..Gary Dretzka
..Noah Forrest
..Leonard Klady
..R.J. Matson
..David Poland
..Douglas Pratt
..Ray Pride
..Michael Wilmington

I'm Not There
Directed by Tod Haynes

It seems just like a gimmick, yes, it does
It jumps time just like a gimmick, yes, it does
And it aches just like a gimmick
But it breaks down just like a classic tale.

I’m Not There is all there. Six, six, yes, six Bob Dylans in all, the latest from Todd Haynes seems to aspire to an excess of clever and a dangerous dance with pretense, but remarkably, in a 2 hour 18 minute running time, turns out to be a very demanding, but very clear-minded piece of filmmaking.

The “clever,” as you have probably heard, is that the start of Dylan’s artistic life thorough the period slightly after Nixon resigns/he was divorced by Sara Lownds, when in the film, Dylan gives up on the idea that his music could change the world in a politically weighty way, is portrayed by six sides of his personality, represented here by young Marcus Carl Franklin, Ben Wishaw, Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, Cate Blanchett, and finally, in repose, Richard Gere.

Haynes and his co-writer Oren Moverman’s screenplay jumps through time hoops with the seeming abandon of wild animals in a circus act, but as at the circus, any thought of it being a natural act is a false one. It is well rehearsed and considered to create the feeling of spontaneity and even randomness. Each of the Dylans – none actually named Bob or Dylan – is simply a manifestation of one man’s complex personality. And remarkably, as the circus passes you by on screen, you are still free to make your own decisions about who this man was (and I use was because the film really does end with the end of the period in which Dylan wrote his most famous songs).

Dylan was, apparently, a quiet collaborator here… at the very least, allowing his songs, his vocals, and his personal life to be used for the project. You may recall the Scorsese doc on Dylan, which assiduously avoided discussion about his wife and mother of his children and even the songs that many have ascribed to being reflections of that relationship. Haynes clearly had no such restrictions here, as he not only uses Dylan’s first/major marriage (albeit rather loose on details), but the alleged relationship with the pseudonymonous Edie Sedgwick (a subject which caused great rage by Dylan against the film Factory Girl last year), and even his near-decade as a born-again Christian.

In fact, one could easily say that this film puts all the blame on Dylan’s plate and almost mocks the born again period by dispatching it so quickly, while all the while making Dylan’s shoulders seem so big that they could easily carry any weight. At times I felt like Haynes was falling into hero worship, but by the end of the film, I think that even my feelings were just a reflection of some pretty direct propositions. Basically, watching a guy who thinks he is King Shit can be infuriating, not because the filmmaker is necessarily agreeing, but because that guy is simply infuriating. Rage is, on some level, proof of the filmmaker’s honesty.

The six performances are all quite good. The standout is Blanchett, who also has the challenge of two breasts and no scrotum, though there is a purpose to “Dylan’s” faminization in that period of his life as well.

I’m Not There is a classic example of a film with a singular conceit that the filmmaker deserves accolades for and which at the same time needs the audience to – perhaps in multiple viewings – get past the conceit to see what the filmmaker is really after. I would argue that understanding the time jumping conceit makes plain why the excellent-but-overrated Pulp Fiction is so overrated (the time leaps are less significant than sold and mostly keep the film from a weak ending that was a story flaw from the start). Here the metaphor of the different sides of the man, which evolved over time, but each of which also made “appearances” at time when other “Dylans” were the primary, is much, much more than a gimmick.

I also think this movie is a classic example of one where the first viewing is really just a toe in the water. If ever there was a movie made for the DVD era, this is it. (I wouldn’t bother to try to watch any longer clip than four minutes on an iPod… even the larger screen version due this Christmas.) Haynes & Moverman find a richness in this 10 year sliver of Dylan’s life – again, a conventional biopic choice to narrow the breadth of the story that is not really consciously on the surface of the film, which never feels like any conventional bio-pic – that is further set throbbing by Haynes’ choices as a director.

(Note: I am making a point of mentioning Haynes’ co-screenwriter in no small part because of how disturbed I have become at the movement to make all films connected in any way to Judd Apatow into “Apatow’s films,” which is a horrible throwaway of the work of a lot of very talented people – directors and screenwriters included – and an overstatement of Apatow’s current muscle, based on commerciality as much as anything else. Those of us who cover this stuff for a living should be the first ones to hold ourselves in check about stuff like this, as opposed to leading the charge for a premature mythologizing of any talented person, which Apatow obviously is.).

Unlike something like Eyes Wide Shut, I don’t think this puzzle is a Puzzle Movie, designed to be uncoded by exacting eyes and minds. Haynes always brings layers to his work. But the film is so densely packed – even if it is 20 minutes overlong for ticketbuyers who distinctly put their energy on low flame in the theater at about 1:40 and rejoined the film in full around the 2 hour mark – that you can’t really read it in one sitting. You can, as Greil Marcus commented while presenting Haynes before the film, take away moments that you feel are definitive. (Personally, I did not. For me, it was the collage that drew me in.) But that is mostly, I think, because you need to make your choices on first viewing about what you want from that viewing. And I am pretty sure that the next time and the time after that and probably a few times after that, you will be finding new flavors in a soup that is a pleasure to each every time it is served.

-David Poland