Timothée Chalamet has stepped onto the big screen as the young Bob Dylan in the eagerly awaited biopic, "A Complete Unknown," set to stir conversations among music aficionados and film critics alike. Directed by James Mangold, who also helmed the acclaimed "Walk the Line," this film aims to encapsulate the transformative years of Dylan's life from 1961 to 1965. Yet, as critics weigh in, it quickly becomes evident: not all assess this portrayal favorably.
Chalamet’s performance has garnered significant praise. Many are hailing it as Oscar-worthy, with his dedication evident as he immerses himself not just in Dylan’s looks but also his distinct vocal style, delivering raw renditions of iconic tracks such as "The Times They Are A-Changin.'" According to OutKick, "A Complete Unknown" showcases Chalamet playing Dylan with palpable humanity, steering far from mere mimicry to capture the essence of the artist himself.
Yet, even as praise flows for Chalamet, the film's script is drawing criticism for its inability to articulate Dylan's story beyond surface-level exploration. Keith Phipps of The Verve notes, “Mangold and Jay Cocks’ script is weirdly thin,” which seems to gloss over key elements of Dylan's relationships and struggles. Critics argue the movie presents Dylan predominantly as "a complete unknown" on emotional and narrative grounds, leaving both casual viewers and die-hard Dylan fans craving depth.
From his early open mic performances at Greenwich Village to the immensely charged Newport Folk Festival where he famously went electric, the story attempts to paint Dylan's complex evolution as both artist and person. Critics have noted this transformation as pivotal, illustrating his struggle against the labels thrust upon him by society and even his musical mentors, including folk icons like Pete Seeger and Woody Guthrie.
Edward Norton's portrayal of Seeger particularly stands out, representing the generational tensions of the era. Seeger’s character is depicted as someone wrestling with Dylan’s pivot to rock music—an act which many of his folk contemporaries viewed as a betrayal of the genre's essence. These moments of conflict between old and new, tradition and innovation highlight the real-life tug-of-war happening within the folk scene during the 1960s.
Critics also pointed out the soap opera-esque romance between Dylan and Sylvie Russo—fictionalized from the real-life muse Suze Rotolo, played by Elle Fanning—fails to bring substance. This romantic subplot has been described as clichéd and weak, perhaps belonging more to the pages of fan fiction than to the biography of one of music's great revolutionaries.
Even though the film incorporates real historical events such as Dylan's electrifying Newport performance, it has come under scrutiny for how it condenses timelines and combines incidents for dramatic effect. Some, like music historian Elijah Wald, who authored the book "Dylan Goes Electric!"—which inspired the film—foreground the artistic liberties taken, stating, "It’s not a Wikipedia entry," and emphasizing the film's intent lies more in capturing the emotional essence of Dylan rather than delivering historical accuracy.
Many viewers may appreciate the film for how well it captures the music itself, with over 40 songs featured throughout. Critics have noted this aspect, with some labeling the film as almost "a concert with dramatic interludes." Yet, therein lies another contention; critics lament the overshadowing of narrative depth by musical performance. The Versus Team suggests, "half the movie is like watching pretty good karaoke," questioning who the film's intended audience is.
Despite the conflicting critiques, the consensus remains: Chalamet’s performance is what captures the audience. Managerial issues and studio fragments aside, the film strikes at the core of Dylan's multifaceted persona. Kevin Odegard, who played on "Blood on the Tracks," echoes this sentiment by declaring, “we loved every minute,” urging audiences to experience the emotional weight of Mangold’s narrative.
Meanwhile, Mangold himself has confidently remarked about the film: it aims to inspire admiration, albeit with acknowledgment of Dylan's very human flaws. By presenting Dylan’s character as impervious to easy definitions, viewers are left grappling with the question: Who truly is Bob Dylan? The dynamism between admiration and the artist's raw, personal struggles creates fertile ground for exploration.
“A Complete Unknown,” with its intriguing portrayal of Bob Dylan’s early years, invites viewers to witness not just the music but the man behind it—however imperfectly. Whether celebrated or critiqued, it dares to ask questions about artistic identity and authenticity, perhaps reminding us all how complex great minds can be.
So, as we ponder on the film’s ambiguous portrayal of Dylan, we leave the theaters asking ourselves, are we seeing the complete picture of this musical icon, or simply fragments of his rich history?
