I'm not there

We are who we are - or pretend to be - but does anyone ever care to take notice?

Apparently the filmmaker was trying to tell the many sides of Bob Dillon when he used different actors to portray different portions of his life - even though some of the actors/portions seemed to crisscross at weird moments. I know Dillon changed up his music styles from time to time as a way of musical growth and that his fans did re-act to this change since they were unprepared for it. Thematically, it was an interesting way to show how people recognize someone as a different person since their physical appearance is different from actor to actor - even though Bob was still Bob inside and throughout the course of the film.

The beginning of the film is as confusing as the beginning of Bob's life. The film starts out with different actors saying different things in Bob's unique dialect, but each have different names. To the viewer, one can only think, 'WTF?'. And right from the start you are lost - except for the fact that the film later has a BBC reporter expose him as who he really is so the world knows who this true rebel is.

As for the arc of the film... well, it ends on the classic, Hollywood upswing - it's just fucking ridiculous. In one scene, he is with his wife and kids and in the next scene we see a later version of himself all happy - except that this happened after his divorce and losing custody of his kids. This film would have improved itself tenfold had it just stuck to a better timeline. You can edit a movie, but you can't edit life.