Showing posts with label Ben Whishaw. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ben Whishaw. Show all posts

Thursday, January 16, 2020

"I'm Not There" and "Factory Girl" - The Not Really Bob Dylan Double Feature

*Um...SPOILERS for Bob Dylan's career, I guess.


Bob Dylan, the man or the myth, has interested me from time to time in my life, but I’ve been most interested by how he has been portrayed on film, specifically in I’m Not There and Factory Girl. I’ve always liked his music (though I’m hardly a superfan or anything), but the myth of Bob Dylan has fascinated me much more. Maybe “myth” isn’t the right word (especially since typing “the myth of Bob Dylan” is so pretentious that it makes me want to punch myself in the dick every time I type it). The “character” of Bob Dylan is more apt. I don’t think I really care about the “real” Robert Zimmerman. (I like the six-hour version of the seemingly factual No Direction Home, but I actually prefer seeing the dramatized version of most of those events in I’m Not There.) I’d rather see how Christian Bale, Cate Blanchett, Ben Whishaw, and even Hayden Christensen create him. Hell, even watching the actual Bob Dylan is misleading. Watching Scorsese and Dylan’s Rolling Thunder Revue inspired me to revisit these two films because it turns out that a lot of that documentary is fake. That movie is an example of why It’s always been kind of pointless trying to “figure out” Bob Dylan. For one thing, why should we? Instead, I’ve embraced the characters he has created over the years.

These Two Bob Dylan Movies Do Not Feature a Character Named Bob Dylan.

Rolling Thunder Revue stuck out to me because of the fictional nature of it, but it made me realize that I prefer completely fictional Bob Dylan to semi-fictional Dylan. This first led me to Factory Girl

Factory Girl is not a Bob Dylan film. For one thing, he threatened to sue the filmmakers to keep the film from being released (supposedly because he thought the film made it seem like he was the reason Edie Sedgwick’s life spiraled out of control leading to her eventual death), so any mention of his name is changed and the character Hayden Christensen portrays is only credited as “The Musician.” And there were some reports that Christensen had to ADR his lines later on to tone down how much of a Dylan impression he was doing. But it’s still very clear that he’s supposed to be Bob Dylan. 

Aside from all that behind-the-scenes stuff, Factory Girl is about Edie Sedgwick, Andy Warhol’s “It” girl who was rumored to have had a short, but passionate affair with Bob Dylan. The movie is definitely more focused on Sedgwick and Warhol, as it should be, but Bob Dylan definitely left an impression on Sedgwick, and may have been what started the eventual rift with Warhol. 

Factory Girl is generally considered to be a terrible movie, but I like it (the director’s cut, at least, I’ve never seen the theatrical version). Liking this film at all is a minority opinion, so claiming to enjoy Hayden Christensen’s performance probably sounds like insanity to most people. But he’s good in this, I swear. Maybe he did have to tone down the Dylan impression through ADR, but there’s still remnants of it there. He sounds just enough like Dylan at times to remind you who he’s supposed to be, but because it is toned down, it never comes across as parody. 

It’s what Christensen’s character represents that most appealed to me, though. The world of Andy Warhol, as shown in Factory Girl at least, is superficial. He seems to be using Edie for her money, and everyone at the Factory seems to be more interested in appearing unique and interesting rather than actually being either of those things. So when Christensen’s Musician shows up to call out their bullshit, it’s a voice of reason the movie desperately needed. 


Christensen has very little screen time in the film, but he still makes a lasting impression. My favorite moment is after his awkward visit to the Factory for one of Warhol’s “screen tests” (Dylan really did this). When he goes to leave he tells Edie “You should fucking hate him!” And he delivers the line with true passion. You believe that he is sickened by the whole situation. 

Whether you like Christensen’s performance or not doesn’t matter. His version of Dylan is what’s important. And this character of Dylan is one of my favorites. It’s Dylan at his coolest, showing up, not giving a fuck, and not buying into the bullshit of the Factory. Did it really happen this way? Probably not. But something happened with him and Sedgwick (there are theories that “Like a Rolling Stone” and other songs are about Edie, and listening to the lyrics after watching Factory Girl definitely makes that seem true [and Scorsese seems to agree since he shows footage of Warhol's screen test and pictures of Dylan at the Factory while the song plays in No Direction Home]). Like most things with Dylan, though, we’ll never know the truth, which is how he likes it.

Truth is something the other “not really” Bob Dylan movie is not concerned with at all. I’m Not There is the anti-biopic. It’s a film meant to show all the different characters of Dylan throughout his career. There are elements of Dylan’s actual history (going electric, giving vague interviews with the press), but it’s more about identifying the spirit of character, and it’s a better movie because of it.

Dylan says in the film that he’s just a storyteller or a singer, and I’m sure he’s said that in interviews, too. The man is clearly not interested in providing information to anyone. And I agree with him. It’s why I find him interesting to this day. These characters he has created over the years are the reason why people still find him so fascinating. There was a time when Dylan’s reluctance to give straight answers was annoying to me, but I’ve reached a point now that I find it all kind of funny. He was being meta and messing with the press and fans before it was even a thing.

I, and anyone else who’s ever written or created anything concerning Bob Dylan, am probably giving him too much credit. He is just a person. But it’s undeniable that he is also a character. I don’t think he has ever appeared in public without first putting on some kind of a mask. That doesn’t mean that he isn’t sincere with his music or interviews or whatever. It just means that it’s all a performance for him. And I find him to be a bit of a genius (and I hate using that word, especially regarding a celebrity) because he created this mystery around himself that led people to try and “figure” him out while he was saying there’s nothing to figure out. This is regarding the press more than anything (a segment of the film featuring Bruce Greenwood as a reporter is devoted to this, although with the added point that Dylan perhaps should have been more willing to be more than “just a storyteller” at certain points in his career). 

For the fans, the characters of Bob Dylan have always been enough. I don’t care what his childhood was like or anything like that. I’m a fan of a few versions of Dylan, which is why I have slightly conflicted feelings about I’m Not There. The segments with Marcus Carl Franklin and Richard Gere are my least favorite (by the time the film reaches most of the Gere stuff I’m kind of tired of it, which kind of describes my capacity as a Dylan fan, too, I suppose). But it has nothing to do with their performances. Franklin, in particular, is great in this movie. But I don’t care for the Dylan who sang other people’s songs. And I don’t like the Dylan that went into hiding. I like the Bob Dylan that was bold and original. 

I like seeing the angry Bob Dylan as portrayed by Christian Bale. The Dylan who was sick of everyone’s hit. I want to see Bob Dylan who got tired of celebrity and his first wife as portrayed by Heath Ledger. I want to see the aloof Bob Dylan who liked to fuck with the press as portrayed by Cate Blanchett. I want to see the cryptic Bob Dylan spouting random words of wisdom as portrayed by Ben Whishaw. 


I only like certain parts of Dylan’s career, so I only like certain parts of I’m Not There. I can’t fault the film, though, because it has to have these segments to cover every aspect of Dylan’s career. That doesn’t mean I have to enjoy them, though. 

Dylan’s career is interesting to me for nostalgic reasons, as well. But it’s that weird nostalgia I get from movies like Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood and Inherent Vice, that is, nostalgia for a time period I didn’t experience. As for Dylan, it’s not a particular era of his career I enjoy, it’s the fact that he was so important that something as simple as changing his sound to electric caused an uproar. We have famous musicians and whatnot today that sometimes make waves, but our culture is so varied now because of the internet that there are no seismic moments like this anymore (What’s the closest thing we have? When Kanye became a preacher?). I wish we still had a common ground that large as a culture instead of these fractured communities consuming countless forms of every form of entertainment. Yes, we have more great options than ever before, but the sense of a communal experience is largely gone save for small pockets here and there.  

I’m Not There captures these seismic cultural moments in Dylan’s career in the form of a collection of characters and moments instead of a narrative film. So, much like the varied career Bob Dylan has had, I drift in and out of finding it interesting while always respecting the overall work. And that’s the best way I can describe my feelings about Bob Dylan, the man or the myth.

Why Do I Own This?

I’m not going to lie, Factory Girl is a pretty damn random purchase for me. I just bought this because I wanted to see Christensen’s performance again, and I couldn’t find it on any streaming platform. As for I’m Not There, I just really enjoy the performances in the film. And I need both of these movies for when my interest in Dylan flares up so I can re-watch them.




Random Thoughts 

Factory Girl

Guy Pearce does a great job, almost stealing the movie from Miller.

Pearce's portrayal of Warhol is my favorite, but I really like Crispin Glover as him in The Doors, but that was more of a cameo. I think there was a real missed opportunity back then to make a Warhol movie starring Glover.

Man, I'm with Dylan as far as the Factory goes, or at least how it's portrayed here. Everyone just comes across as so fake. Edie's constant forced laughter during the early scenes is unbearable, which I think is the point. She's trying to convince herself that this life is important, but deep down she knows it isn't, and it definitely isn't going to last.

At times, Christensen's performance comes off as a bit of a parody, but a lot of his performance is more grounded, and better for it.

Of course the Musician is a "Have you read the book?" kind of guy.

Of course the Musician is a "I'll prove I don't give a fuck about possessions by driving my motorcycle into a lake" kind of guy. 

I’m Not There

I could watch a whole movie of Christian Bale as angry Bob Dylan. "You can boo, but booin's got nothing to do with it!"

I could watch a whole movie of Cate Blanchett fucking around with reporters at a press conference as aloof Bob Dylan. 

I could watch a whole movie of the movie within a movie of Heath Ledger as the movie version of the Christian Bale movie version of Bob Dylan. I don't think it can get much more meta than that.

I could watch a whole movie of Ben Whishaw quoting Bob Dylan while he stares hauntingly directly at the camera.

This movie reminds me of the grace scene in Talladega Nights (you know, the “I like to picture Jesus as a mischievous badger” scene), but I’m thinking of what Dylan I prefer instead of which Jesus I pray to. 
“I like to picture Bob Dylan as Christian Bale, and he’s really tired of everyone’s shit!” 
“I like to picture Bob Dylan as a little black child singing folk classics!” 
“I like to picture Bob Dylan as Richard Gere in the least interesting segment of the film!” You get it...

..

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Meet the new Bond, (almost the) same as the old Bond

Skyfall - Directed by Sam Mended, written by Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, and John Logan, starring Daniel Craig, Judi Dench, Ben Whishaw, Albert Finney, Ralph Fiennes, and Javier Bardem - Rated PG-13


This just makes sense: a Chigurh for a film in which Javier Bardem plays the villain.
 
 
 
 
Casino Royale marked the introduction of Daniel Craig as the new James Bond and set up his tenure as dark and brutal, which was quite a departure from a series that at one point went into outer space.  I loved the film, though some were not fans of the tonal shift and the lack of traditional Bond elements like Q and his gadgets.  Then Quantum of Solace came out and ruined everything (for me, at least).  It was utterly forgettable, had indecipherable action, and was implausible, but not in a fun way.  After that film, MGM (the Bond studio) went bankrupt and it put Bond on an indefinite hiatus.  Apparently all that time off allowed them to come back and get things right…again.

 
In many aspects, Skyfall serves as a segue into a new Bond, even though the actor is the same.  Q and the gadgets are back along with a lot of familiar music.  (There are also a lot of changes and additions that would be considered spoilers.)  There are plenty references to Bond being an older man and how the old ways need to give way to the new.  It basically felt like the filmmakers were saying, “You know that brooding, hulking Bond?  Well, we’ve toned him down a bit.  Meet the new Bond, (almost the) same as the old Bond.”  That is just fine with me.  I dig the more hardcore James Bond that Craig created, but I also love some gadgets.

 
Skyfall stands apart from other Bond films in that it is a very personal story for both Bond and MI6.  Bond is presumed dead at the end of the opening mission and is forced to resurrect himself as a spy.  MI6 is attacked and is forced to revaluate their function in a modern world.  Bond gets to do battle with a bitter old MI6 agent (Javier Bardem), and M (Judi Dench) gets to do battle with bureaucrats like Gareth Mallory (Ralph Fiennes).  The stakes are exponentially higher than they were in Quantum, when Bond was trying to save the utility department of Colombia or something.

 
If the stakes are high, then the action will prosper.  Skyfall has a few gigantic action set pieces and they are all well shot and impressive.  Any action fan should be pleased, but you should not expect nonstop action.  In fact, there is about an hour lull between action sequences.  Normally, that would be a flaw in pacing, but the film does not suffer from it because all of the inner workings of MI6 are actually quite interesting.

 
Rarely do you get downtime in a sequel.  This is Daniel Craig’s third outing as Bond, so there is really no need for him to hang out in the office.  In the previous films, he never seemed to be in England.  Finally, he’s been corralled in a bit and the audience has a chance to breathe between location changes, a welcome change to the usual breakneck speed of sequels and action films.  The interactions between Bond and M help make this time bearable, as Skyfall brings to fruition their love/hate relationship.  Fiennes is there to mix things up, and Ben Whishaw, as Q, makes every scene he’s in a bit more interesting. 

 
A good Bond film is usually defined by its villain, though, not by the protagonists.  Javier Bardem was brought in to give Craig his first true villain.  I am a big fan of Mads Mikkelson (Casino Royale), but he was not very imposing as far as villains go.  He had an inhaler! (The villain in Quantum doesn’t even deserve mentioning; I only bring it up to let you know I did not forget about the boring Mathieu Amalric.)  Bardem ratchets it up as a weird, tittering, angry psychopath.  He’s basically like the Joker from The Dark Knight, except he’s more than happy to let you know why he’s so messed up.  Some have already cried foul about the similarities, but I’m cool with it.  He’s entertaining, and that’s all that matters.  In fact, my only complaint is that we don’t get to see him until over an hour into the film.  I suppose that adds power to the reveal, but more Bardem is always good.  He chewed up the scenery and it was exactly what the film needed. 

 
Bardem may have chewed on the scenery, but the scenery itself made the film absolutely beautiful.  This is easily the most impressively cinematic Bond film.  Director Sam Mendes and Director of Photography Roger Deakins present one amazing visual after another.  The locales, like Shanghai, are naturally exotic and beautiful, but they add to it using a vast array of colors and it is shot in a way so that it can be appreciated.  I also liked how a lot of the film is shot behind Bond, so we get to enter most of these locations right along with him.

 
Skyfall was a long time coming, and it was certainly worth the wait.  Those let down with the last effort, as I was, will be pleased.  Those who are upset with the direction the series had taken in general might not be completely happy, but they definitely have less to complain about with this one.  I consider Casino Royale to be one of the best Bond films ever made, and now Skyfall is part of that discussion.  Let’s just hope they don’t need to restart it again anytime soon.      

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

I have to admit that I loved seeing James Bond get all Home Alone when they all started booby-trapping the old house.  Bonus points go to M for her awesome lightbulb shotgun rounds.

I thought this was a very good send off for Judi Dench.  I must admit that it felt kind of weird that she remained as M, even though Bond changed.  (I know it's happened like this before, but this is first time I witnessed the change as the films were released.)  Looking forward to seeing Craig report to Fiennes for at least two more films.

It's good to finally have a Moneypenny and a Q. 

How cool would it have been if Pierce Brosnan had been Bardem's character.  A former agent cast aside, back with a vendetta against M.  That would have been amazing.  It would also acknowledge that James Bond is simply a code name just as M is.  Still, I was happy with Bardem's performance.