"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...

..

"Hanna"

Hanna - Directed by Joe Wright, written by Seth Lochhead and David Farr, starring Saoirse Ronan, Eric Bana, Cate Blanchett, and Tom Hollander - Rated PG-13

"Kids grow up." I loved the action, the score, the themes, and the glorious long takes of this film.

Quick, you need to get a director for an action movie set to a techno-score by The Chemical Brothers. Who do you pick? How about the director of Pride & Prejudice and Atonement? At first glance, Joe Wright seems like a terrible director for a film like Hanna, but just one scene from Atonement makes it apparent that Wright is perfect for a film like this. The scene in question is the long take on a boardwalk that is one of the more impressive shots from recent film memory. That kind of style is what the action genre needs and, thankfully, Wright employs it in Hanna.

More on the long takes later, let’s hit the basics first. Hanna is a flat out cool film about 16-year-old Hanna (Saoirse Ronan, Atonement, The Lovely Bones), a girl who has been raised in complete seclusion her entire life by her ex-CIA agent father Erik (Eric Bana). They spend their days hunting and training for some unspoken future mission. The film begins when Hanna decides she is ready for the mission and the outside world. There’s more to it than that, but this film is part mystery so the less you know the better off you are.

The constant training in extreme conditions means that both Hanna and Erik are very lethal. So Hanna features more than a few action scenes. The action genre of late has been all about rapid-fire editing that leaves the viewer more disoriented than wowed. And sure, Hanna has some moments like that, but, more importantly, there are a few of those glorious long takes. The longer takes are impressive from a filmmaking perspective, of course, but they work for two more reasons as well. First, they are very seamless and don’t feel like tricks. They are not show-off scenes, either. Secondly, if a fight takes place in one continuous take, then you can’t do that quick-cut hyper-editing that turns into a blur of flailing limbs coupled with punch sound effects. Instead, when Eric Bana throws a punch, you can tell who he hits.

Music is capable of elevating a film and the techno-score from The Chemical Brothers adds quite a bit to Hanna. The action and the style of the film alone would probably work, but the score really brings it all together. It just seems right to hear cool techno beats during a long take in which Eric Bana takes on multiple CIA agents.

The fairy tale motif is the final key to the surprisingly weird Hanna. Hanna reads from “Grimm’s Fairy Tales” and a decent chunk of the film takes place in a Grimm-inspired theme park. This isn’t some idle connection. Hanna is very much like one of the children from the tales (she simply claims that she is from “the forest” at times); the main difference being that she is a bit more capable of defending herself. Then there’s Cate Blanchett’s character. Not to ruin anything, but the close ups of her teeth are not pointless. The reference to a certain Grimm villain is all but confirmed at the theme park. The fairy tale elements really elevate the film and make it the type of film that will benefit from repeat viewings. They also make the film resonate a bit more on an emotional level.

The emotional appeal is helped along quite a bit by the performances of all involved. Saoirse Ronan has quickly become one of the finest young actors in Hollywood and this performance confirms it. She is believable as both a wide-eyed fish out of water and as a trained killing machine. Bana is solid as her father, providing the emotional core of the film. Strangely enough, the emotionless shells of characters also help out because they are such foils to Hanna and Erik. Blanchett is great as usual as the film’s villain. And Tom Hollander gives an unnerving performance as an odd, sadistic hit man.

Hanna is not without its flaws, however. Hanna’s fish out of water moments provide some much needed laughs in the film, but there are one or two too many scenes in which she is awed by the new world around her. The film felt about ten minutes too long because of those scenes. Some people may be put off by the general style of the film as well as at times it can be overbearing. There are very loud moments with some hyper-editing and camera movement. Although, some (e.g., me) would say the overbearing moments make the film more of an experience at times rather than just entertainment.

Hanna is too weird to be for everyone and just weird enough to be kind of great. This isn’t a traditional action movie due to its score, fairy tale theme, and eccentric characters, but the action itself is very traditional because you can tell what’s happening most of the time. Action fans should give this film a chance. (And don’t worry about that PG-13 rating, violence junkies, I would have bet that this film was Rated R if I hadn’t checked the rating before seeing it.) If you’ve seen a preview and are on the fence with this one, go ahead and jump over because Hanna might just surprise you.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

I am officially paying attention to Joe Wright now. Not that his earlier films are really bad or anything (hell, I haven't even seen The Soloist, and don't plan to), their subject matter just wasn't for me. But I imagine I'll watch his next movie no matter what.

Blanchett is definitely supposed to be the Big, Bad Wolf. The close up of the teeth ("My what big teeth you have.") She kills Hanna's grandmother. And she walks out of a giant wolf's head at the theme park near the end.

“Kids grow up.” I obviously loved this line, mainly for Bana's delivery. I hated that he died in the film, but it was necessary for Hanna to truly move on. By the way, Bana gets an awesome, slow motion fight sequence before his death. The slow motion was there as if to say, "We are making sure you can follow this action scene."

How weird was Hollander's character? Not saying that because his character is gay, it was just his overall appearance, the whistling, that whacked out club he was in, and his dead stare. His character really stuck out in an already weird film. Good on you, Hollander!

"The Curious Case of Benjamin Button"

*I'm going to try and keep this plan of writing a midweek DVD review, but I may lapse from time to time. Also, if you haven't already, hit up that poll on the left!


The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - Directed by David Fincher, starring Brad Pitt, Cate Blanchett, Taraji P. Henson, and Jared Harris - Rated PG-13

I reviewed this a while back when I was still writing my reviews through a Facebook application, so I figured I should give this one a full review here.

When I first saw this I thought it would be a lock for best picture. Then the Slumdog Millionaire craze took hold and everybody seemed to forget about this movie. Instead of calling it magical or whatever, they were saying how it had no heart and was an unofficial sequel/remake of Forrest Gump. I can see the Gump comparisons, but that didn't bother me because I like Gump and it's the same writer, and let's face it, everything's a copy of everything if you look deep enough. What I cannot understand is the claim that this film lacks emotion, or heart. That blows my mind. One more response to a complaint: one critic (well, it was from a slightly popular movie site, but it's still a critique) commented that if the whole backwards aging thing was taken out of the story, then there wouldn't be much there. Seriously? Okay, let's apply that to every film out there. Take the idea of the Force from Star Wars and it's kind of boring. Take the powers away from (insert comic book character here) and it's really a basic story. The point of the film is the struggle of life if you age backwards, so of course the movie would be empty without that aspect! I just had to rant a bit there because it angered me that this movie turned into the film to pick apart once Slumdog fever took hold.

Anyway, this film, if you didn't already know, is about Benjamin Button, a man who ages backwards. He doesn't just age throughout the movie, though. Benjamin has a life and it's interesting and a bit depressing. Left at an nursing home by his father, Benjamin grows up around death and is told he is likely to die soon, himself. The whole idea of death looming at all times finally gets Benjamin going. If he might die soon, better to die while actually experiencing life. So he strikes off on a Forrest Gump-like journey in which he tries to figure out where he fits into it all. Of course he has a love interest or two along the way, the main one involving Daisy (Blanchett), which show how timing can be everything in a lifetime.

Now on to the acting. Many critics have said that the aging effects outshine Brad Pitt's performance in this. I disagree completely. In fact, after my first viewing, I was impressed with how Pitt was able to transcend the CG-work and actually give a performance. The CG is great, but look at Pitt's eyes in the early scenes. I have always felt that great acting is done through the eyes (a little glance or twitch here and there goes a long way in my book). Pitt adds humanity to the role through his eyes and his voice is heartbreaking at times. Blanchett does a fine job herself, though I had trouble understanding her lines in her old age segments. Jared Harris adds a lot of fun to the film as the drunken sea captain (yes, I know, Gump, Gump, Gump) and Jason Flemyng makes the father character a bit more interesting than he may have been in a lesser actor's hands. And, of course, Taraji P. Henson anchors the first half of the movie as Benjamin's adoptive mother.

The CG effects and the acting are impressive throughout this film, but the style David Fincher creates is what makes this film great. There is a storybook quality to this movie that's hard to completely explain. The story itself, the use of colors, the blurring effects, the narration, the quirky side characters (like the guy who was struck by lightning seven times), and just the way the story is told in general all create an effect that you don't get out of movies very often. And while this movie may run a bit long, it's that storybook quality that makes it all worth it.

I need to say more on David Fincher himself. This is the same guy who made Se7en, Fight Club, and Zodiac; hardly storybook-type films to say the least. But they are stylish films and this movie is further evidence that Fincher is one of the best directors working today. If he keeps this up, it won't be long until he has an Oscar or two.

So be sure to check out this film and don't get hung up on the Forrest Gump comparisons and certainly don't watch it wondering if it would be any good if the aging gimmick was removed (in fact, don't look at any movie's main feature and imagine what it would be like without it). Just let yourself fall into the story as I did and you'll find yourself wondering how anyone could think Slumdog Millionaire is a better film.





Next: Star Trek