'Alias' (another reference to identity!) and threw a wicked knife. I've seen I'm Not There. I felt the Gere part was as much a vision of Dylan's characters come to life as it was Felliniesque.

David Ehrenstein wrote:Rex has no understanding of Todd

That explains why Far from Heaven topped Reed's Best List in 2002.

Reed makes Peter Travers look like Rosenbaum. I remember an old Dave Letterman Top Ten List of worst jobs in Hell, and one was "Human chair for Rex Reed."

L.S. Pan wrote:

Svevan wrote:Ehrenstein's right, the literalists are going to hate this.

It's not as if Dylan is a literalist. Renaldo and Clara, Masked & Anonymous, Chronicles all have so much in common with Haynes' work.

You misunderstood me.

Svevan wrote:

L.S. Pan wrote:

Svevan wrote:Ehrenstein's right, the literalists are going to hate this.

It's not as if Dylan is a literalist. Renaldo and Clara, Masked & Anonymous, Chronicles all have so much in common with Haynes' work.

You misunderstood me.

Ok, would you care to elaborate?

Our rationalistic, say what you mean style of storytelling (and culture) demands that things "make sense." So those seeking literal interpretations of the events of this film will not be happy, and screw them anyways. Hence, Rex Reed hates it.

Svevan wrote:Our rationalistic, say what you mean style of storytelling (and culture) demands that things "make sense." So those seeking literal interpretations of the events of this film will not be happy, and screw them anyways. Hence, Rex Reed hates it.

So we're actually agreeing. I'm saying that to expect literalism from a work about Dylan is ridiculous since Dylan's work has never made sense in a literal way - it's all symbol, allegory, the love of language, and quite a bit of leg pulling. Reed hates the film, but it's no surprise because he hates Dylan. But it will also be hated by a certain type of hard core Dylan fan, the literalists who will expect it to not waver from the biographical "facts". (you know because Dylan didn't wear that jacket on that tour kind of stuff) Dylan has always told fanciful tales about his origins. His films have been lambasted for not making sense. He has been misunderstood, very often by the people who claim to revere him the most. Dylan and Haynes make sense if you think about their work, but hey there's the rub.

Svevan wrote:I love Reed's demand that the movie teach us something about Dylan that we didn't already know. "Movies are pulpits by which great artists teach us their banal lessons through indirect means!" Ehrenstein's right, the literalists are going to hate this.

Maybe what Reed expects is a film that will explain Dylan, making him user friendly, likable and easy to digest. Because reducing complexity into a few cliches is what biopics are about. Wasn't that Johnny Cash a nice man after all.

Also the more I think about it the Charlotte Gainsbourg /Heath Ledger sequence, dealing with a failed long-term relationship is really about Todd and James -- not Dylan at all.

David Ehrenstein wrote:Also the more I think about it the Charlotte Gainsbourg /Heath Ledger sequence, dealing with a failed long-term relationship is really about Todd and James -- not Dylan at all.

I doubt they broke up over Haynes not having respect for Lyons' artistic ambitions. But maybe you are referring to another aspect of the relationship.

I'm talking about the tenor of the scenes -- the mood of romance and regret. Todd was deeply in love with James, and that love lasted for a long period of time. They broke up right before Far From Heaven.

And as might be expected just because they broke up doesn't mean that love ever went away. Hence the dedication on the end credits.

David Ehrenstein wrote:I'm talking about the tenor of the scenes -- the mood of romance and regret. Todd was deeply in love with James, and that love lasted for a long period of time. They broke up right before Far From Heaven.

And as might be expected just because they broke up doesn't mean that love ever went away. Hence the dedication on the end credits.

While I though Gainsbourg was wonderful, I didn't feel that the scenes with her and Ledger had much of a mood of regret at all - nothing as wistful as those in Velvet Goldmine and Far From Heaven. He was a cipher and she was left wondering what the hell she was doing in that damn house as the world went by outside. Of course that works for the film, and is probably what it was like for Sara (and Suze.)

Do you think that we are supposed to infer that Robbie is a bad actor?

That's not really the issue. There's that incredible scene at the restaurnat in Woodstock where he's makign stupidly sexist comments -- which is the film's touchstone for the women's movement. His self-absorbtion drives them apart.

David Ehrenstein wrote:That's not really the issue. There's that incredible scene at the restaurnat in Woodstock where he's makign stupidly sexist comments -- which is the film's touchstone for the women's movement. His self-absorption drives them apart.

That's really not the issue? No, but it's part of the story. Because we know he's a jerk but if he's also a non-talent it only makes it worse that he is allowed to pursue his artistic ambition while she is not. And "a touchstone for the women's movement?" What did you say about the literalists? Gainsbourg's and Moore's characters are the embodiment of the women's movement which is more about women being respected for making their own choices than how self absorbed men are.

Maybe I should have been clearer. I meant "touchtsone" in the sense that the entire film glances off issues, people and ideas in a very rapid way, folding them all into the music -- and out of it again.