(I did enjoy the movie, by the way—my stack looks not at the quality of the performances, the music, or the pure entertainment value, but something about the movie most people don’t know….l)
:) Thank you! Love this. It was definitely along the lines of tongue in cheek, and I debated posting it, but I also did kind of feel like a sucker. I knew that my comment was kind of off-putting in both directions: it sort of sounded like a criticism of the writer, which it was not (I really meant it that I enjoyed the article), and it was unclear as to how sincere I really was. I almost never toss away comments like that, but this was actually kind of how I felt! I felt like I had taken in the film on such a superficial level, just along for the ride. But I do fully agree with you about accepting/honoring one's own opinion!
I haven't seen the movie yet. But if I stipulate that all you write is on the nose, I think it can still be true that the movie would be entertaining and enjoyable to watch. I find that with movies in particular, but perhaps with all forms of art, too much deconstruction can remove the enchantment.
> There is no feeling in this movie; only money, acting, and bare craftsmanship.
I haven't seen A Complete Unknown, but I feel that way about too many movies these days. Paul Schrader sums up the problem succinctly:
> When people take movies seriously it’s very easy to make a serious movie. When they don’t take it seriously, it’s very, very hard. We now have audiences that don’t take movies seriously so it’s hard to make a serious movie for them. It’s not that us filmmakers are letting you down, it’s you audiences are letting us down.
So yeah, we get craft, acting, money, competence, polish. But few seriously good movies. A lot of weird, empty movies.
I saw A Different Man recently. It's a perfect example of this. It seems to endorse a worldview I find repellent, "People should just be happy & nice. Whatever your problems, just be happy & nice." It leaves a bad taste in your mouth. But people go on letterboxed and post, "I'm now a Sebastian Stan Stan."
There have always been many Dylans. Perhaps this one is for the brain-rotted tik-tokers.
I saw Dylan (the real one) at Jones Beach this summer. He was incomprehensible, transfixing and still captivating. Haven’t see the film yet - but this review makes it seem all I’ve feared it would be, despite a lot of excuse making reviews.
I loved the movie. I reviewed it as well. See link below. I think this review is way too harsh. First off, it's Hollywood; no one sees this as the De Facto Bob Dylan biography. For that you need to read a book, ideally The Double Life of Bob Dylan by Clinton Heylin. (But there are many.) Film is necessarily limited of course. I think the essay writer is correct about lack of historical context and believability, but on the flip side I had a much more nuanced take on the movie. Knowing a fair amount about Dylan from books and his records over the years, I think they broadly got a lot right. Of course some of it is 'Hollywood,' but that's how it goes. Some of the acting, language and costumes failed the authenticity test for the 1960s, that's true. Fanning was a stretch; she felt too contemporary. Baiz was a little too hot and Gaga over Dylan for real life. Etc. All that said: I found the film powerful and worth watching. In fact I'd see it again.
"Bob Dylan – one of the 20th century’s most capricious, uncorporatized and disinclining cultural celebrities"
He has been happy to sell any song to anyone for many years. IBM, Chrysler, Victoria's Secret, Chobani, whoever. Even Diane Warren is grossed out by what a corporate whore he turned into.
I don't think he's been compromised. No one is going to remember "A Complete Unknown" in a year, in fact it's already mostly forgotten. But Idiot Wind is immortal.
Selling out means letting money dictate the art you make. Just taking money isn't selling out.
Huge lifelong Dylan fan here and I haven’t seen this yet. And I’ll admit, even before reading this review I was pre-inclined to loath it, mostly because (a) the idea of a bog standard Hollywood biopic of Bob Dylan (Bob fucking Dylan!) sounded patently yuk and absurd on its face, and (b) the perfect Dylan biopic was already made! In 2007 Tod Haynes directed a film called I’m Not There, which tracks (non linearly) different chapters in Dylan’s life. What’s more, “Dylan” is played by different actors in each stage (the most noteworthy perhaps being Kate Blanchett’s depiction of rail-thin-pilled-out Blonde on Blonde era Bob). When I saw that film I thought, “Hell yes! Now THAT’S how you handle a Dylan biopic!” The film has heaps of technical prowess—gorgeously shot, brilliantly acted, etc.—but what truly sets it apart is its meditation on one of Dylan’s most central and interesting conceits, i.e. his unknowability and intentional slipperiness of self (the film’s title, fwiw, is sublime). What’s more, the viewer is also urged to ponder his own sense of self in the process. Are any of us truly the same person over a vast stretch of time? Are any of us truly knowable, even to ourselves? It’s a fantastic achievement and an actual work of art that almost never feels like it’s stooping to the usual tropes of biopics. When you leave that film Dylan does *actually* feel like a complete unknown. Great review by the way!!
A compelling review. It's certainly true that Dylan remains an enigma in this movie, and that Mangold's screenplay veers into "fan fiction" in the way that the events are dramatized. However, I happened to enjoy the film for what it says about the relationship between artistic creation, ego, and alienation. You can find my review here: https://dl831.substack.com/p/mighty-works-of-art-a-complete-unknown.
Spot on. I was trying to find my own words to describe the 'emptiness' that I experienced as a spectator. I kept waiting for a clue, any clue, to give me a sense as to why this film had been made. That moment never arrived. So I said, ok Babe, just lean back in your seat and listen to the music. I was fooled by the authenticity of the sets and costumes thinking that that was going to lead to a few moments of dramatic insight. Pass the Tabasco, please.
'An organiser' runs around trying to cut off the power? That was the key role of Pete Seeger, played by Edward Norton, not just some random concert organiser.
Apparently the real live people who were there were delighted to see the behind the scenes reaction played out on screen. Yes, that's what really happened, Seeger running around and finding an axe. He was earnest about the traditions of folk music.
Anyway, I loved the film, the cast, the music. I'm not a Dylan fan, but the film made me want to go back to his music, which I'm really enjoying.
My biggest issue with the film was the lack of context like it didn’t really tell you anything about Dylan or the 60s. It was all vibes and no substance.
"This is what happens when a movie is too wedded to a philosophy of setups and payoffs, of character motives and film school melodramatics, of an imaginary Suze Rotolo emoting to an imaginary Bob Dylan." Bingo.
Those interested in a different take on “A Complete Unknown” may enjoy my review: https://susanbordo.substack.com/p/a-complete-fiction-suze-rotolo-and.
(I did enjoy the movie, by the way—my stack looks not at the quality of the performances, the music, or the pure entertainment value, but something about the movie most people don’t know….l)
Ditto: https://michaelmohr.substack.com/p/the-bob-dylan-movie-was-dylan-the
Great article! I must be an idiot. I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Though I assume this comment is tongue-in-cheek, you're NEVER an idiot for having a different opinion than a critic.
:) Thank you! Love this. It was definitely along the lines of tongue in cheek, and I debated posting it, but I also did kind of feel like a sucker. I knew that my comment was kind of off-putting in both directions: it sort of sounded like a criticism of the writer, which it was not (I really meant it that I enjoyed the article), and it was unclear as to how sincere I really was. I almost never toss away comments like that, but this was actually kind of how I felt! I felt like I had taken in the film on such a superficial level, just along for the ride. But I do fully agree with you about accepting/honoring one's own opinion!
I haven't seen the movie yet. But if I stipulate that all you write is on the nose, I think it can still be true that the movie would be entertaining and enjoyable to watch. I find that with movies in particular, but perhaps with all forms of art, too much deconstruction can remove the enchantment.
> There is no feeling in this movie; only money, acting, and bare craftsmanship.
I haven't seen A Complete Unknown, but I feel that way about too many movies these days. Paul Schrader sums up the problem succinctly:
> When people take movies seriously it’s very easy to make a serious movie. When they don’t take it seriously, it’s very, very hard. We now have audiences that don’t take movies seriously so it’s hard to make a serious movie for them. It’s not that us filmmakers are letting you down, it’s you audiences are letting us down.
So yeah, we get craft, acting, money, competence, polish. But few seriously good movies. A lot of weird, empty movies.
I saw A Different Man recently. It's a perfect example of this. It seems to endorse a worldview I find repellent, "People should just be happy & nice. Whatever your problems, just be happy & nice." It leaves a bad taste in your mouth. But people go on letterboxed and post, "I'm now a Sebastian Stan Stan."
There have always been many Dylans. Perhaps this one is for the brain-rotted tik-tokers.
I saw Dylan (the real one) at Jones Beach this summer. He was incomprehensible, transfixing and still captivating. Haven’t see the film yet - but this review makes it seem all I’ve feared it would be, despite a lot of excuse making reviews.
As I've Noted elsewhere, a friend of mine calls the movie, "The Complete Known."
I loved the movie. I reviewed it as well. See link below. I think this review is way too harsh. First off, it's Hollywood; no one sees this as the De Facto Bob Dylan biography. For that you need to read a book, ideally The Double Life of Bob Dylan by Clinton Heylin. (But there are many.) Film is necessarily limited of course. I think the essay writer is correct about lack of historical context and believability, but on the flip side I had a much more nuanced take on the movie. Knowing a fair amount about Dylan from books and his records over the years, I think they broadly got a lot right. Of course some of it is 'Hollywood,' but that's how it goes. Some of the acting, language and costumes failed the authenticity test for the 1960s, that's true. Fanning was a stretch; she felt too contemporary. Baiz was a little too hot and Gaga over Dylan for real life. Etc. All that said: I found the film powerful and worth watching. In fact I'd see it again.
My Dylan review: https://michaelmohr.substack.com/p/the-bob-dylan-movie-was-dylan-the
"Bob Dylan – one of the 20th century’s most capricious, uncorporatized and disinclining cultural celebrities"
He has been happy to sell any song to anyone for many years. IBM, Chrysler, Victoria's Secret, Chobani, whoever. Even Diane Warren is grossed out by what a corporate whore he turned into.
I don't think he's been compromised. No one is going to remember "A Complete Unknown" in a year, in fact it's already mostly forgotten. But Idiot Wind is immortal.
Selling out means letting money dictate the art you make. Just taking money isn't selling out.
Huge lifelong Dylan fan here and I haven’t seen this yet. And I’ll admit, even before reading this review I was pre-inclined to loath it, mostly because (a) the idea of a bog standard Hollywood biopic of Bob Dylan (Bob fucking Dylan!) sounded patently yuk and absurd on its face, and (b) the perfect Dylan biopic was already made! In 2007 Tod Haynes directed a film called I’m Not There, which tracks (non linearly) different chapters in Dylan’s life. What’s more, “Dylan” is played by different actors in each stage (the most noteworthy perhaps being Kate Blanchett’s depiction of rail-thin-pilled-out Blonde on Blonde era Bob). When I saw that film I thought, “Hell yes! Now THAT’S how you handle a Dylan biopic!” The film has heaps of technical prowess—gorgeously shot, brilliantly acted, etc.—but what truly sets it apart is its meditation on one of Dylan’s most central and interesting conceits, i.e. his unknowability and intentional slipperiness of self (the film’s title, fwiw, is sublime). What’s more, the viewer is also urged to ponder his own sense of self in the process. Are any of us truly the same person over a vast stretch of time? Are any of us truly knowable, even to ourselves? It’s a fantastic achievement and an actual work of art that almost never feels like it’s stooping to the usual tropes of biopics. When you leave that film Dylan does *actually* feel like a complete unknown. Great review by the way!!
A compelling review. It's certainly true that Dylan remains an enigma in this movie, and that Mangold's screenplay veers into "fan fiction" in the way that the events are dramatized. However, I happened to enjoy the film for what it says about the relationship between artistic creation, ego, and alienation. You can find my review here: https://dl831.substack.com/p/mighty-works-of-art-a-complete-unknown.
Spot on. I was trying to find my own words to describe the 'emptiness' that I experienced as a spectator. I kept waiting for a clue, any clue, to give me a sense as to why this film had been made. That moment never arrived. So I said, ok Babe, just lean back in your seat and listen to the music. I was fooled by the authenticity of the sets and costumes thinking that that was going to lead to a few moments of dramatic insight. Pass the Tabasco, please.
'An organiser' runs around trying to cut off the power? That was the key role of Pete Seeger, played by Edward Norton, not just some random concert organiser.
Apparently the real live people who were there were delighted to see the behind the scenes reaction played out on screen. Yes, that's what really happened, Seeger running around and finding an axe. He was earnest about the traditions of folk music.
Anyway, I loved the film, the cast, the music. I'm not a Dylan fan, but the film made me want to go back to his music, which I'm really enjoying.
My biggest issue with the film was the lack of context like it didn’t really tell you anything about Dylan or the 60s. It was all vibes and no substance.
"This is what happens when a movie is too wedded to a philosophy of setups and payoffs, of character motives and film school melodramatics, of an imaginary Suze Rotolo emoting to an imaginary Bob Dylan." Bingo.