‘A Complete Unknown’ Tells the Big Dylan Lie
Even a genius has to learn how to play music
Bob Dylan has spent his six-decade career lying about, well, everything, so any interpreter of the man needs to navigate tangled mythologies and perhaps make up new ones. The lie James Mangold chooses to tell in ‘A Complete Unknown’ focuses on an alternately petulant and charming artist who relentlessly pushes away benefactors, friends and lovers he sees trying to put him in a box and along the way reinvents popular music.
Led by a remarkable impersonation of his Bobness by Timothee Chalamet, ‘Unknown’ gives a sexy spin on Dylan’s legendary 1961-65 journey from a fresh-faced Midwestern kid arriving in New York City to cultural icon. The familiar story is entertaining and well-paced enough, and Chalamet and the rest of the cast acquit themselves more than adequately on the musical numbers.
A COMPLETE UNKNOWN ★★★ (3/5 stars)
Directed by: James Mangold
Written by: James Mangold, Jay Cocks, Elijah Wald
Starring: Timothée Chalamet, Edward Norton, Elle Fanning, Monica Barbaro
Running time: 144 mins
But ultimately the biopic does its subject and its audience a disservice by distorting important—and documented—facts about Dylan’s life story for the sake of setting up a dramatic showdown between Bob and the folk establishment he chafed against.
I’m not talking about the movie’s climactic portrayal of the 1965 Newport Folk Festival performance where Bob “went electric.” While some — by no means all — did boo him, scenes of rowdy fans throwing things and one calling him ‘Judas’ are a discredited myth and a conflation with something that happened a year later across the ocean at the Free Trade Hall in Manchester, respectively. But these are small things, the sort of justifiable liberties a director will take to amp up the drama.
The much larger, and less justifiable, transgression lies in how Mangold chooses to depict Dylan’s rise. It’s true, as the film shows, that Bob went to visit his ailing hero Woody Guthrie shortly after arriving in New York City. While details of that visit are a matter of conjecture, we do know that Bob was not, as the film shows, immediately taken under the wing of Woody’s disciple Pete Seeger (Edward Norton in a performance that arguably outshines Chalamet’s). We also know that the original song Bob performs in the scene, appropriately enough ‘Song to Woody,’ was not composed until months later.
Dylan was not, as Mangold would have you believe, fully formed when he arrived in New York. He had self confidence and ambition to burn, but, as Ian Bell emphasizes in the first book of the two-volume ‘The Lives of Bob Dylan,’ “no one believed in him.” He was by all accounts a rough work in progress when he started playing in Village folk clubs and coffee houses. But he kept at it and, critically, he kept learning (and stealing) from everyone around him. Within a few months he got a gig as a support act for blues legend John Lee Hooker. In late September he drew a rave review from The New York Times. Come November he was recording his debut, which would tank upon its release the following March.
That story would have been a rich one to tell, and could have been a vehicle for showing the development of a great artist. Dylan’s actual life contained more than enough drama for any movie. But because Mangold wants to dial up the conflict between Dylan and people who want to control and define him, we get a bunch of imagined scenes featuring Seeger.
As for why this is a bad choice (and is not merely the whinging of a disgruntled, humorless Dylan fan who arguably would have found reason for complaint in any biopic “inspired by the true story” of Dylan), imagine a Michael Jordan or Larry Bird biopic that asks you to believe they never practiced and instead just picked up a ball and dominated the court. You can’t. That’s what Mangold is doing here, which is unfortunate as this will be the only version of Dylan’s life many people will ever see.
The Dylan internet ran rife with speculation about ‘Unknown’ from the second they announced it. Based on the trailer, many expressed concern that it would succumb to biopic cliches a la ‘Walk Hard.’ And while Mangold keeps the storytelling reasonably fresh, those cliches do surface; Bob struggling through the lyrics of “It’s All Right Ma (I’m Only Bleeding),” for instance.
As the betrayed girlfriend Sylvie, Elle Fanning has little to do for a good half of the movie but mist up whenever she sees Bob (Fanning’s character is based on Suze Rotolo; they changed her name at Bob’s request, possibly because he didn’t want her memory associated with his woefully written role). A camera pan to Joan Baez (Monica Barbaro) as Bob plays “It’s All Over Now, Baby Blue” is absolutely brutal. But the biggest sins in ‘Unknown’ are ones of omission that shortchange the story of one of our great artists.
You May Also Like
-
-
November 7, 2024 -
November 1, 2022
Jim, you’re brilliant!
Who would want to see a film about Bob Dylan honing his guitar skills, stealing lyrics from other folkies, and getting laid? Having read the book A Complete Unknown is based on, I thought Mangold presented a compelling enough story. And let’s face it, the music is the star of the film and in Mangold’s telling, the impetus for everything Bob did. Dylan himself wouldn’t care if the facts were linear. He’s been spinning his life story since the beginning.
I little rough on that movie..I think a 10 episode TV version for Netflix would have been better to make you and me more happy. But we got what we got..I thought they caught the essents of the era very well.
Spot on, if you ask me. This is a fair and balanced look at the movie. The condensation of squeezing five years into two-and-a-half hours, makes notable events happen out of their true sequence. The movie is true to the book it is based on which emphasizes the Dylan vs Seeger angle. That said, as an obsessed Dylan fan since 1971, I really liked the movie; the acting was fantastic. I want to see it again soon.
Thanks for reading!
So did I. The acting is terrific — as good as Chalamet is, Ed Norton’s Seeger is a performance for the ages-(he literally becomes Pete Seeger) and Elle Fanning as the first girlfriend is a breakout role. And yes, the events in the movie are not exactly accurate; Per Dylan Goes Electric, he didn’t perform “The Times they are a’changing” as the finale at Newport in 64 — but the scene in the movie authentically captures the excitement and awe folks felt about him at that point, and Fanning’s expressions watching it- the scale falling from her eyes as she realizes she is dating a genius–is priceless. (I even have my own tiny nitpick: In the opening scene, Dylan is listening to a NY Giants game with “YA Tittle as quarterback as usual.” Per the book, Dylan arrives in NY in January 61– the NFL season was already over and Tittle didnt get traded to the Giants until August of 61.)
But that said, the film captures the feel and sound of an era and the artist who definitively shaped it. Bravo– five stars. I havent enjoyed a rock movie this much since The Last Waltz– and that was quite a few years ago.
Thaks for reading.
The writer is anxious to show off his geniusness. Bob Dylan had no say in the final transcript although he did sit and read it before production.
This movie is not about Bob Dylan as much as it is about how Dylan brought rock to the mainstream. Even Elvis was doing ballads. He got to NYC when Bobby Vinton and Frankie Valli and the Shirelles topped the charts.
This was not an autobiography. Bob Dylan had no final say and has no credits in the film.
This is a fine film that captures the times as they were a changing.
“film that captures the times as they were a changing” is geniusness, man, happy new year!
What’s the Dylan Internet?
The ‘10,000 hour rule’, as written by author Malcolm Gladwell, posits that it will take long hours of study, practice and performance before even a natural genius will master his art or craft. Lennon and McCartney began playing together as teenagers; Dylan was playing piano and guitar in bands in high school. It would have been nice to acknowledge Dylan’s 10,000 hours.
That’s what I’m talking about.
it’s dec 29, 1150a pst los angeles – haven’t seen ‘complete unknown’ yet. wonder if bob has.
true loves know truth.
going to robby kreiger show jan 4.
robby’s band ‘soul savages’
they’re up for a grammy in feb.
positive vibes
✌️😎
bd
Holy smokes, Mr. Arndorfer, it’s a movie, not a documentary.
This is true.
that’s just like, your opinion, man
This aggression will not stand.
as a rock ‘n’ roll fan I cannot tolerate any biopic. This article only mentions one other book as an alternative narrative. The truth is there’s probably a dozen or two dozen books with other narratives about Bob. I don’t know how anyone can tolerate sitting through this for more than two hours. His biographies all highlight that he and his teenage friends made a game out of putting people on and out of torturing each other verbally. The truth is probably pretty simple about his history. He’s playing on people’s desire to believe any story they hear. Americans love eating up bullshit.
This isn’t really correct. Many people in NYC at the time have said that Bob displayed remarkable charisma from quite early on. Woody is reported by those presewnt to have said ‘that boy can sing’ when first hearing Dylan in 1961. Odetta famously took him aside and told him that he had a God given gift and must treat it seriously. Still developing his craft when fiirst arriving in NYC?, yes, but no one believing he had talent?, no, not born out by many accounts. You need to read some of the primary source material a bit closer.
This review really makes a point about a missed opportunity that is hard to deny. I want to see the movie Arndorfer describes. But given this movie’s success and the proliferation of Elvis movies over a long time, maybe this won’t be the final attempt at understanding Dylan by moviemakers.
Here’s hoping! Thanks for reading.
It’s a movie for Chrissake! And well done at that. I did not come away from watching this thinking Dylan was fully formed when he arrived in NY. His performances (in the film) seemed , if anything, risky /honest. Joan Baez’s character ( accurate or not ) didn’t have any issue dealing with it.
And if this is the only version of Dylan’s life many will see, that is not the fault of the cast or film maker.
It is a movie, true. Thanks for reading.
Most biopics weave historical facts with fictional elements for dramatic effect. My former husband was a musician in Greenwich Village who frequently played with Seeger and Dylan, and was a close friend of Woody’s. It seems like you’ve got a big Dylan chip on your shoulders.
I don’t believe you
“I don’t believe you” re the alleged chip on my shoulders to be clear
maybe chip on the sholder didnt quite hit the mark. More like irrelevant self important mediocrity throwing pebbles at a greatness ( both the film and Dylan himself) than eclipses him totally.
This is a very helpful review, and it rings true, even though I will not see the movie until next week with my granddaughter, a third generation fan. I think the arrival and initial stardom path is already well tread by scholarly biography. There must be some other drama or character arc to include Dylan’s sublime maturation.
Thanks for reading.
Dylan – a life in time via Steven Spielberg…oh well. At least Bob wins in the end- he remains as he chooses: a mystery.
Girlfriend and I (both of us age 53) both thought it was great. This article (critique) by Mr. Arndorfer is concerned mainly with accuracy, and that’s fine too – well worth the read. Most of the people who are going to see this film aren’t Dylan Heads, and it’s a movie, not a documentary, so the screenwriters and director are allowed some artistic license.
The GF got a good introduction to Dylan and had to agree his music was great, but also learned that Dylan was a bit of a self-absorbed jerk, both of which are true.
What this film did for me, an amateur Dylan fan, is fill in a lot of the gaps in my knowledge about the man so that I much better understand him as a person, and if spinning the facts a little helped to convey that understanding, so be it.
What this film did especially well was to make it feel like you were personally there in the room with him for some of the most moving and important moments, especially those between Dylan and the actress who played Joan Baez. And at the film’s climax, at the music festival, I again had a sense that this really could be what it felt like to have been standing there in that audience.
A remarkable thing about the film is that Timothée Chalamet, who plays Dylan, had 5 1/2 years to learn through practice and great coaching how to both play and sing like Dylan, and he nails it, so everything in the film is genuine and not dubbed or faked in any way. Before the film, Chalamet says he was a novice and could only play about 5 chords, so I’m really inspired by that. I find the story of Chalamet’s accomplishment to make this film just as redeeming and meaningful the story told by the film itself about Dylan’s rise to fame.
They also did a great job of duplicating his ~1961 New York apartment from about 200 available photos, down to the rips in the furniture. The overall feel of the film was great and well worth the ticket to see it on the big screen.
Thanks for reading.
If you want the best, researched look at Dylan in this era, A History of Rock & Roll in 500 Songs nails it in episode 130:
https://500songs.com/podcast/episode-130-like-a-rolling-stone-by-bob-dylan/
I loved the movie. Little boxes, Little Boxes and they all drink their martinis dry and they all come out the same. Not Zimmerman.
That episode 130 is amazing and presents the most balanced telling I’ve ever seen. Thanks.
The generalizations that “no one believed him” when he first appeared on the scene and that he “stole from everyone”, sound more like the sore-loser complaints of a few scenesters of the time rather than of a film review sixty years on. However, I felt the film captured an aspect of that era which the reviewer alludes to, which was the importance of being “genuine”, hence his girlfriend’s dismay at learning that he had taken a stage name and not revealed this to her. What she was only becoming aware of, and what we all came to know in time, is that Dylan was genuine in his refusal to be hemmed in by anyone, or by everyone.
The generalizations are characterizations of who he was when he was making his start in NYC vs. a kid who arrived with Minneapolis with the original “Song to Woody” fully composed. I agree there is a lot of good stuff in the movie. Thanks for reading and happy new year.
Poor artist and performer at best. Worse human being. There is a reason many of his contemporaries hated him.
Of Dylan, Hunter S Thompson said he “was a goddamned phenomenon, pure gold and mean as a snake,” which I think largely checks out.
History bears out genius, more often than not, seeks out flawed people.
Totally worth listening to, thanks. I’m interested in more of Clinton Heylin’s books and Andrew Hickey’s files.
I enjoyed the movie — and went in determined not to assume anything in it would be objective fact.
Dylan is kind of like God, apart from the fact that he really does exist (I’ve seen him in person) — he and his work are a whole big pile of unreliable narration filtered through the things his followers want to believe about him.
But yeah, I had my doubts from the start with that opening scene: Dylan walks in, Seeger just happens to be there, Dylan plays “Song For Woody,” and it’s all just (trend-wise) upward moody roller coaster ride from there.
Thanks for reading, happy new year!
A disclaimer should have been attached to the film as follows: “For further elucidation about Dylan’s early years please see the First hour of ‘No Direction Home’”. Thanks for writing. Good stuff.
Thanks for reading!
While you make some decent points, I feel like I’m listening to a mediocre arm chair critic, feebly throwing pebbles at greatness that eclipses him completely. I want my five minutes back.
Dylan was, and is, indescribable, magical, draw droppingly brilliant. As you seem to know from having read his biography, Dylan had little interest in “fact.” As far as he was/ is concerned, we are all inventing and reinventing ourselves all the time.
This film is an indescribalty great work of art. In the cinema where I saw it, the theatre was packed. Everyone rose to their feet at the end: and clapped and cheered in admiration. Brilliant story telling. Mind blowing career-defining acting both by Chamolet and Norton.
A superb great inspiring film based on the life of on the the most inspiring great poets ever to live. Breathe a deep nourishing clean breath of greatness.
And then this smarmy whining mediocre review. Ugh.
The film will probably win many awards. Chamolet in particular deserves best actor from every competition.
But Jim Andorfen? No one cares about self important mediocrity pontificating away in some corner.
People wonder aloud about who Dylan wrote about in Ballad of a Thin Man. Was it about Rolling Stone writer Jeffrey Jones?
Nah. Dylan was writing anticipating Jim Andorfen.
I liked the movie too, and agree that it should win a lot of awards, but this is not very nice to Jim Arndorfer, a genuine lifelong Dylan fan who is just trying to provide some critical perspective.
Arjuna Ardaugh, I don’t normally comment. But I feel like you are unfamiliar with some concepts that could help make your reviews more important in the future. In the interests of brevity, I suggest you google (and explore, if growth interest you) “ad hominem” and “civil discourse”, one thing we (hopefully) all try to avoid doing, and one thing we all (again, hopefully) try to aim for in our writings and interactions with others who offer their thoughts up for contrast, provoking thought, and inspiration. If you are merely venting, you are in the wrong forum. But you carry it too far and come off looking slightly paranoid as though it were necessary to defend your hero by attacking the author who is kind enough to respond to comments, which is fabulous. The movie was fabulous and Timotee Chalomet was fabulous, likewise Edward Norton. The fun my kids had after seeing the movie was exploring what else had been done on Dylan, playing his music throughout the house, and listening to great podcasts. They felt someone really doesn’t like Joan Baez who came across as jealous of Dylan’s ability to crank out great songs and a homewrecker, but Dylan was given quite the pass because he is (obvs) a musical savant. Most of us can agree that “fact checking” is a good thing. Movies are different from books, a shorter, more intense experience. Hope you have fun learning more about your hero and get some great leads from the comments. So much for brevity! Happy New Year, let’s all make it a good one! https://500songs.com/podcast/episode-130-like-a-rolling-stone-by-bob-dylan/
Thanks, Sharon.
I recently read an interesting book, Uncharted Territory by Chris Dalla Riva, an admitted Dylan fan, which brought up something worthwhile often lost in the mythos. Dylan was a part of the Greenwich Village scene. He is, today, by far, the single best-known artist of that scene, to the point his name is an effective shorthand for it. But he didn’t pop up out of nowhere. Everyone in that scene was influencing each other. Acting as if Dylan invented that style of music whole cloth is kind of like acting like the Beatles invented rock ‘n roll.
Which I also think was the big problem with A Complete Unknown looking back. Sure, the movie tells us that Woody Guthrie and Pete Seeger were important influences on Dylan. But it seems completely disinterested in explaining how and why. This wouldn’t be so jarring except that Dylan going electric, the world-shattering event around which the entire movie is premised, makes almost no sense without at least some token explanation of what the politics in Greenwich Village were like and how it influenced their music.