… I’m Gone, Or Seven Characters in Search of an Exit

7/31/2019 Im Gone, Or Seven Characters in Search of an Exit

1/8

Im Gone; or Seven Characters in Search of an Exit:

Some Reflections on Todd HaynesIm Not There.

http://sensesofcinema.com/2008/feature-articles/im-not-there/

0Adrian DanksMarch 16, 2008Feature Articles, Issue 46

I think youve got yesterday, today and tomorrow in the same room. Theres no telling what can happen.

- Billy the Kid (Richard Gere in Im Not There.)

Haynes is not what one would call a natural filmmaker. His ideas are too evident, his schemata overly present. He is, however, a

sort of natural Brechtian.

- J. Hoberman (1)

All I was really focussed on was trying to find a narrative and cinematic parallel to what Dylan did to popular music in his era

I knew from the outset that I would fail.

- Todd Haynes (2)

There is something that is curiously dry, academic, self-consciously conceptual about Todd Haynes prismatic and somewhat less

than freewheelin phantasmagoria tracing various threads, connections, points of intersection, biographical details and critical

interpretations of Bob Dylan. When presented to Dylans management as a one-page outline of Haynes intended approach,Im

Not There. also trailed a subtitle that nailed the thesis like aims of the film: Suppositions on a Film Concerning Dylan. The film

as it stands also proceeds from the encompassing and multitudinous disclaimer that it is inspired by the music and many lives

of Dylan.

On various levels,Im Not There. is an ambitious film, an attempt to move to the side of the form of more conventional biopics

that attempt to nail down, interpret and smoothly narrativise their subjects career (and often, most pointedly, their early life).

Haynes film is undoubtedly a stranger, more mysterious and wilful object than this: the casting of a woman, a young black kid,and four men of various ages and levels of stardom to play Dylan is a fairly upfront illustration. Nevertheless, for those of us

who are well-versed in Dylans shape-shifting (3) persona, Haynes approach is both bold and pretty familiar. Such an inability

to pin Dylan down to one mode, one category, or a clearly laid out trajectory is by now the common way in which his career and

its numerous resur ences have been enca sulated and accounted for. As Adrian Martin ar ued even beforeIm Not There. B


2/8

now, it is official: Bob Dylan is a multiple self. Long gone are the days when fans and commentators worried and argued about

the splits between electric and folk Dylan, political and religious Dylan []. (4) Dylan himself has almost always supported and

fuelled such an approach, and part of the fascination of such works as D. A. PennebakersDont Look Back(1967) or Martin

ScorsesesNo Direction Home: Bob Dylan (2005) is the spectacle of watching Dylan characteristically evade both straightforward

questions andanswers (while making everything seem both simple and endlessly complicated). Even various films that associate

partly or fully with Dylans image have reinforced or played upon this masked, quixotic and shifting persona; from such low-key

performances as the aptly named Alias in Sam Peckinpahs 1973 opusPat Garrett and Billy the Kid(where Dylan squints, reads

the labels off cans and finds other things to do in a role plainly not developed beyond the behavioural, or his mere presence) to the

gestalt fragmentations and affectations of Dylans own projects like 1978sRenaldo and Clara (like parts ofIm Not There.,

literally featuring characters wearing masks) and 2003s aptly titledMasked and Anonymous (directed by Larry Charles but

starring and pseudonymously co-written by Dylan). Dylan has himself been integral to the creation of this shifting cinematic

image; for example, he wilfully fragmented his image, the tour itinerary and the vrit intentions of his co-conspirator Pennebaker

in the follow up toDont Look Back,Eat the Document(1972), which covers Dylan and The Hawks 1966 European tour.

In a more general sense, Dylan has worked to both discourage and reinforce critical interpretations of his own work (and life); and

critical interpretation both Dylans and that of numerous other writers and filmmakers informsIm Not There. at every level.

Haynes film seems so embedded in the critical work produced on and around Dylan that analysis of the film itself is not just

inevitable but necessary (it justflows). The initial flush of writing on the film, of which this is just one humble contribution, is, I

both hope and fear, just the start of this critical work. I think it may be illustrative to give a few details about the genealogy of this

article at this point. I agreed to write this review prior to seeing the film. After first seeing it and expressing something of my

guarded dissatisfaction to my Editor, he concluded that I would obviously no longer wish to write the piece. He was wrong. In

reality I dont really think that whether one likes this film or not really matters this is the kind of work that people tend to have

an opinion about even if they havent seen it (and someone else presented a ten-minute tirade against the film partly railing

against the patent mimicry of Cate Blanchetts performance and the postmodern affectations of Haynes style before informing

me they hadnt actually seen it). In many ways, Haynes film is inconceivable without this critical discussion (though, in its

defence, Im not sure how it could exist outside of this framework). Although at times surprisingly emotionally engaging, it is like

most of Haynes other films such as Velvet Goldmine (1998) andFar from Heaven (2002) a cerebral, meticulously designed

and incipiently postmodern revisiting of relatively recent, though in many ways inaccessible, distant and foreign, cultural history.

As will become evident, I actually think it is beside the point to divide Haynes film from the criticism that surrounds it if

anything, and not unlike much of Jean-Luc Godards work, the film represents another way of doing criticism (though not just

of the film variety).


3/8

Nevertheless, this is a somewhat curious though perhaps still refreshing attempt to deal with and partly document Dylan

(playfully this word or name is never once mentioned in the film other than all over the credits). It is also a work that seems

partly out of alignment with the times. Dylan and his management (particularly Jeff Rosen) have worked hard in the past decade

or so not to so much reinvent his persona as realign it, carve out a space within the critical discourse that surrounds Dylan (and

thus shape its direction). In such recent largely self-generated representations as the autobiographical but not all that personal

narrator ofChronicles(5), the controlled interview subject ofNo Direction Home and the friendly DJ behind Theme Time Radio

Hour, Dylan seems positively chatty, a clearly urbane figure surprisingly comfortable in his own skin.

So what doesIm Not There. contribute to our understanding of Dylan? Does it actually present anything new? Not surprisingly,

the answer to this second question is both yes and no. In many respects,Im Not There. is a synthetic film that draws together

and upon existing conceptualisations and theorisations of Dylans career and persona or parts of it. It unsurprisingly draws

heavily on the periods and works most argued and pored over in what is sometimes called Dylanology, curiously if

understandably drawing to a kind of close in the late 1970s. LikeNo Direction Home, its main points of focus and key

fascinations are Dylans early life leading up to his arrival in New York and the cataclysmic years of 1965 and 1966.

The film also spends much time investigating the domestic life of an actor, Robbie (Heath Ledger), who once played Jack

Rollins (Christian Bales incarnation of the folkie Dylan) in a mid-60s film. Although this concept/device acts to further

distance this character and all the others from the real Dylan, it also suggests a number of other intriguing interpretations: that

Dylans own retreat into domesticity after his 1966 motorbike accident a mysteriously talismanic event in this and Scorseses

film was itself a performance, a movement into a markedly separate mode of existence; as an illustration of the radical shift

necessary after the rising hysteria that met Dylans dynamic but emotionally fraught tours of 1965 and 1966 (he literally changed

personas); and as a fairly naked narrativisation of the films title (many of the scenes in this section focus upon Charlotte

Gainsbourgs Claire rather than Robbie, his domestic presence often limited to a voice in a long-distance phone conversation). As

is common inIm Not There., such neat distinctions between personas and eras are nevertheless blurred Robbie also blurs into

the early 60s folk Dylan of Greenwich Village and his relationship with Suze Rotolo is collapsed into that with his subsequent

wife, Sara.

In many respects, this is the most conventional thread of the film, following the birth and ultimate dissolution of a relationship,

soundtracked by what appear to be some of Dylans most nakedly personal songs. Nevertheless, one always needs to be careful

when relating Dylan to his lyrics, which themselves are often imagistic, impressionistic, largely non-narrative, angular rather than

straightforwardly expressive. But much of this section of the film seems to be inspired a key idea for Haynes by Dylans

seemingly confessional and more direct mid-70s masterpiece,Blood on the Tracks. This is reinforced by the extended use of

Idiot Wind that albums most bitter, epic and unforgiving song to emphasise the characters separation. Haynes use ofThe

Bootleg Series version of this song underlines a few important qualities of the film: first, it is actually a less vitriolic and more

self-blaming version than the initial official release (and this is reinforced by the films more rounded representation of this

relationship); second, this choice demonstrates the generally outstanding taste that the filmmakers have brought to the musical

selections on the soundtrack. Although the film does contain a number of popular and probably all-too-familiar Dylan tracks, it is

more remarkable for its facility in mining his back catalogue and employing interesting and sympathetic musicians to re-record

particular songs. On hearing the original soundtrack album, one would imagine this films actual soundtrack would reinforce its

main dramatic premise: showing us many aspects and interpretations of Dylan while insisting on his marked absence (so

combining the implied presence of Im with the absence of Not There). But in fact the film is loaded with Dylan originals,

with most of the re-recorded versions confined only to the double-CD soundtrack or those moments when characters/actors are

required to lip-sync to particular songs.


4/8

Surprisingly, few commentators have discussed the films title, actually taken

from an unfinished track from the Basement Tapes sessions, or its use towards the end of the film. It is worthwhile briefly

pondering some of the reasons for Haynes choice of title. First, as many commentatorshave said it is an apt title for this film

about Dylan (or more broadly for Dylan himself as a phenomenon). It relates directly to one of the films two least successful

sections Dylans incarnation as Arthur Rimbaud (Ben Whishaw) and his meditations on existence and selfhood (most

famously the statement that I is another). Second, it helps pinpoint the critical derivations of Haynes approach to Dylan.

Probably the most famous discussion of this unfinished song is found in Greil Marcus spidery, genealogical andprismaticInvisible Republic: Bob Dylans Basement Tapes. Marcus argues that this song is like no other in Dylans discography,

and yet he also seems to highlight its talismanic qualities, its implications and uses for a broader understanding of Dylans career

and mythology. It is not a song that makes easy sense, that can be clearly categorised or understood, and that remained unfinished

partly because it is so timeless, bottomless(6), and without clear moorings. It is also useful because on a purely ontological level

it is difficult to make out, mysterious in both its content and ethereally muddy form. I think that Haynes choice ofIm Not

There. as his title is inconceivable without Marcus analysis. Haynes approach to the period of Dylans career from which this

song emanates, and which mixes together references to various songs from these sessions, Dylans performance inPat Garrett

and Billy the Kid, Harry SmithsAnthology of American Folk Music, and The Bands own appropriation of 19th

century imagery

and attire (just after working with Dylan), has been widely criticised. Haynes himself has suggested that this material was not

direct enough, but in some ways, and in the light of specific critical knowledge and understanding, it is the most conceptuallycogent aspect of the film other important points of reference include such epic and kaleidoscopic Dylan songs as Desolation

Row and Lily, Rosemary and the Jack of Hearts, as well as the cover ofThe Basement Tapes. Like the curious but more self-

consciously surreal incarnation of Dylan as a young black kid called Woody Guthrie (Marcus Carl Franklin), this section

highlights the idea of Dylan as a palimpsest, less out of time than across time.

Towards the end of the film, where this strand somewhat dominates, Haynes introduces some of the most mysterious,

churning andprotean of Dylans tracks, such as Im Not There. and Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands, and combines these

songs with the final moments of several of the characters most touchingly (and the film does have moments of quite rich

emotion) for Geres Billy the Kid and Blanchetts Jude Quinn. In Blanchetts/Judes final moments we hear, as we have many

times throughout the film, words gathered from one of the numerous interviews Dylan was subjected to in the mid-60s in this

case, Nat Hentoffs forPlayboy(7). She/he speaks of the difference between folk and traditional music, political protest and

stranger, more timeless forms, further questioning the easy categorisation of Dylan himself:


5/8

Traditional music is based on hexagrams. It comes about from legends, Bibles, plagues, and it revolves around vegetables and

death. Theres nobody thats going to kill traditional music. All those songs about roses growing out of peoples brains and lovers

who are really geese that turn into angels theyre not going to die.

Blanchetts final moments conclude with a kind of half-smile that both encourages and forestalls interpretation. Although these

words help explain Dylans continual fascination with this music, their placement here also suggests a continuity between the

project of such traditional music and an understanding of Dylans mercurial, shiftless, timeless persona both of his time, in the

moment, and expressly outside of it.

It is illuminating to look a little more closely at several of the epochal scenes and events that inevitably make their way into the

film. The representation of such key moments as Dylan going electric at the 1965 Newport Folk Festival or the infamous

Judas catcall at the 1966 Manchester Free Trade Hall concert (amongst the most discussed musical events of the rock n roll

era), can tell us much about both the limitations and critical intentions of Hayness approach. In some ways, Haynes film shares a

spirit of critical hagiography with a film like Tim Burtons curiously sweet-naturedEd Wood(1994). Although the sometimes

melancholic but often misanthropic tone ofIm Not There. is a million miles away fromEd Wood, both films are primarily

concerned with the moment of their own making, and are less accurate and truly investigative renditions of their subjects lives

than attempts to come to terms with the history of critical interpretation that has both informed and lead to their own existence.

Both films are inconceivable without a critical heritage or lineage that creates a form or logic for their own approach. Thus, for

example, the wildly successful premiere of the jerry-builtPlan 9 from Outer Space (1959) in Los Angeles that concludesEd

Woodis factually inaccurate and completely inconceivable, except that the much later creation of Burtons painstaking multi-

million dollar homage, and the widespread critical canonisation of Wood as the worlds worst filmmaker, make it seem

poetically apt (even possible). It is also a gift from Burton to Wood. It would nevertheless be inaccurate to call Haynes film a gift

to Dylan. As various commentators have suggested,Im Not There. is a little too bitter and critical for that (it certainly doesnt

make you like Dylan all that much). As Jonathan Rosenbaum has suggested, althoughIm Not There. is [w]idely described as a

tribute, it frequently comes across as a series of insults (8). Nevertheless, the film does partly underline Dylans own account of

his career.

To return to the two epochal scenes mentioned above. Unlike Burton, Haynes has to work within a highly documented and

turned over field. It would be churlish to bluntly criticise or even damn Haynes film for its inaccurate representation of

particular events and personalities. After all, his film takes the bold and intermittently successful approach of having Dylan played

by a range of actors belonging to various genders, races and generations (though curiously leaving Dylans Jewishness to

himself). Nevertheless, both the going electric and Judas moments are curious for how they rely more clearly on legend than

existing and widely circulated documentation. For example, Dylans penultimate electric performance at Newport occurs during

the day (it was actually at night) and is totally unambiguous in terms of the hostility towards Dylan expressed by the audience

(this is also one of those moments where the small budget of Haynes film leads to a less-than-overwhelming representation) and

the clear contrast between the musicians on stage and all those who are watching them. The film even pauses to show us Pete

Seeger attempting to cut the electrical cables with an axe (this is a highly contested and almost definitely apocryphal action its

poetic force has sustained its legendary status). Other recent representations of this episode including the footage of the concert


6/8

contained in the documentary described below present a much more ambiguous, conflicted and less clear-cut set of events and

actions. Similarly, the Judas moment from the Manchester concert is rendered by Haynes as a moment of conflict and incipient

violence, the verbal exchange forcing the musicians to close the stage curtain and flee the stage in fear (Dylan and The Hawks

actually remained on stage and performed a blistering version of Like a Rolling Stone). The film even presents a less extended

and markedly less effective exchange between Dylan/Jude and the audience. Both of these examples favour the apocryphal and

legendary versions of events over messier realities. Haynes is plainly not trying for documentary fidelity here he even has the

musicians fire machine-guns into the Newport crowd but his approach simplifies what is actually a more complex relationship

between Dylan and his varied audiences who were no more singular than he was.

Murray Lerners recently compiled The Other Side of the Mirror: Bob Dylan at the Newport Folk Festival 1963-1965 (2007)

provides an interesting correlative (perhaps even corrective) to Im Not There.. Although Lerners film is much more conventional

and unvarnished than Haynes, it actually provides an equal illustration though straightforwardly chronological of the

restlessness of Dylans spirit and persona across three Newport Folk Festivals. It is remarkable to watch the shift from acoustic to

electric Dylan, as well as from respectful, almost captive folk singer to a more visionary persona. Lerners film benefits massively

from its simplicity. The footage he has gathered, and had largely squirreled away until gaining permission to release it by Dylans

management long after he first approached them, pretty much speaks for itself, highlighting the extraordinary

shifts andcontinuities in Dylans persona, performance style and manner over a period of only two years. LikeNo Direction

Home, it configures Dylan as both a barometer of the shifting times and his own man, unwilling to be neatly categorised as a

symbol of anything.

One of the most remarkable aspects ofIm Not There. is its treatment of time. This foregrounding of time is most evident in the

prismatic editing style of the film, which interlaces the various versions of Dylan that we see into an overlapping and circular

chronology. But thematically, and in terms of interpreting Dylan, time has a much more crucial function. Despite the crossovers in

time between many of the early and mid-60s Dylans presented her, the closest connections are forged between the two

strangest and seemingly most disparate incarnations: Geres Billy the Kid and Marcus Carl Franklins Woody. It is in these

sections that we get the clearest view of Dylan as a figure who is both outside of time and who functions as a palimpsest of

traditions and influences. Dylans own view of the difference between traditional and folk music, essayed late on by Cate

Blanchetts Jude as outlined above, largely centres on the continuing relevance and presentness of traditional music. For Dylan it

isnt dead; in fact, it isnt even past. When Woody is kindly if brusquely told to live your own time by a black woman who takes

him in, I think he can both see the point of her advice and not really comprehend what the concept of his own time might be.

Thus the carnivalesque aspects of the sequences featuring Woody and Billy have their roots in particular parts of Dylans career

(such as his earlier absorption in traditional and country music, and the timeless recordings which came to be known as the

Basement Tapes) and the fabulations he created about his own past also suggesting a series of connections, lineages and

resonances that shift across race, musical form and time. This is literalised towards the end of the film when Billy exits the town

of Riddle, through which we have seen him wander, on a train and picks up the battered guitar case left their earlier/later by

Woody. In some ways, it is in such moments, and definitely in these two sections, that the film has the most to say about Dylans

relationship to what Marcus called the old, weird America. These connections also go some way to help us understand the


7/8

seemingly subterranean shifts and turns in Dylans career. They are conceits that join with Blanchetts turn as Jude to render

strange what might otherwise have seemed typically Haynes-like pastiche.

Ultimately, Im not totally sure who this film is made for. As a film academic who has a fairly strong interest in Dylan and

popular music, I would seem to be the ideal audience forIm Not There. (and this academic audience is not as small as you

might think). But I cant get over a feeling of dissatisfaction with elements of the film, and a sense of over-familiarity with the

approach it takes. The version of Dylan it presents is certainly novel in cinematic terms, but it is in some ways an adaptation of

much of the critical literature that exists on Dylan. Spectators who know very little of Dylans work, or the discourse which

surrounds him, will undoubtedly find this a very perplexing film. They will hear many excellent Dylan songs on the soundtrack

and may be intrigued to find out more about him, but much of the film wont resonate. Those who know plenty about Dylan will

be both rewarded by numerous points of recognition and reference including to various other films likeA Hard Days

Night(Richard Lester, 1964), 8 (Federico Fellini, 1963) andIf. (Lindsay Anderson, 1968) and somewhat frustrated by the

familiarity of some interpretations and the lacklustre renditions of some events (and even whole personas). The film is full of

fetishistic art direction that mimics existing images but is more wilful when dramatising the narrative arc of historical events. This

is sometimes a curious decision, as although he obviously felt the need to interpret particular events, the existing documentary

record is often much more powerful, resonant and complex than Haynes rendition. The account of Dylans 1965 Newport

performance inNo Direction Home is positivelyRashomon-esque in comparison to its rudimentary appearance here. And yet,

particularly in the light of Haynes other work, this lack of fidelity is perhaps part of the point.

UndoubtedlyIm Not There.s weakest sections are those featuring Arthur Rimbaud and the terrible mockumentary that

incorporates the two incarnations played by Christian Bale. Bales performance as the early Dylan is too mannered, but the main

faults of this section are its generally snide tone and its all-too-easy mock tabloid documentary style. Those who have seen this as

a critique of Scorseses more conventional documentary need to look more closely at both. It is also in this section that Haynes

presents his most tiresome variation upon the contrast between the hip, uncategorisable Dylan and the earnest, risible folkies who

tried to control and pin him down (has their ever been an easier target?). Julianne Moores attempt at what one assumes is Joan

Baez is perhaps the films nadir. Nevertheless, this section also characteristically includes one of the most surprising and

galvanising musical moments in the film. Bale reappears as the Christian era Dylan performing for only a handful of often-

inattentive worshippers. But his performance of Pressing On, from the often-derided 1980 album Savedand actually sung by

John Doe, is surprisingly rousing, earnest and felt. It is in such moments, and luckily there are quite a few of them to mitigate the

often clumsy staging and dramatics of other moments, where the desperately postmodern surface of Haynes world falls away to

allow for a richer, more direct emotional experience and engagement. This moment is all the stronger for allowing this to occur

within such a patently religious framework.

In its concluding moments,Im Not There. finally shows us documentary footage of the real Dylan performing Mr.

Tambourine Man. This approach, of dramatising and fictionalising an historical era before finally returning to documentary

footage of the initial inspiration, has become a conventional poetic device that is also found in such other recent films asBefore

Night Falls (Julian Schnabel, 2000) and The Last King of Scotland(Kevin MacDonald, 2006). The function of this device is partly

to qualify everything that has come before as merely one, or indeed in this case, multiple, interpretation(s) of historical figures and

events. It hones in on the inability of narrative cinema to adequately or accurately represent history, while also suggesting the


8/8

mediums unique temporal qualities as historical record. Thus, the image of the actual figure both grounds what has come before

and suggests the possibility of escape, the image and essence that can never be pinned-down. Nevertheless, these images inIm

Not There. also configure the actual Dylan as one of a series of representations, a mysterious, shifting if privileged incarnation.

This appearance, and the expert matching of sound and image from different sources, also suggests a couple of other things. It

must be remembered that despite the often critical and interpretative nature of Haynes film, Dylan and his management in fact

sanctioned it. This allowed Haynes unprecedented access to Dylans recorded output and image. Thus,Im Not There. should

actually be seen as a close cousin of other recent attempts by Dylan to control his historical image. Although bothNo Direction

Home and Chronicles present a surprisingly cogent and literate Dylan to the public, the version of Dylan they present constantly

suggesting his quixotic nature and supreme discomfort with being categorised or pinned-down is fairly close to that ultimately

suggested byIm Not There.. This ending also highlights the possibility of a more straightforward approach to Dylan (though

Scorseses documentary has already carved out this terrain). For all the discussion of the fearlessness and iconoclasm of Haynes

portrayal, Im not sure whether it presents a brave rethinking of the biopic form or a cop-out. Presenting us with six different

actors playing seven incarnations of Dylan is both an interesting dramatisation of the common reading of Dylan as a series of

almost separate personas and a sign of a lack of commitment to a particular perspective or view.

He would pull these songs out of nowhere, Robbie Robertson said. We didnt know if he wrote them or if he remembered

them. When he sang them, you couldnt tell.(9)

Documents

… I’m Gone, Or Seven Characters in Search of an Exit