![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alexsarllThere are plenty of films with two actors playing the same character - usually an older or a younger version of the star. But I can't think of many with four plus actors in the same part. This week, I saw two, and in both cases one of the actors sharing was Heath Ledger.
I was interested in I'm Not There even before I eventually fell for Bob Dylan as a performer rather than just a songwriter. Because biopics bore me so easily - always the same few variations on the old arc - and because this was Todd Haynes, who already did the oblique approach so well with Bowie and Iggy and the rest in Velvet Goldmine. And the two films share more than a little: the transfer of power between different avatars of Dylan reminds me of the green jewel in the earlier film; there's a journalist out to unveil origins, though here it's not the backbone of the plot; above all, there's the question of whether music can change the world, and what happens to the musician if it can't. But the big difference is that Haynes clearly never felt betrayed by Dylan like he did by Bowie. He loves all his Dylans equally - even if, like most people, I was left a little cold by the Richard Gere outlaw Dylan. The others, though...I loved having Batman and the Joker both play the same part (see, Alan? 'The Killing Joke' did have some external resonance after all), then sharing it with the Virgin Queen. And did they know when they cast this, or Bright Star, that Ben Whishaw would be playing both Dylan and Keats, that old lit-crit cliche given (rather handsome) life. So much truer than the standard biopic, and probably not even that much less factual. Though I say that as someone who knows very little about Dylan's life - just enough to wince when he buys a motorcycle.
I'm Not There was planned that way. The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus was not, but you'd never guess it. I have no idea what was changed in the script, but one can almost suspect that Terry Gilliam, so used to being shafted by whatever cosmic entity it is that likes messing with him, was filming in such an order that he could work around the loss of Ledger. Which would normally mean that instead Christopher Plummer would have died, or maybe Tom Waits, or the lad from Red Riding would have been eaten by foxes or something, but just this once the stupid obstacle in Gilliam's way was one that he could work around. There aren't half some queasy moments, scenes with Ledger's character that gain a whole new resonance - but always in such a way that it strengthens the film. It's enough to make one believe the film's theory - that the Devil may like getting in the storyteller's way, but he doesn't really want to destroy him, because what would the Devil do with himself then? And I love that it's a film about the importance of stories but, instead of getting hung up on that theory and making big speeches about it, it gets carried away with its own ever-expanding story - thus proving the theory precisely by forgetting about it.
Plus, it has Tom Waits piloting an exploding mechababoushka, among its many other flights of fancy. And such flights of fancy they are! I can't remember the last film I saw which was so visually rich, whether in its worlds of the imagination, or in its London. And it does have to take place in London, doesn't it? The grandest, most fabled city in the world - but also one with grabbing thugs spilling out of crappy pubs, and Homebases insisting you spend spend spend, and its perpetual building sites.
Ashes to Ashes fans should be aware that Shaz gets a small role, but the real revelation is Lily Cole. I knew she was pretty, but I'd never seen her move, or speak, and so I'd never realised she was beautiful, let alone that she could act. Which given that face, and that she's just gone up to Cambridge, seems terribly unfair, but then like the film is so intent on reminding us, the world is full of wonders.
I also saw Crank this week. There's not so much to say about that one; like Shoot 'Em Up it's the action movie distilled to its purest form and injected into your eyeball with a syringe made of guns - smarter than it lets on, while also being the best sort of big dumb fun. During its ITV transmission, there was also an ad for the ITV4 debut of Joss Whedon's Dollhouse - two hours earlier. Well done, ITV. Said trailer didn't do anything useful like inform me of a repeat, but I tracked one down and...well, when I first heard about Dollhouse I thought, hang on, isn't that basically Joe 90 - The Sexy Years? The first episode didn't convince me otherwise but, because it's Whedon, I'm persevering. Even though I realised a while back that if Buffy started now, I don't think I'd make it through the first season.
I was interested in I'm Not There even before I eventually fell for Bob Dylan as a performer rather than just a songwriter. Because biopics bore me so easily - always the same few variations on the old arc - and because this was Todd Haynes, who already did the oblique approach so well with Bowie and Iggy and the rest in Velvet Goldmine. And the two films share more than a little: the transfer of power between different avatars of Dylan reminds me of the green jewel in the earlier film; there's a journalist out to unveil origins, though here it's not the backbone of the plot; above all, there's the question of whether music can change the world, and what happens to the musician if it can't. But the big difference is that Haynes clearly never felt betrayed by Dylan like he did by Bowie. He loves all his Dylans equally - even if, like most people, I was left a little cold by the Richard Gere outlaw Dylan. The others, though...I loved having Batman and the Joker both play the same part (see, Alan? 'The Killing Joke' did have some external resonance after all), then sharing it with the Virgin Queen. And did they know when they cast this, or Bright Star, that Ben Whishaw would be playing both Dylan and Keats, that old lit-crit cliche given (rather handsome) life. So much truer than the standard biopic, and probably not even that much less factual. Though I say that as someone who knows very little about Dylan's life - just enough to wince when he buys a motorcycle.
I'm Not There was planned that way. The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus was not, but you'd never guess it. I have no idea what was changed in the script, but one can almost suspect that Terry Gilliam, so used to being shafted by whatever cosmic entity it is that likes messing with him, was filming in such an order that he could work around the loss of Ledger. Which would normally mean that instead Christopher Plummer would have died, or maybe Tom Waits, or the lad from Red Riding would have been eaten by foxes or something, but just this once the stupid obstacle in Gilliam's way was one that he could work around. There aren't half some queasy moments, scenes with Ledger's character that gain a whole new resonance - but always in such a way that it strengthens the film. It's enough to make one believe the film's theory - that the Devil may like getting in the storyteller's way, but he doesn't really want to destroy him, because what would the Devil do with himself then? And I love that it's a film about the importance of stories but, instead of getting hung up on that theory and making big speeches about it, it gets carried away with its own ever-expanding story - thus proving the theory precisely by forgetting about it.
Plus, it has Tom Waits piloting an exploding mechababoushka, among its many other flights of fancy. And such flights of fancy they are! I can't remember the last film I saw which was so visually rich, whether in its worlds of the imagination, or in its London. And it does have to take place in London, doesn't it? The grandest, most fabled city in the world - but also one with grabbing thugs spilling out of crappy pubs, and Homebases insisting you spend spend spend, and its perpetual building sites.
Ashes to Ashes fans should be aware that Shaz gets a small role, but the real revelation is Lily Cole. I knew she was pretty, but I'd never seen her move, or speak, and so I'd never realised she was beautiful, let alone that she could act. Which given that face, and that she's just gone up to Cambridge, seems terribly unfair, but then like the film is so intent on reminding us, the world is full of wonders.
I also saw Crank this week. There's not so much to say about that one; like Shoot 'Em Up it's the action movie distilled to its purest form and injected into your eyeball with a syringe made of guns - smarter than it lets on, while also being the best sort of big dumb fun. During its ITV transmission, there was also an ad for the ITV4 debut of Joss Whedon's Dollhouse - two hours earlier. Well done, ITV. Said trailer didn't do anything useful like inform me of a repeat, but I tracked one down and...well, when I first heard about Dollhouse I thought, hang on, isn't that basically Joe 90 - The Sexy Years? The first episode didn't convince me otherwise but, because it's Whedon, I'm persevering. Even though I realised a while back that if Buffy started now, I don't think I'd make it through the first season.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-10-29 10:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-29 10:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-30 01:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-30 01:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-30 02:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-30 02:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-30 02:55 pm (UTC)So it is available as three year course - with three sets of exams, so will LC get a First in Part IIA? - or you can transfer to or from it after one or two years.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-29 11:00 am (UTC)There's a lot in Dollhouse to make one feel queasy, but, seriously the bonus episode basically made up for everything. Also angry female cyclist in Spaced gets to be a madame.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-30 01:55 pm (UTC)The bonus episode is the season end future one, right? I'm giving it at least 'til then, even if the interim is basically an excuse to have a different generic TV drama each week with interludes of moralising.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-29 11:21 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-30 02:14 pm (UTC)Joe 90 - The Sexy Years
Date: 2009-10-29 11:22 am (UTC)Re: Joe 90 - The Sexy Years
Date: 2009-10-30 02:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-29 11:29 am (UTC)High hopes too often disappointed in Gilliam fillums; my favourite will ever be Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-30 02:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-30 02:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-30 03:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-29 09:40 pm (UTC)My favourite cinematic joke is the scenes between the Edie Sedgwick character, which consciously repeats the complete fiction of the Sienna Miller Factory Girl movie which conveniently ignored the fact that the folk singer she was in a relationship with was not Dylan but his sidekick Bobby Neuwirth. Because that is now as much of the story of Bob Dylan as anything that actually happened. *Head explodes with delight*
I always took the title to mean that the one person who is missing from a biography is the person it's about. But on a secondary level, we're not there either. And so all biographies are therefore fictions based on fantasies based on revisions based projections based on etc etc.
Like you I can't imagine how Imaginarium would've worked without the alternate-Heaths. It makes such sense. And does everyone else find their feelings about Colin Farrell have changed completely since In Bruges?
no subject
Date: 2009-10-30 02:31 pm (UTC)I am apparently the only person in the world who loved Alexander but yeah, Farrell hasn't half made some rubbish in his time. I'm hoping that the forthcoming At Swim-Two-Bird will help cement him in Good Farrell mode, at least for a while, and keep him away from the worst of the trash.
I consciously avoided getting too thoughtful about the title for fear of becoming one of the analytical types the Blanchett Dylan so delighted in baiting.