I’m Still Here

Movie Information

The Story: A purported documentary about Joaquin Phoenix and his descent into an identity crisis -- or not. The Lowdown: The film answers nothing, suggests much and is often just unpleasant. Occasionally funny, frequently boring and poorly made, still it's hard not to be grimly fascinated that this film could even exist.
Score:

Genre: Quasi-Pseudo Documentary
Director: Casey Affleck
Starring: Joaquin Phoenix, Antony Langdon, Sean Combs, Casey Affleck, Tim Affleck
Rated: NR

This isn’t so much a movie review as it is a consideration of a pop-culture—or even a sociological—phenomenon. I’m giving I’m Still Here three-and-a-half stars on that basis, so bear that in mind. Joaquin Phoenix may still be here, but the film barely is—at least if you’re expecting it to answer the central question: Is this real or a put-on? The film neatly dodges providing an actual answer, which has resulted in even more speculation on the topic of whether Phoenix is a head case who has dropped out of acting to become the most superbly untalented hip-hop artist of all time, or if this is some elaborately immersive piece of performance art. Just look at the reviews—which are split right down the middle—and you’ll see that some people are convinced it’s real and others are equally convinced it’s sheer banana oil.

There’s a kind of genius to the whole affair, which is a good thing, because there’s no trace of genius about the film itself. As a movie, I’m Still Here is coarse, amateurish, badly lit, even more badly recorded and in serious need of a thorough editing. There is at least 20 minutes too much of it for its own good. (The critic I watched it with weighed in that it was easily 30 minutes too long.) I was occasionally amused, fairly often appalled, more often bored and ended up pretty firmly in the “it’s a hoax” camp. That said, this evasive, misshapen lump of a movie is one I’ve enjoyed thinking about. In that regard, it reminds me of one of Yoko Ono’s experimental movies—far more interesting to think about than actually watch. But Yoko’s movies were generally better made and had enough sense not to drag on for 107 minutes. However, the level of self-absorption was about equal.

Several questions emerge. First of all, I’m not at all sure that the public at large is really all that interested in this. They already know that Phoenix dropped out and proceeded to make himself look like the love child of one of the Smith Brothers and a member of Z.Z. Top while pursuing a recording career. Yes, he was a movie star—and since he’s in nearly every shot of I’m Still Here, he still is—but he was never a huge star. When he walked away from it all in 2008, it was after making the indie production Two Lovers. It wasn’t as if every camera in Hollywood was going to stop turning in light of this momentous event. Yet, the media kept interest simmering, which seems to be what the media does these days. Whether that can really make I’m Still Here a hit—even as documentaries go—is another matter.

Then there’s the question of the image—real, imaginary or both—this movie conveys of Joaquin Phoenix. It’s not a pretty one. The guy comes off as totally delusional, overprivileged, spoiled, largely incoherent and completely unlikable. I suppose that’s brave, but do you want to spend time with a guy like that? Are we supposed to feel sorry for him? If so, the film failed for me, because I wanted to slap him across the face with a large flounder well before the midway point. And yet, I’m still thinking about the damned thing, so something about it works.

The real question is whether you buy into the persona. I’m having trouble believing the reality of any of it. The film itself seems to be offering hints that what we’re seeing is bogus. Some things just come across as too calculated and convenient. The “parting shot” (if it can be called that) of Phoenix’s much-abused personal assistant (Antony Langdon) is shocking—until you think about it, and then it looks like pure codswallop. It requires director Casey Affleck being in on it, or it requires Affleck having just left the camera lying around, and it requires Affleck being right there to record the aftermath. Every aspect of that seems unlikely. It’s hard to believe that Sean Combs and Ben Stiller aren’t playing along. And why is Affleck’s father, Tim, appearing as Phoenix’s father? Is that the tip-off?

So am I recommending this movie? Yes, but only if you’re interested in the whole topic as a notable peculiarity of our age. In that regard, it’s certainly worth seeing, but don’t come out complaining that I said I’m Still Here is a good movie. I didn’t. I said it was a good phenomenon—and that’s true regardless of what finally shakes out of all this nonsense. Not rated, but contains nudity, near constant language, sexuality, drug use and a couple bodily functions.

SHARE
About Ken Hanke
Head film critic for Mountain Xpress since December 2000. Author of books "Ken Russell's Films," "Charlie Chan at the Movies," "A Critical Guide to Horror Film Series," "Tim Burton: An Unauthorized Biography of the Filmmaker."

10 thoughts on “I’m Still Here

  1. The Smith Brothers reference (one of surprisingly few advertising logo icons who have steadfastly remained updated in anyway) made me laugh audibly.

    I’m not sure whether the movie itself would do same.

  2. Ken Hanke

    The Smith Brothers reference (one of surprisingly few advertising logo icons who have steadfastly remained updated in anyway) made me laugh audibly.

    I actually wondered whether or not the reference would even be comprehensible to most people these days.

    I’m not sure whether the movie itself would do same

    Hard call. I chuckled occasionally, but that was about it. Others seem to find it hysterically funny.

  3. Ken Hanke

    I assume you’re talking about the piece that hit today in the New York Times. The reportage is very odd, since Ebert gave it three stars out of four — hardly a scathing review, which is how the Times article refers to it. But now…well, Ebert bought it as real and wrote, “All of this is true. At least we must assume it is. If this film turns out to still be part of an elaborate hoax, I’m going to be seriously pissed.” So I reckon Ebert is good and pissed now.

    I suspect Affleck has just killed the film in its tracks, too.

  4. Ken Hanke

    Who are the Smith Brothers?

    If you Google Smith Brothers Cough Drops, you’ll not only see who they were, you can find the image of them that festoons the box to this day.

  5. TokyoTaos

    I noticed that too: that Ebert actually gave the film a relatively high rating but the Times article made it sound like he panned it. I also don’t quite understand why Affleck spilled the beans so soon. It seems like the only thing the movie had going for it was the is-it-or-isn’t-it-a-hoax question. Now that people know there’s really no reason to see it – not that I had any interest in doing so but now it’s even less than the less it was …

  6. Ken Hanke

    I also don’t quite understand why Affleck spilled the beans so soon.

    That baffles me, too. I’ll be curious to see how the movie does this weekend.

  7. DrSerizawa

    Affleck has admitted the film is a fiction. Well, colour me shocked.

    So, Casey and Joachim are sort of a low rent Andy Kaufmann/Bob Zmuda remake act then?

    I’d maintain that anyone who would spend a couple of years pretending to the world to be descending into mental illness for the purpose of a large practical joke (that no one cares about) is really mentally ill after all.

  8. Ken Hanke

    I’d maintain that anyone who would spend a couple of years pretending to the world to be descending into mental illness for the purpose of a large practical joke (that no one cares about) is really mentally ill after all.

    I wouldn’t argue that.

Leave a Reply

To leave a reply you may Login with your Mountain Xpress account, connect socially or enter your name and e-mail. Your e-mail address will not be published. All fields are required.