Masked and Anonymous

First it must be understood that this "movie" is not intended to be a "movie." M&A is cinematic metaphor intended to illustrate that the pointlessness of human existence is actually just a display of God's irreverent, if cruel, sense of humor. Approached from the perspective that humanity exists solely to amuse a shallow and thoughtless Creator M&A is truly revelatory. The inanity is indeed profound in its meaningfulness.

Think of Sartre collaborating with Sherwood Schwartz to write a script melding classic era Chaplin with Shakespeare's mid-period sonnets acted by a cast of vaudevillians under the influence of absinthe freed from the dictatorial demands of direction. Such is the mystery of inspiration and inspiration is the mystery of fate-- is it not?

Conceited, you say? Perhaps, but a brilliant conceit on a par with the classics of the post-war Armenian Reconciliators. One might quibble with the decision to shoot this film in color when, arguably, it verily screams for monochromatic splendor-- but would that not be our own conceit?

Stars and rating are far too banal a concept for evaluating a work of erudite obliviousness and lucid opaqueness. One must free his soul from his intellect and his intellect from his heart and his heart from his being and his being from his essence to truly appreciate the truest forms of artistic expression. I can but pity those of you incapable of such transcendence.

What do Bad Boys II, The Hulk, Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle and Masked and Anonymous have in common? They were all released in the summer of 2003. Unlike the first three mentioned, 'Masked and Anonymous' is certainly not an action blockbuster or popcorn flick. It's not the kind of movie that you can sit in the sun all day and then show up for and check your brain at the door. (It does have a limited release, so maybe it will be fall/winter by the time it reaches your town.)

I recently saw this at a deserted mall in Los Angeles with a couple of friends, one proclaiming it the worst movie he'd ever seen. (Usually I'd debate them on the car ride back, but I was too busy absorbing what I had just seen.)

It's been about a week since I saw the flick and I'm still forming an opinion, which counts for something. The biggest thing I'm trying to figure out is if the whole movie is just a big joke perpetuated by Bob Dylan and Larry Charles. Considering Charles' work on "Seinfeld" (The Limo, The Opera, etc.) I have a good feeling it is. But it's a good joke, playing to all sides. Detractors can knock the movie because of lack of plot, while Dylan fans can search to find a deeper meaning. It seems Charles and Dylan are sitting back laughing at both of them. (Just as net geeks can chuckle at Dylan's crack at acting.)

In terms of history, 'Masked and Anonymous' won't make any critics best lists or AFI specials, the film is simply not that great. However, the ideas put forth by it, are certainly worthwhile. No matter how you want to slice it, there are certain parallels between the world of Masked and Anonymous and our current world situation. Does Dylan have the answers to this, no, he clearly states he doesn't. He's just a song-and-dance man after all. No sense getting worked up over questions that cannot be answers, but it's fun trying to, right? (That paradox is the crux of the film.)

In closing, yes the movie borders on pretentious and yes it lacks a solid narrative. But considering that 99 percent of movies are pretty cookie cutter and have as much substance as a marshmallow, 'Masked and Anonymous' should be praised for taking a risk and actually questioning the audience. (Not in the sense that Bruce Willis was actually a ghost the whole time.)

On a final side note, it is disturbing to see Walter and the Dude at each other's throats.

Yes, the dialogue was unrealistic and heavy-handed. Yes, the conversations were often one-sided. Yes, it was preachy at times. And yes, there is something caught in Bob Dylan's throat. I feel fortunate not to have read any of the reviews of this film before I saw it, because otherwise my experience may have been tainted. I lost myself in this movie. In it's poetry. It's power. The music, alone! I found it moving, compelling, and beautiful. I'm not saying everyone is wrong who gave it a bad review. In fact, a lot of the points they made are very valid. I just think that the points they made make a stronger case for why the movie is good, not why it is bad. It's not a blockbuster, it's not an action flick, it's not a chick-flick or a romantic-comedy. It's not really like anything. The only movie I know of to compare it to, other than maybe an Ingmar Bergman film, is "Big Bad Love", with Arliss Howard. Now THERE is a slow, sparse, pretentious and indulgent film. But it works. It's poetry. It's not reality, and neither is "Masked & Anonymous". In fact, the filmmakers go a long way to make sure you know it isn't reality--or at least any particular reality. It's an allegory. It's a metaphor. Just look at the scene where Jessica Lange hears the news report on the radio saying that scientists dug the deepest hole in the world and heard the wailing of thousands of lost souls. If you think that's not supposed to be poetry right there, then you have got the wrong notion about the film as a whole. I encourage you to take another look at it from another perspective and see if your opinion changes. If it doesn't, there's nothing wrong with that, but at least you will have given it a chance.

What could go wrong with a movie that features Bob Dylan playing some fun tunes, leading actors John Goodman, Jessica Lange, Luke Wilson, Jeff Bridges and Penelope Cruz, and bit parts by Christian Slater, Ed Harris, Angela Basset, Mickey Rourke and Val Kilmer? Well, let's start with a script penned by Bob Dylan that is easily as ineffable as, say, Subterranean Homesick Blues. If you know why the man in the coonskin cap wants eleven dollar bills (and you only got ten) then maybe you understood this movie. The rest of us struggled with mundane dialogue, disjointed vignettes, thinly veiled allusions to Dylan's life, some sort of statement on revolution, and perhaps an admission by Dylan himself that even he doesn't have a clue as to what most of his songs mean. Maybe if I saw this film another 2-3 times I would unravel the deeper meaning, peel back the layers of symbolism, and better grasp the metaphors that give deeper significance to the movie. On the other hand, it's been 35 years and I still don't know why I should hang around an ink well or watch the parking meters.

I wish I could say that I enjoyed this movie. But the fact is, I rarely laughed, certainly didn't cry, and I didn't really care about any of the characters. I could barely follow the plot line. And I didn't understand most of what was lurking under the surface. None of the actors appeared to have clue as to what was going on either. But then, maybe that's what Dylan meant all along . Maybe, but you shouldn't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

A puzzling, very dark, far-fetched and totally abstract political satire that is revealed through the film's dialogue and the contents in the 7 songs of Dylan's Jack Fate. Fate (supposedly to be a pun?), a faded (looks kind of jaded in his looks,too!) cult-singer gets out of prison to play at a benefit concert for the victims of wars. Fate performs with a band, called Twist of Fate. The film offers an ‘Armageddon' view of an artist's loss of creative freedom to a consumer-consumed corrupted and politically-correct society. Will Fate forgo his freedom of artistic expressions to satisfy the commercial ideals of the corporate world. The themes of government corruption, female deceit, and the need for a messiah are also constantly evoked. It's Fate's concept of a world of madness and perfidy, and the corruption of society. There doesn't seem to be any plot in this film, but it sure feels like it does have loads of messages to pass on! The location (with ‘science-fiction' landscapes of a crumbling society) may be "Somewhere in America" - a notice, at the beginning, seems to suggest so. There are unexplainable groups, rioting or carrying out terrorist acts or even military operations. There are canvas images of a dictator-like "President" (a reminder of Saddam Hussein?) scattered in between scenes. Is the location totalitarian? The film does imply that the location has nothing positive to offer – bringing to mind the Orwellian Dystopia! The viewer does get to see this location turn into a police state.

The relationship between all characters, except for that between Fate and Luke Wilson's Bobby Cupid, seem cold and ugly. Art vs. commerce is metaphorically represented by the roles of John Goodman and Jessica Lange. There are several references to contemporary news. Giovanni Ribisi plays a confused man eager to join the insurgents, and discovers their funding is by the government they are hoping to topple. Perhaps, a John Walker Lindh? Jeff Bridges plays an aggressive journalist. "I'm on your side," he tells Jack. Jack responds with: "That depends on your point of view." Take heed of the wisdom of Ed Harris' blackfaced ‘Al Jolson' minstrel-show character – to avoid Fate's fate! The film's finale occurs as a result of a ‘Pretender' presiding over the location. That strikes me as the most powerful ending I've seen this year!

It's a complex film that cries for opinionated answers – even harder to analyze than Jean-Luc Godard's ‘60s movie or Fellini's La Dolce Vita – or even Mulholland Drive! One would see it as a brilliant attempt, or hate it without any ‘buts'!

I actually hated the movie at the end of it, but given time, discussion and re-thinking, I've found this film excitingly interesting and clever!