A Complete Unknown (2024) Review

Bob Dylan is one of the most well-known singer-songwriters in history. Ever since the release of his second album ‘The Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan’ in 1963, he has been a household name. His influence is undeniable- whether one appreciates his music or not. Reflecting the hopes, struggles and aspirations of the times he helped to change, his songs struck a chord with the youth of the 1960’s, becoming anthems for the civil rights movement and anti-war protests.

Throughout his career, Dylan continually reinvented himself, transitioning controversially from folk to rock (and even later to gospel). His ever-evolving music stylings have both delighted and bewildered fans, showcasing his refusal to be confined to a single genre. Yet, despite his fame, Dylan has remained an elusive, enigmatic figure; a man whom the world can admire but never really understand. In 2016, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature, underscoring the profound impact of his songwriting.

In 2015, Elijah Wald’s book ‘Dylan Goes Electric’ was released, exploring the cultural, political and historical context behind Dylan’s appearance at the Newport Folk Festival in 1965. Taking to the stage with an electric guitar, his appearance shocked the audience- and altered musical history forever. A finely written, well-researched book, it is a must-read for anyone interested in Bob Dylan, or even those who are not.

Sadly, the film adaptation of said book is not a must-watch. Directed by James Mangold, ‘A Complete Unknown’ charts Dylan’s early years and rise to fame. Beginning in 1961, it follows the young musician as he arrives in New York City, immersing himself in the Greenwich Village folk scene. People think he is a genius; the next great hope for folk music. Time goes by and, as he evolves musically, those around him start to wonder: just who is Bob Dylan?

It's a fascinating question, as the man truly is an enigma. Mangold, alongside screenwriter Jay Cocks, can’t, and don’t, answer it. Dylan has been mythologised as long as he’s been around, and the film does very little to demystify him. Unlike Todd Haynes strange, but engaging ‘I’m Not There,’ Mangold’s film bills itself as a biographical drama, meaning- despite the title- one could reasonably expect to learn something from it. However, one learns nothing about Dylan that any stoned ex-hippie couldn’t tell you with more clarity, insight and assurance.

Further, Mangold and Cocks have written the narrative from behind rose-tinted glasses, seeming hesitant to criticise Dylan- or even portray him as a mere mortal. They treat him with such deference it seems like they’re canvassers trying to get the man a sainthood. When they do dare to include some criticism, it’s trivial stuff that amounts to little more than him being an arrogant egotist. Biopics are rarely unbiased when it comes to their subject; but Mangold and Cocks don’t even pretend to be.

Worse than that is how dull their version of Dylan is. It’s hard to imagine that the exceedingly aloof character presented in the film could ever amount to- or care about- anything. He’s so apathetic he might as well be dead. This means the supposed effect he’s meant to have on people doesn’t ring true. What is the allure he holds? He’s boring when he isn’t rude, and is both most of the time: the equivalent of a moody teenager, desperately wanting the world to think they’re deep.

Love him or hate him, Dylan is a lot more interesting than the hollow, lifeless representation the film offers, as is his life story. The linear narrative is as dull as dishwater, with a pace so laboriously slow it would irritate a sloth. There really isn’t much to the story; it is more akin to a lengthy succession of music videos than a fully-fledged biopic. Meanwhile, all the characters are little more than cardboard cut-outs, lacking characterisation and depth. Moreover, the dialogue throughout is so pretentious it would make Niles from ‘Frasier’ scoff.

The whole affair is paint-by-numbers filmmaking, resulting in a conventional, bland biopic underserving the icon at its centre. The narrative is frustratingly mediocre at best and, at worst, so mind-numbingly dull it would make you want to go knockin’ on heavens’ door. Mangold appears to think that by calling the film ‘A Complete Unknown,’ he can get away with not revealing anything of substance and audiences will accept it- which, going by its overwhelmingly positive response so far, many do.

Conversely, François Audouy’s atmospheric production design is commendable. From the streets of New York City, to the Newport Folk Festival, every location looks accurate to the time period of the early sixties. The detailed set decoration compounds this sense of authenticity, bringing to life the small but bustling nightclubs and artsy apartments that populate Dylan’s world. In addition, while Phedon Papamichael’s cinematography may be a bit conventional, it does contribute to the realism of the venture. So too does Arianne Phillips’ striking costume design, meticulously recreating the era’s fashion.

Furthermore, the soundtrack, featuring Dylan's iconic songs performed by Timothée Chalamet, is a high point, although proceedings sometimes feel more like a tribute concert than a biographical drama. Moreover, Andrew Buckland and Scott Morris’s editing, while competent, struggles to maintain a cohesive flow, particularly during the transitions between Dylan’s different phases.

Starring as Dylan, Chalamet does a stellar job mimicking his unique singing voice. It subtly changes throughout, the way Dylan’s changed from record to record. He also plays the guitar and harmonica more than capably. However, in the face of Mangold and Cocks’s one-note characterisation, there’s nothing he can do with the role. As written, Dylan is nothing more than a charmless narcissist; which is how Chalamet plays it. He may do a brilliant Dylan impersonation, but it’s still just that: an impersonation. Chalamet fails to elevate the character into a fully fleshed-out person.

Elle Fanning stars as Dylan’s on-again, off-again girlfriend Sylvie. Apparently based on his real-life former flame, artist and activist Suze Rotolo, Fanning brings an emotional intelligence and vulnerability to the part that is most affecting. Meanwhile, Edward Norton is thoughtful and measured as the ever-warm Pete Seeger, playing him like a banjo-wielding Mister Rogers. Instantly likable, he shines, overcoming the limited characterisation of the role.

Monica Barbaro does similarly fine work as Joan Baez. Not only does she sound quite like her, but she shares her allure. Barbaro also succeeds where Chalamet fails, in that she makes Baez feel like a real person- and a charismatic one, too. In addition, Boyd Holbrook nearly steals the show as Johnny Cash, even if he doesn’t really look or sound like him, while Scoot McNairy gives a remarkably powerful silent performance as an ailing Woody Guthrie.

In conclusion, James Mangold’s ‘A Complete Unknown’ is like a bad photograph of a shadow: the subject may be inherently elusive, but the quality of its portrayal should still be better. It is clearly Oscar bait, trading on the love for its subject matter in an attempt to win critical and commercial success- which it has largely been successful at doing. Unlike his previous ‘Walk the Line,’ which was a lot more accomplished and assured, Mangold’s film doesn’t explore the character at its heart in enough depth to truly make a mark or add anything of note to the discourse surrounding Dylan.

Despite striking production design, as well as fine performances, the film is underwhelming. Mangold and Cocks’s dull narrative and the overly reverential approach to their subject results in a film that is decidedly uninspired. Although the music is rousing, the Bob Dylan biopic ‘A Complete Unknown’ is ultimately little more than a shallow caricature of the artist as a young man.