The film industry is no stranger to Bob Dylan-centered entertainment. From documentaries to dramas, Dylan is a face that can be recognized throughout various mediums. In December 2024, the industry welcomed its newest member, James Mangold’s “A Complete Unknown,” to its collection. A Dylan bio-doc hit the screens on Christmas Day; the film follows Dylan from 1961 to 1965 during his come-up through his renowned performance at the Newport Folk Festival of 1965. “A Complete Unknown” highlights some of the most pivotal years of his career and gives audiences a glimpse into the secretive life of Dylan.
Since then, “A Complete Unknown” has traveled from award show to award show, including wins at the Screen Actors Guild Award, Gotham Independent Film Awards, and multiple Academy Award nominations. But, what makes this film so compelling, and why do audiences attract to films about stories that have already been told?
Tons of viewers and critics of this film have been coming away from this movie saying variations of the statement, “It was actually better than I thought it would be.” This response is credited to Mangold’s decision to make this story a bio-doc and not a biopic. By only focusing on the five years of Dylan’s life– his establishment in the music industry and his eventual rejection– fans have a more centralized focus on the artist. They aren’t told any of the fluff about his life like some biopics that have come out in recent years.
Baz Luhrmann’s “Elvis” fell into this very category, for example. Elvis is a household name, one larger than Dylan. Fans did not need to know about his childhood or the downhill that caused his death because they already know. Why Dylan’s story has been told so many times because people don’t really know much about him. Yes, there are dozens of books and documentaries about him, but to truly grasp Dylan is a privilege that not many people attain, even some of the closest people in his life.
Mangold kept this movie very safe, as predicted, as it was announced that Dylan proofread the script before shooting started. It stuck to Dylan’s story and portrayed it as linear and honest from start to finish. I loved “A Complete Unknown,” but it still doesn’t capture Dylan as much as other projects, such as Todd Haynes’ 2007 project, “I’m Not There.” Todd Haynes does not play it safe, as he portrays Dylan’s life and musical journey through six different portrayals of Dylan. Spanning from a young black hitchhiker to a woman playing his role. Dylan is someone the public had trouble grasping, and Haynes portrays this idea effectively.
Mangold’s Dylan was portrayed by one actor, Timothée Chalamet. Chalamet is no stranger to the industry, having already starred in 37 projects before the age of 29. His role as Dylan was fantastic and will truly cement his name in the industry for years to come. Chalamet portrayed the iconic figure after studying the workings and footage of Dylan for over five years. His dedication paid off, and there was rarely a time on screen when I was taken out and reminded that I was not actually watching Dylan. Chalamet highlighted Dylan’s sheltered, yet selfish nature and humanized the character while still maintaining his negative qualities. This credits Mangold as well, not praising Dylan as a fan, but also looking at him through a critical lens.
The film’s directing and cinematography were nothing special, but they didn’t have to be. Mangold’s direct take on the singer didn’t need the fanatics of Luhrmann’s “Elvis” (and thank God). The story was focused on its characters, and that was all that was needed.
The greatest part of this movie, for me at least, was seeing the relationship between Dylan and Baez put to the big screen. I’ve always been infatuated with the story of the two, and Mangold did a great job of depicting Dylan’s rise at Baez’s expense (“A Star is Born” tale, if you will, but less extreme). A trifling love story with a love triangle element that has been told hundreds of times, but never seen with the real-life effects of countless albums and songs going back between the two.
Baez even went so far as viewing the movie, and reporting on Chalamet’s portrayal, stating, “When he walked into a room, he took up all the oxygen. And so my part was always diminished in his presence. And in that sense the film is accurate,” according to “Rolling Stone.”
Monica Barbado’s portrayal of Baez was a standout performance for me in “A Complete Unknown.” Having only seen her in “Top Gun: Maverick,” it was great to see her complexity and play someone I truly admire. Some credit to the authenticity of her performance is due to Barbados’ conversations with Baez during the filming of the movie.
The only character that fell flat for me upon viewing was Elle Fanning’s depiction of Sylvie Russo, or actually known as Suze Rotolo. Fanning did a great job with what she was given, but Mangold made her personality so dull. We never got to learn about Rotolo’s life away from Dylan, unlike Baez. We know she goes to art school and travels, but who is she? Why did she truly stick with Dylan for so many years? Rotolo was one of the only people Dylan knew before fame, someone he wasn’t a complete unknown to. The movie contained a love triangle, but two points of the shape were truly favored.
Three months after its release, “A Complete Unknown” is still being discussed in the media, and the praise for Dylan and Chalamet is not over, and rightfully so. When a viewer watches a bio-doc, they know what they are getting is semi-fictional and what the director wants them to see of a certain figure. Dylan is a legend, and “A Complete Unknown” deserves to be seen by his fans, people who might not be that interested in him, and even his haters alike. Dylan himself has reportedly not seen the movie, so can we really say it wasn’t fully accurate? I guess we will never completely know.
