I’m Not There: Suppositions on a Film Concerning Dylan

14 Reasons To See Todd Haynes’ New Bob Dylan Bio-Pic, I’m Not There:

Because true artistic craft is too often missing from movies. In a year in which I was honestly giving up all hope on film as a meaningful form of art, this film has redeemed it with oblivious and beautiful abandon.

Because when just about every filmmaker right now (in this country anyway) is getting it wrong, Todd Haynes gets it right.

Because postmodern has become a topic of discussion at hipster coffee joints everywhere and now you’ll have another worthy example (besides The Big Lebowski) to cite if and when such a conversation should arise. Or just do what I do and avoid conversation with hipsters all together.

Because Dr H’ doesn’t love too many movies. Dr H’ has never seen a film in the theater twice in one week (Well, not on purpose. The exception being the first Kill Bill, but both times were free of charge and I believe there were extenuating circumstances, that I don’t need to discuss here, for both viewings) and been in awe both times to boot.

Because Cate Blanchett is the best actress in the world!

Because history is important. Churchill once said, “the farther you look back, the further you can see forward,” or something like that.

Because philosophically, culturally, and politically speaking a lot of the same issues Dylan wrote and spoke and sang about are still happening right now. Dylan said, “People today are still living off the table scraps of the sixties. They are still being passed around - the music and the ideas.” How much lasting effect has the ideals and the movements of the 60’s/Vietnam Era actually had? Or do we just pretend?

Because “without music, life would be a mistake.” That’s Nietzsche.

Because Bob Dylan’s music changed your life whether you like it or not, whether you listen to it or not, whether you care to admit it or not.

Because “music produces a kind of pleasure which human nature cannot do without.” Confucius said that. Todd Haynes proves he’s right. Although, I’m not sure Dylan would necessarily use the word “pleasure.” After all, it’s just a word. But I think you get the point.

Because of the questions that are raised about the relationships between art and change, between desire and effect, between care and action.

Because as human beings we should support when an artist does something honest, unique and important. Without supporting meaningful creation, we will consume more than we produce and eventually we will run out.

Because the philosophies and poetry of Dylan is beyond meaningful, whether he’d admit it or not. Dylan said, “I define nothing. Not beauty, not patriotism. I take each thing as it is, without prior rules about what it should be.” Good stuff.

Because maybe, “I’m not there…” But then again, are any of us? I don’t know. But I think this film will help each of us get a little closer. Wherever that may be…

Musings...

I have had many musings in my life and, as those who know me best might suggest, almost as many muses too.

Clarification through definition:

Muse v
1. to think about something in a deep and serious or dreamy and abstracted way
2. to say something in a thoughtful or questioning way (literary)
3. to gaze at somebody or something thoughtfully or abstractedly (literary)

Muse n
1. somebody who is a source of inspiration for an artist, especially a poet
2. the inspiration that supposedly visits, leaves, and suggests things to an artist, especially a poet
3. the particular gift or talent of an artist, especially a poet

Related:

Muse n
a state of deep thought (literary)

Muse n
in Greek mythology, one of the nine daughters of Zeus and Mnemosyne, goddess of memory. The Muses inspired and presided over the different creative arts.

I’m really very excited at the moment about this blog, the conversations that are being sparked into (sometimes fiery) existence and the ideas that percolate in my mind when I hear and read what other people have to say. I’m learning a lot about the issues in which I choose to discuss here and, perhaps more importantly, about the way my mind works and what I believe I believe. For example, for years I have ignored the fact that I am extremely sensitive to criticism. Not only have I ignored this fact; I have lied to myself about it. I convinced myself that sensitivity to criticism was one imperfection I did not have. But I do. But I think I can embrace that part of me as I can my greatest strengths, learn from it and become a better person because of it. Because it is something that I can easily improve upon as long as I recognize it and am brave enough to challenge it.

I believe that it is a great characteristic/ability to be able to formulate an opinion and support that opinion with great abandon (and sometimes stubborn resolve) and yet be open and able to reconstruct that opinion without feeling that you are weak or losing something because of it. This is my excuse for having one of my blogs call for a boycott of marriage until gay marriage is legal while another says that maybe we should leave gay marriage up to each unique state. In retrospect, these are probably both ridiculous notions, but I’m glad I suggested them and equally glad I can question them now.

But the truth is, I wonder if I don’t seek two opposing desires. One, to be steadfast in my opinions at all times and all costs. Two, to be completely open to new ideas and have the humility to admit when I am wrong. I guess I’m looking for an appropriate balance or at least the ability to apply that balance at the appropriate time.

Well, I’m not going to do either of those right now. Instead, I’m just going to say how great it is having an outlet for my ideas and my writing. I write because I need to write in order to understand. I think there may be a misconception about writers. People think that they write about what they already understand. But I think we write about what we know and that’s not the same thing. I could never sift through all of the crazy thoughts inside my head without a way to separate them. This may be specific to me, but somehow I think that real writers write because they have to. Maybe the ‘have to’ isn’t for understanding in all cases, but I think it is in most.

What’s more, it’s really great having people interested in what I write and sometimes comment on what they read as well. I ask for other peoples input because it helps to discuss an idea in order to know whether it’s really worth a shit. Perhaps this is do, in part, to a lack of confidence on my part, but the truth is that my confidence grows with each new thing I write and with each new discussion that unfolds. Because ideas may be born out of an individuals single mind, but they don’t truly become alive until they have a discussion (or some other appropriate outlet) in which to nest. And without the voices that feed that discussion, an idea will never grow to its greatest potential.

Thanks for being there on your side of the computer screen to read and to feed, to learn (I hope) and to teach me a thing or two while you’re at it. You are each, friends and strangers alike (and anyone in between), my most inspirational muse.

The Lasting Importance Of All The President's Men

The 1976 film, All The President’s Men looks at the events of Watergate by focusing on the investigatory work of two Washington Post journalists, Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward. The work of Woodward and Bernstein changed the course of American politics (and with it the course of American history) while inspiring a generation of investigative journalists. The film version of their story is based on their own book and uses Woodward and Bernstein as the main characters.



All The President’s Men is an important historical record that has easily survived the test of time. In fact, the film is more significant today than at the time in which it was made. In 1976 everyone knew everything there was to know about Watergate (or thought they did). It was the story of the decade and had been shoved down their throats by every media outlet in America for the last four years. Today, most people have forgotten Watergate, were born after it or are indifferent to its lasting significance. What’s more, the accountability of the government has become extremely questionable due in part because the legacy of Watergate has run out. All The President’s Men is a great reminder of this. And there are many frightening similarities between the politics of the Richard Nixon's administration and those of George W. Bush. The most obvious is the partisanship in which the government is currently run (in fact it’s even more partisan now than then) as well as the distrust much of the public feel for its Commander in Chief and his staff.

The difference today, as far as investigative journalism is concerned, is that the press used to be viewed as an important part of the social and political process. It was viewed as the little guy fighting for the rights and freedoms of the people. Now, it is seen as a corporate power, serving its own best interests, first and foremost. There is no regard for the little guy and therefore no respect for the press. Were Watergate to happen today, or a government scandal of equal proportion, I fear that the press would have no positive effect on its uncovering and might even contribute to the cover-up. Modern news and media corporations are concerned with offending as little of their audience as possible while the strength behind Woodward and Bernstein’s work at the Washington Post was that their bosses, editor Ray Bradley in particular, had more faith in them and the importance of their story, than they had fear of the repercussions, from either their readers or the powerful men in which they were trying to take down.

This is why All The President’s Men is such an important historical document. It survives as a reminder of the importance of the first amendment, the power of the press and what the press should be. It also remains an inspirational film for young journalists who want to actively, and at all costs, seek the truth and present that truth unhindered to the American people at whatever cost to government officials and the corporations that control them and the “free press.”

Tom Brady is Good at Football...

But why is that really important?

So, I’m excited. This is my first sports blog. I’m fascinated by sports. I’m fascinated that sports are so popular and so important in this world. Football is the most popular sport in the world: American Football being the most popular in the US and association football or soccer (or futbol but with an accent I don’t know how to do I think) being the most popular everywhere else. But I’m amazed that someone as educated, non-athletic and socially conscious (socially awkward?) as me can spend so much time thinking about sports and particularly about Football (the US variety) and more particularly about Tom Brady and the New England Patriots. Football is not even my favorite sport (that would be basketball) and I’m not even from New England (though I lived there some five years). And yet, I am absorbed in the possibility that they may go undefeated (something only one team has ever done and no team has done since the NFL switched to a 16 game regular season). I read about it constantly on line, watch every game and find myself rooting like a die-hard Boston native for the Pats to win.

Why is this? What part of me is so eager to see this happen? Is it my ego? That I might witness history and will therefore be a part of history? Perhaps. Boredom? Perhaps. Genuine love for the game? I don’t know about that.

And where does the initial obsession come from? From being told that sports are important from a very young age? From actually enjoying playing sports once upon a time? This would lead to vicariously living out every young boy’s (and some girls I’m sure) fantasy to be a professional baller, kicker, jumper, jammer, sticker, tosser, thrower, puncher, putter, pitcher, catcher, caller, hitter, helper, humper, stumper, bumper, hopper, chopper, bopper, topper, tassler, wrastler, blocker, shocker dropper, bell hopper, bomb dropper, puck stopper, belly floppin’ sports guy. But I only ever wanted to play basketball. And I was told I was “the wrong color.” They could have just said I was too short, skinny and slow but honesty has its place too, I guess.

So, what will happened when (I’m feeling optimistic) the Pats go undefeated and win the superbowl? One of two things as I see it. Absolutely nothing. Or…the world will cease to exist as we know it. Democracy will come to Iraq, AIDS will pack it up in Africa and move to Antarctica, the Taliban will become bra-burning feminists and Arnold Schwartznegger will learn how to pronounce California with only four syllables.

So…GO PATS!!! For the future of the world, humankind and linguists everywhere please God guide the Patriots to ten more victories.