My immediate response was Rosenbaum, for some reason. Without even thinking about it.

Hoping you'll post on this film soon. I saw it yesterday and can't stop thinking about it or about Velvet Goldmine, which two films are working one another over in my psyche for supremacy.

Interesting movie-going tidbit: I saw 'No Country for Old Men' on Saturday. Walking out, there was nothing but grumbling patrons. I heard the word awful and horrible uttered by a dozen people. I loved it, personally, and two friends with whom I've spoken to did as well, but they too noted that the crowd was generally unreceptive. Needless to say, I was a little surprised. 'No Country...' seems like an easy movie to like. To me, it doesn't seem to demand much compromise on the audience's part, provided they're in the mood for an existential thriller. (I'm not trying to lessen the Coens' artistry here--I think it's an awesome achievement, their best since 'Miller's Crossing,' if you ask me--but clearly 'No Country' is no, I dunno, 'Inland Empire' or 'Andrei Rublev,' two films that I think demand A LOT from their audience.) Anyway, let me get back to my point. 'No Country for Old Men'--Pittsburgh crowd hated it. Then I go and watch 'I'm Not There,' which is a film that I would consider challenging for an audience given its lack of a linear narrative, and it receives, to my joy and amazement, a standing ovation. It was entirely ass backwards of what I would have expected.

As obvious as e e cummings talent may be, he never capitalized and thought that rain had hands.

Anyway, I'm guessing my tenth grade English teacher wrote that review. Do I win?

By the way, are you and Jonathan Rosenbaum now officially entangled in some kind of blood feud or something? Am I going to start seeing pictures of the two of you threatening each other on the magazine covers in the checkout line? Tell me this is all in fun please.

Schuyler: I felt elated at the end of both movies, but I guess I can understand how people would felt "let down" that "NCFOM" didn't deliver the big, climactic showdown they may have expected.

Jonathan: I hope this is fun -- and "educational," as your tenth-grade English teacher might put it. As far as I'm concerned, this is absolutely not personal in the slightest. If we're going to avoid being reduced (often in error) to RottenTomatoes fresh fruits or rotten splats, critics ought to be more outspoken about how we see and interpret movies.

Jan Wahl

Also, I don't get it.

I'm glad to hear it's not personal as you and Rosenbaum are two of my favorites out there. I know that I (and I'm assuming most others) have written my fair share of poorly constructed sentences from time to time and I would hope that no one would devote an entire post to the subject. Also, it seems that you're calling out Rosenbaum a lot lately.

critics ought to be more outspoken about how we see and interpret movies.

I agree but we shouldn't get upset if others disagree with us. Are you saying Rosenbaum does not adequately express the "hows" and "whys" of his opinions?

Anyway, I'm probably misinterpreting this whole thing or reading too much into it.

I haven't yet seen I'm Not There, but saw No Country for Old Men over the weekend. We heard many dissatisfied viewers ("whaat?" and "that was stupid" were two immediate comments, prompting my wife to loudly proclaim "they're geniuses!"). This was Newark, DE.

I think the difference in the responses to the two movies may have to do with how they're being sold and where they're playing. We saw No Country at a multiplex, whereas I'm Not There will be playing at our local "arty" or indie theater (in Baltimore). I'm usually highly suspicious of ovations, standing or otherwise, of movies. They seem to happen in those theaters catering more toward the middlebrow serious moviegoing public--a public which I've tended to see as very likely to respond with enthusiasm to relatively accessible, yet not mainstream, critics' favorites.

Rosenbaaauummmm!!!!

The thing about "No Country" (which I love - second favorite movie of the year so far) is that it's so clasically involving and thrilling for its first two-thirds that it seems inevitable that many mainstream audiences are going to be let down by its (deliberate, devastating) anti-climaxes.

On the other hand, "I'm Not There" (my favorite of the year), for all its radical complexity and non-linearity, is a lot of fun. It's lively and alive, and I would imagine that an art theatre audience would be quite capable of just grooving on that feeling.

There seems to be a lot of point-missing surrounding I'm Not There. And the reason for that seems to be that Dylan's supposed "incoherence" is placed dead center at the heart of Haynes' film and made its theme. Haynes makes no apologies for Dylan's contradictions, instead embracing them and allowing them to exist simultaneously onscreen. Haynes understands, unlike the author of that quote, that Dylan is great not in spite of his "incoherence," but because of it. The film is a lot to take in, but it was undoubtedly one of the most exhilirating cinematic experiences I've had this year.

"Obvious as [Jonathan Rosenbaum's] talent may be, he often mixes metaphors and combines images in a way that skirts the edge of incoherence."

A bit of comment hijacking, but since we're discussing "No Country" and I just saw it...

I realize that the anti-climaxes are deliberate and relate to the film's theme of how death itself is anti-climactic and usually comes when we're not expecting it...but my beef is that in trying to convey how death is anticlimactic, that doesn't mean the film itself should be anticlimactic. Just like how you wouldn't want to convey boredom by making a boring film or convey incoherence by making an incoherent film.

And while I get what the Coens are trying to do, I think the film's energy and life just disappear for the final 30 minutes, which isn't good storytelling (to me, anyway). I also felt the final act kind of rendered Tommy Lee Jones' character as somehwhat pointless, just a guy who delivers a lot of speeches.

That being said, the first 90 minutes are absolutely terrific (Hitchcock would have been proud to have shot some of the suspense sequences) and the film's worth seeing for that alone, but I'm not as rapturous about the film as some.

I've never found Dylan incoherent. Artistic careers do not to have a single unifying thread to them. Many of the most exciting filmmakers the ones who keep experimenting and stretching themselves while remaining recognizable? Kubric and Spielburg never settled on one genre. Scorsese, though most known for his crime dramas, has shown range in Kundun, Last Temptation, New York New York, and No Direction Home. The Cohens have done Noir, Romantic Comedy, Crime Drama, and Stoner Comedies. Dylan, while remaining recognizable, never settled on style so we see him as a "mystery." I prefer to think of him as simply an artist.

Jonathan L.: I don't want to make generalizations about someone or his work, but if you look at my original post (and the follow-up comments) "No Country For Old Literalists," that's a pretty good description of what I say when I look at a couple particularly vague passages in his review:

As for Rosenbaum's confession -- "I can’t understand why it’s been accorded so much importance, unless it’s because it strokes some ideological impulse" -- I can only wonder what that ideological impulse might be, but it's clear Rosenbaum does not succumb to it. Do those who accord the film importance even know that their response is based on an ideological impulse?

Eric L.: That's one of the things I've found so amusing about this sentence. It doesn't even say Dylan is incoherent, only that he uses mixed metaphors and "skirts the edge of incoherence." Whatever that means. No consideration of how Dylan's approach to songwriting and performing (onstage and as a pop idol) relates to the movie, or how Dylan related to youth culture, pop culture, literary culture in the latter part of the 20th Century, either. Dylan can be viewed (even "understood") in many ways -- as can any artist whose work is worth examining -- but the one thing he openly resisted (as seen in "Don't Look Back," "No Direction Home," "I'm Not There") is the typecasting of him and his work -- whether somebody "likes" them or not. Slapping on the ol' "incoherence" label (sorry, make that near incoherence -- apparently it's not quite incoherent, just close to it) is the laziest and most reactionary approach to non-traditional art. All it says is: "This is not what I am used to." That may be the beginning of a discussion or an exploration, but it requires some follow-up...

Matt, Ed, Fritz, et al.: I had more fun at "I'm Not There" than just about anything all year. I was similarly elated by "NCFOM," but I wouldn't say it was "fun." The anti-climactic nature of it may work for you or it may not, but that's where it's been going from frame one. Some see it as a cop-out. I see it as remaining absolutely true to the movie's vision. Its principles, if you will...

Sorry if I came across like I'd gotten my nuts all in a bunch (ouch), I just wanted to understand it better - Thanks.

BTW, I immediately thought of e.e. cummings, too!

It seemed to me that critiquing Dylan for mixing metaphors was a bit like critiquing Jackson Pollack for not painting proper figures. If you're not going to mix up the language in poetry, song or even doggerel you might as well be standing at a podium giving a speech.

"I've never found Dylan incoherent."
My Webster's shows these among the definitions for incoherent: Def #1. without logical connection; disjointed; rambling. Dylan? Guilty (sometimes). Def #4. without unity or harmony of elements or parts. Dylan? Not guilty.

Listen to someone else sing his songs and incoherence drips from every phrase. Listen to him sing it and you know he means something really, really important and if you haven't figured it out after the 50th listen...well, don't stop now. Of course enigmatic Dylan is only one of many. There's also "Blood on the Tracks" Dylan which is as coherent as anyone can ever be. Not all this could be captured on film but "I'm Not There" does it as well as possible, probably. I particularly liked the last 10 minutes and the simple but succinct summing up that his songs are "yesterday, today, and tomorrow all rolled up into one", or words to that effect. Did he say that himself?

Oh, and as far as "mixed metaphors" go: What is he (Dylan) a journalist? If he didn't mix metaphors that would be the only thing he didn't mix when he took his potatoes down to be mashed.

Jonathan L: No worries. It's just that, because I've cited ad hominem swipes (at Clint Eastwood, Ingmar Bergman, Robert Altman, and the Coens) in JR's prose over the last year or two, I want to make it extra-clear that this is specifically about the writing, not some imagined idea of the person behind the byline.

"Read it twice. It's even funnier the third time. The key is in the unarticulated relationship between the two parts of the sentence. Is one of them supposed to be a dependent clause?"

Sorry, I just don't see it. It seems like a perfectly fine sentence to me. What are you getting at?

Raymond: I hope you're joking, but I'll take the bait. See my and others' previous comments. I like Jonathan Lapper's about e.e. cummings a lot.

The sentence is a classic case of critical evasiveness. What relationship is the writer trying to draw between Dylan's "obvious" talent and his use of mixed metaphors, or his almost-nearly incoherence? To say Dylan uses mixed metaphors is (as JL observes) like saying cummings used improper capitalization, grammar, and punctuation. Sometimes to the point of skirting the edge of being coherent. Or incoherent. Take your pick. What does this say about his talent, and what is "obvious" about it? Listen to "Subterranean Homesick Blues" (it's famous!). What does it tell you about talent and mixed metaphors and almost-incoherence?

Anyway, these are just a few of the muddled notions rattling around in this nearly incoherent (or nearly meaningless) sentence. Or is that a mixed metaphor?

He's saying that everyone knows what a great artist Dylan is but he has a muddled style that comes close to not making any sense. What do you know, both of these things are true.

I don't understand your complaint. You seem to be saying that a critical statement is only as meaningful as how soundly it is constructed. But if his observation comes across, then what's the problem? He's not evading anything; he made himself understood. It's not math.

What about the rest of Rosenbaum's review? He admits that he isn't really a huge Dylan fan in the first paragraph (which is where the "offending" sentence comes from), and proceeds to engage with Haynes’ film in a thoughtful manner. Plus, he basically likes the film and admits his own personal limits in the last sentence. I know it’s funny to use a single sentence to paint Rosenbaum as clueless, but I think his writing in this case is pretty solid.

I don't read Mr. Rosenbaum's reviews, but the problem you pointed out is exactly my impression of most movie reviews in The New Yorker. I really dislike reading them, because of the forced academic cleverness is so out of place for movie reviews. I want to tell them to go show off their wordplay to college English lit students or follow professors who do this for a living.

I agree with Jeff and Raymond. The most you can say about that sentence, in isolation, is that you disagree with its implication (which is that Dylan's near-"incoherence" is a flaw, or not part of his genius). The proposition itself is expressed perfectly plainly.

There is certainly nothing inherently funny or mockable or contradictory or "incoherent" in the sentence itself. I've read it several times, and I don't feel like laughing.

I thought the joke was that "skirting the edge of incoherence" is a mixed metaphor and "combined image" itself. Just not one that displays obvious talent.

Is it a mixed metaphor? At first I thought the same thing, but saying that anything is "skirting the edge" of something else is a pretty common phrase, and I don't see how the word "incoherence" makes it a mixed metaphor.

I didn't find the sentence funny, but kind of lazy...and not unlike the stuff I occasionally dash off.

On a good day, I can usually catch these kind of statements and either come up with something more precise or discard them entirely. These are the moments I catch myself engaging in the Capote-esque act of not writing, but typing.

Basically, all he's really saying is Dylan is a major talent, but his work is not always conducive to clear, linear interpretation. The problem with a sentence like that is, once you put it into clear prose, you realize how uninteresting and cliched the thought behind it is. Everyone who's spent two seconds thinking about Dylan knows this.

bill, YR, et al.: I don't think it's a mixed metaphor. I think it's a non sequitur. Dylan's talent may well be "obvious" (though the writer does not say how that talent manifests itself), but what is the nature of his talent's relationship to mixed metaphors? I'd think Dylan's consistent use of mixed metaphors (or, at least, "serial metaphors," if that's what you'd call his kaleidoscopic use of imagery) would be equally obvious. You may not like it, but Dylan's non-traditional use of metaphor is at the heart of his method and his style. Which is why I like Jonathan Lapper's response so much:

"As obvious as e e cummings talent may be, he never capitalized and thought that rain had hands."

As for "skirting the edge of incoherence," I'd say that's just weasely critical language. (That's a metaphor, I think.) Is that like skirting the edge of pregnancy? If something is skirting the edge of incoherence, does that mean it's still on the "coherent" side of the edge?

Truth is, Dylan has long written in riddles ("I'm Not There" visits a town called Riddle, populated with characters and images from Dylan songs) and stream-of-conscious imagery. He's said he doesn't know what it means -- that's for other people to decide for themselves. I'm not sure the term "coherent" is even relevant to an analysis or a discussion of Dylan's work. Maybe I'm just being cranky and nit-picky, but I think it would be more accurate to say he "flirts" with incoherence (i.e., that one of his styles is to intentionally bombard the listener with wild metaphorical images) than to imply that he's almost incoherent despite his "talent." (Likewise, you can criticize him for not being a technically accomplished singer, but that seems utterly beside the point to me.)

You're right that "skirting the edge of incoherence" makes Dylan's lyrics sound pretty coherent. Still, aren't you sort of criticizing Rosenbaum for not writing an article about what he thinks about Dylan's lyrics, as opposed to what he was actually supposed to write, which is a review of "I'm Not There"?

Okay, everybody above whose position is that Dylan is never incoherent, parse this couplet:
"Crimson flames tied through my ears
Rollin' high and mighty traps"

Of course a prolific artist who is deliberately playing with language is occasionally going to skirt the edge of incoherence, and even occasionally plunge over it. It's no crime for him to do so, and it's no blasphemy for someone else to observe the fact.

I guess my theorizing that Anton Chigurh as main character doesn't stand now that Miramax is touting him for Best Supporting Actor.

Too bad.

It's no crime for him to do so, and it's no blasphemy for someone else to observe the fact.

That's exactly it, Terry. "Observing the fact" may be stating the obvious, but it's part of what Dylan does. It's the implication that he does what he does despite his "obvious talent" ("As obvious as his talent may be...") that strikes me as so superficial and vague. Might it not be the very expression of his talent?

If Dylan is incoherent at times (and who would say otherwise, when even he says he often doesn't know what his words mean?), what does that have to do with his talent? If all songs (or poetry, or film) could be fully explicated, then why do they need to be songs or poetry or films in the first place? There are levels of coherence and incoherence that are beyond literal or rational analysis, and we respond to those as well (See post above and Herzog's claims for "ecstatic truth.") I'm working on a post about "I'm Not There" and some of these questions.