A Complete Unknown (2024)
5/10
A Complete Unknown: A Standard Biopic That Misses the Mark
6 January 2025
Warning: Spoilers
The true test of a biopic is whether it reveals something new or profound about its subject. In the case of James Mangold's A Complete Unknown, which chronicles Bob Dylan's rise from Greenwich Village folk hero to rock icon between 1961 and 1965, the answer is, unfortunately, "no." While the film features strong musical performances and period detail, it ultimately falls into the well-worn patterns of the "standard" biopic, offering little more than a surface-level recounting of Dylan's formative years.
Timothée Chalamet delivers a respectable impression of Dylan, capturing his swagger and distinct nasally cadence, but his portrayal feels constrained by a script that reduces Dylan to a mythologized figure. Chalamet shines most in the musical sequences, where his live renditions of Dylan classics evoke some of the energy that defined the era. However, these moments, along with the solid work of the supporting cast, fail to elevate the film beyond mediocrity.
The film stumbles in its portrayal of Dylan's relationships, particularly with Sylvie Russo, a stand-in for Suze Rotolo, whose name was changed at Dylan's request. Elle Fanning's performance lacks the youthful vitality and influence that Rotolo reportedly brought to Dylan's life, and the character serves more as a plot device than a fully realized person. Monica Barbaro fares better as Joan Baez, nailing Baez's voice and capturing some of her fiery spirit. The duets between Baez and Dylan are among the film's highlights, though the dramatic tension in their relationship feels exaggerated. A fabricated scene where Dylan walks offstage to spite Baez may create conflict, but it sacrifices authenticity for drama.
The film also glosses over key figures in Dylan's rise to fame. Characters like Albert Grossman, Dylan's pivotal manager, and John Hammond, the producer who gave him his big break, receive minimal attention. This neglect diminishes opportunities to explore Dylan's transformation from an upstart folk musician to a commercial success. Dylan's involvement in the civil rights movement is similarly reduced to a fleeting television appearance during the March on Washington, with no context or development to situate him within the era's cultural upheaval.
Conflict, a crucial element of storytelling, is largely absent from the film. The tension surrounding Dylan's controversial transition to electric music at the Newport Folk Festival provides the only significant source of drama, but even this is handled clumsily. Ed Norton's Pete Seeger, initially a mentor to Dylan, is portrayed as a stodgy traditionalist who opposes Dylan's shift. However, the film simplifies Seeger's motivations, framing him as an antagonist without nuance. A fabricated fistfight over cutting Dylan's power feels like a desperate attempt to inject tension, ignoring the subtler dynamics of audience discontent and Dylan's own ambivalence about fame.
Ultimately, A Complete Unknown adheres to the predictable formula of many music biopics. It strings together iconic moments-meeting Woody Guthrie, performing "The Times They Are A-Changin'," and going electric-without delving into their significance or the complexities of Dylan's character. The decision to focus on just four years of Dylan's life could have allowed for a more intimate, detailed exploration, but the film opts for breadth over depth. By playing it safe and reverential, it misses the opportunity to explore the contradictions, struggles, and humanity of its subject.
While A Complete Unknown captures the sights and sounds of Dylan's early years with some fidelity, it fails to rise above the clichés of the genre. Its polished aesthetics and strong musical performances cannot compensate for its lack of narrative depth or character insight. A more inventive approach, such as a Rashomon-like structure where different characters provided conflicting impressions of Dylan and the same events, might have better captured the artist's complexity and mystique. As it stands, the film feels more like a museum exhibit than a meaningful cinematic experience, and the most compelling way to connect with Dylan's genius remains his music itself.
Knowing that the film would not be able to say anything insightful about Dylan, I wasn’t particularly disappointed about the weak story or the non-enigmatic ambience the film creates. But, I think positive. The film is a higher tech version of a photo- journalistic glimpse at young Dylan by Life Magazine. The portrayal of the person of Bob was mediocre, but the treatment of Joan Baez was just sad.
You lose yourself, you reappear
You suddenly find you got nothing to fear
Alone you stand with nobody near
When a trembling distant voice unclear
Startles your sleeping ears to hear
That somebody thinks they really found you.
Actually, to respond to your question of what the filmmakers could have done to salvage the plot without trivializing the person of Dylan too much, I think they missed the opportunity to portray the dangerous liaison between Dylan and his motorcycle. There were two instances where they showed him riding away on his bike at decisive moments, but, O my, they could have capitalized on where this would lead in the summer of 66.