Welcome to a special movie review here at Enuffa.com! It's not often we do this, but since my colleague Mike Drinan and I are both huge Bob Dylan fans and we've both seen the new Dylan biopic A Complete Unknown, we thought we'd tag team this one.
A Complete Unknown was directed by James Mangold, based on the book Dylan Goes Electric! by Elijah Wald. Timothee Chalamet stars as the mercurial singer-songwriter who turned folk music on its ear and stirred up big-time controversy when he broke tradition at the 1965 Newport Folk Festival by playing rock n' roll songs. The film covers his 1961 arrival in New York City's folk scene through that fateful festival, plus his relationships with mentor Pete Seeger and two of his major romantic interests, Joan Baez and Suze Rotolo (called Sylvie Russo in the film).
JB: Mike, what are your thoughts on A Complete Unknown?
MD: I'll start with the positives. Overall, I enjoyed it and thought they did a good job making a movie on Dylan that could be enjoyed for the casual moviegoer. It had all the elements you want in a movie: great performance, love triangle, conflict and a great climactic scene that I felt tied it all together. Timothée Chalamet's performance as Bob was fantastic and absolutely believable. You can tell he did his homework on the man from talking, body language, attitude, etc. He was great! I thought all of the performances were great. It included bullet point highlights of Bob's career that I feel are important: Sylvie's (Suze Rotolo's) impact on Dylan's art, his artistic contributions to civil rights, the voice he lent in regards to the politics of the time, his friendship with Johnny Cash. The film gave the audience a general overview of his early career without getting too into the details which would have hindered the story. I loved the lead up to the climactic Newport performance with Seeger and Dylan (more like Dylan's team) having a philosophical argument on folk music. It really shows the problems of "genre" that comes through even in today's music industry. They could've gone a little deeper here since the biggest difference was Dylan not fully subscribing to Seeger's brand of politics, but leaving it as a "genre" problem was enough for me. I also loved that the "Judas incident" was included, even though it felt a little overkill in the scene, it made sense.
Now, my problems with the movie. For starters, it didn't really know what kind of story it wanted to tell. It seemed to be all over the place. There was a big focus on the love triangle between Joan Baez and the character Sylvie, which was expected and pretty crucial to Dylan's progression as an artist, but seemed to be very one sided with Sylvie while Joan's character didn't really seem to know she existed except for one scene. Then there was the distancing of his friendship with Pete Seeger due to a difference in politics and what each wanted to do with the art both were creating. Additionally, there was Dylan's attitude and philosophy on "genre" and the artistic constraints subscribing to a "genre" entails and how he ran up against that during a time when artists typically gave the audience what they wanted to hear. So many narratives jammed into one film caused it to not have a direction. Director James Mangold ran into this a little bit with his Johnny Cash biopic Walk the Line. He pulled it off because he maintained focus on the love story between Cash and June Carter and it worked. With Dylan, and more so Dylan in that time period however, there's too much going on that Mangold couldn't use the same story structure or formula because it would cause the story to wander, which in my opinion it did. I would love to see a Dylan film that focuses on his rebelling against the expectations of folk music that lends itself to the conversation regarding rules and constraints of a "genre", but maybe I'm the only one who would see that film.
Also, Mangold tried to show that Dylan was a womanizer (which he was) but that ended up falling flat. Was it really necessary to include the random woman he took to the party who nobody knows where she came from, who she is, only to then have her complain to Bob that he "didn't tell me you were going out on tour?" for his response to be "Well, I don't even know you." while he walked away? No, it was not necessary and a waste of time.
Also, the portrayal of Joan Baez in this film I found to be problematic. It really downplayed their relationship to the point of it seeming like she was a side chick that he slept with whenever they got together and we all know their relationship was more emotional and impactful than that. Also, in an attempt to show Baez seeing through Dylan's "schtick" and being someone that challenged him, the film didn't really portray her in the most complimentary light. I hesitate to use the "b-word" here but that's essentially what I thought and that's nowhere near accurate. The downfall to their relationship was, again, a difference in politics and the art that each of them wanted to create. Her line after the Newport performance "You got what you wanted. You're free." would be more striking if Mangold focused his story on Dylan's attitudes on "genre".
Anyways, those are my initial thoughts on the movie. I liked it but wish it would've been focused on something more meaningful than a love triangle.
What say you?
JB: I kinda loved this film. It was period-immersive and it made me want desperately to have been there to see all this world-changing stuff as it happened. The performances were all terrific. Chalamet will garner numerous well-deserved award nominations, as he transformed himself into this iconic figure in a way that felt genuine and not like an actor performing an impression. Further, he wasn't afraid to make Dylan aloof and less than sympathetic at times; this film depicts a warts-and-all portrayal while keeping an air of mystery about the man. We aren't ever fully let in to see what makes him tick, just as he himself never let many people all the way in. It felt like we got to know him here about as well as most people ever did. He was an enigma who never wanted to be pinned down by anyone. I also loved Edward Norton as Pete Seeger, the gentle father-figure who found himself torn between staying true to his acoustic political folk movement and wanting to see his protege fully spread his wings. In Dylan he thought he'd found the man who would break the floodgates open for civil rights and peace, but Dylan never wanted that job and resented being chosen for it.
To your issues with the film, I didn't feel like it was all over the place, at least not in a bad way. Yes it combined a love triangle of sorts with Bob's being at odds with the movement that appointed him their spokesman, but that felt like real life to me. Is anyone's story simple enough to distill down to just one main thread? For me the fact that he couldn't ever commit to either Sylvie or Joan (or the woman he brought to the party) was just a symptom of a larger point: Bob wasn't content standing still, either in love or in his music. His butting heads with Seeger and company I think was more than just a disagreement over genre or politics. Once Dylan allowed his own voice to be heard on the second record and became a massive overnight sensation, Seeger, the folk movement, the media and the fans all tried to mold him into what they wanted him to be, and that's ultimately what he pushed back against. The folk snobs were seemingly upset about his turn to dirty rock n' roll, but I think it was bigger than that; they realized he would no longer be the voice for their cause. And he never wanted to be that, he was just writing about what he saw. Once that stuff was out of his system he needed the freedom to just write about whatever, without being forced into a box. It wasn't so much a question of genre I don't think, as unwanted responsibility to a movement.
I didn't find Joan's portrayal problematic. Yes they could've explored hers and Bob's relationship more, but to me it wasn't so much that she was portrayed as a "nasty woman" as it were, it's that she could see through Bob's bullshit, despite having great respect for his art. I didn't find her unsympathetic, quite the contrary. Their relationship ultimately didn't work because they were two strong-minded, strong-willed "alphas," a la Alexander Hamilton and Angelica Schuyler (for you Hamilton nerds). From what I understand Sylvie/Suzi was for Bob the one that got away, thus his relationship with her is more deeply explored here.
As for the girl at the party, that was just a passing piece of the overall scene, which was more about Bob's aforementioned lashing out against everyone's attempts to define him, so I didn't have a problem with it. To me each of his personal relationships drove home that point in different ways. He was first and foremost about his art, which he wanted to create on his own terms, without anyone telling him what or how or when to play. When it came to relationships he was the same way.
Also I defy any Dylan fan not to get teary-eyed when he breaks out "The Times They Are A-Changin'" or "Like a Rolling Stone" during this film. The former is a poignant, desperate plea to allow society to progress as it needs to, the latter is pure sardonic joy. I have a feeling this is a film I will end up popping into my Blu Ray player often while cracking open a bottle of wine. Yes it's a Hollywooded-up version of events with numerous historical inaccuracies - as one example the "Judas" comment actually occurred at a concert in the UK as opposed to Newport - but it captured the spirit of the man and his time so well, while beautifully conveying the complexities and responsibilities of becoming famous for one's art. It made me want to write songs again, something I haven't been moved to do in a decade.
I gotta go the full monty on the star rating. **** out of ****.
MD: Nobody's story is simple, I agree. With Dylan, any thread you choose will give you a compelling story and be left with an intriguing discussion afterwards. I wish more filmmakers interested in Bob would focus on other aspects of his story without feeling compelled to tell it through the relationships that he had, even as important as they were. I felt Todd Haynes's movie I'm Not There absolutely nailed his resistance to being painted into a corner as an artist in a very artistic way. Highly recommend giving that movie a watch for anyone interested in Dylan, also Cate Blanchett's performance as Dylan is a notable one as well.
A couple of things I forgot to mention earlier is that the film did include snippets of a few of my favorite Dylan tracks like "When The Ship Comes In" and "Mama, You Been On My Mind". Really happy to hear those get some screen time. Also, the film had an "R" rating so they could've included Dylan's actual response to the "Judas!" line of "Play it fucking loud!" which is one of my all time favorite rock 'n roll moments.
Anyways, this film does have high rewatch value to me as well and I can't wait to see it again and catch anything I might've missed.
For me, I give it *** out of ****.
No comments:
Post a Comment