As a regular quiz entrant put it, "the movie where a young Ben Kenobi makes sweet love to Batman." Yes, it's Velvet Goldmine, Todd Haynes' ode to glam rock that is (in my opinion) light years better than the dour I'm Not There.
Forgive the brevity this week. I'm writing this at JFK, just moments before boarding my flight to Berlin.
This week: Moo! Name the film. Submit your answers to this address. Good luck!


light years better than the dour I'm Not There.
Damn straight. So to speak.
Posted by: Keith Uhlich | 2009.02.04 at 09:44 AM
I've never been a Haynes fan for reasons I still can't quite put my finger on. But I do agree that "Velvet Goldmine" is light years beyond "I'm Not There" which I actually couldn't get more than half-way through before I fell asleep.
I didn't mind all the different actors playing the same part-- I actually thought it worked much better here than it did in Solondz's "Palindromes"-- but there was something about "Not There" that really stuck in my craw. Maybe it was the irritating little tic of "disguising" Dylan by giving him psuedonyms. Maybe it was the fact that so many of the actors (Blanchett included) didn't seem to be giving performances or creating characters so much as they were simply doing impersonations of Dylan that weren't much better than John C. Reilly's in the Dylan-esque section of "Walk Hard". And maybe it was that the film made about as much sense as your average Dylan lyrics. I dunno.
I did like Julianne Moore as Joan Baez, though.
Posted by: Tom Russell | 2009.02.04 at 11:24 AM
It's strange that only now do I find others that didn't care for I'm Not There. Everyone I know loved it when it came out... and yes Velvet Goldmine is much better, particularly considering that the Bale segment of I'm Not There pretty much WAS Goldmine, minus the glitter. Safe will probably always be my favorite Haynes film.
Posted by: Joe Bowman | 2009.02.05 at 11:57 PM
i'm gonna have to go with Far From Heaven.
Posted by: mike | 2009.02.06 at 05:54 AM