A Complete Unknown (2024)
Bob Dylan and mainstream are like electric and folk.
Presentation:
Shot on the Sony Venice and Panavision anamorphic, the film utilizes a mild grade with a touch of yellow to bring us back to 1960s New York City. The cars, people and appliances don’t make you doubt for a second which time period you are in within the unmistakable concrete jungle. The dull street lamps and yellow lighting make New York feel like a character in itself, made more transparent through the use of deep focus and high ISO. The version I watched didn’t have a lot of grain and still looked quite digital and sharp but never detracting from the immersion. The story is all about Bob Dylan, but it was hard not to see Timothee Chalamet behind the performance despite the uncanny nasally singing. There are some numbers where I was shocked that it was actually Chalamet singing and not Dylan, that’s how close the resemblance was. This complaint is only possible because the other cast successfully disappears into their roles. Over time, Chalamet’s embodiment of Dylan begins to fuse into one as he becomes more broody and cynical. Perhaps it was because I enjoy his music or have studied Dylan’s work that I found the full length musical numbers bearable, but it would have been welcome to cut or shorten a few musical numbers, which exacerbated the longer runtime. I found myself disappointingly eager in anticipating the end than I should, which is also a product of the film having less dramatic elements. It’s more of a neutrally faithful biography, but with an underwhelming climax the reward is quite a letdown given its runtime. Perhaps that is what it was going for, with the audience mirroring the in-movie audience.
Conclusion:
This is a good biography but not the most entertaining film. Considering how Dylan’s music is synonymous with iconic anti-war and anti-racism themes, it is baffling how the most intriguing aspects of the protest folk icon wasn’t more deeply explored. Modern Hollywood never shies away from overtly social messaging that have nothing to do with the plot, and yet when it is actually relevant the protest narrative fades into the background? The film focuses on Dylan, Dylan, Dylan, his growing contrarian outlook and lovers. But without anything else supporting the story, it’s hard to invest in him especially when he doesn’t have a particularly charismatic or likable persona. It is quite accurate in the sense that Dylan has always been somewhat of a jerk. I recall live performances in the early 2000s where he truly performed with his back to the audience because he didn’t like them. It seems as though the writers are also turning their backs on us to respectfully portray Dylan, but one can see in both the film and real life why his influence has faded. It’s a grounded depiction and as alluded to by the discussion with Sylvie in the diner, the film isn’t about Dylan or any artist finding oneself, it’s about changing. Not for the better or worse, just different. I just wish we saw a more different side of him. A biography of the most prolific protest songwriter with no social commentary, imagine!
Recommendations
Francis Coppola can even turn disasters into masterpieces.