As per the title. Has anyone seen this yet?
I went last night & have to say I hugely enjoyed it. Ray is the benchmark for all music biopics for me & this was quite close to hitting those heights.
I should note I am a big Dylan fan, so have to switch off from some of the the inaccuracies of the film (i.e. Johnny Cash playing Newport, the shout of ‘Judas’ at Newport – which as any fule kno, actually happened on 17th May 1966 in Manchester, the numerous meetings with Woody etc.). However, the film told it’s story & was a great watch.
Timothee Chalamet & Ed Norton as Dylan & Seeger respectively are both fantastic & I don’t think anyone will grumble when they rightly win a lot of awards for their portrayals.
My one gripe (& it is a very minor one), was the portrayal of Albert Grossman. I have always seen him as a really imposing figure & quite menacing, whereas in the film he did not quite capture that. As I say, very minor & did not detract too much. A quick aside here to say that the actor playing Alan Lomax was very good & exactly how I would have pictured him.
If you are on the fence about going, I suggest going for it. I took my Dad who is responsible for me being such a Dylan nut, so it was a lovely thing to watch with him & he also absolutely loved it too.
Here is where my view of Albert Grossman is based:
Yes, saw it opening night and very much enjoyed it. Will be intrigued to hear what others make of it.
SPOILERS FOLLOW
Thought the performances were uniformly excellent; particularly impressed by Monica Barbaro, who gave a great Joan Baez.
I didn’t mind the historical inaccuracies, in fact I thought they were entirely apt. Heading in, I’d wondered how the film could possibly work – biography is generally an attempt to get under the skin of the subject, but the entire point of Dylan is his resistance to all such attempts to close the distance.
Ultimately, it felt like James Mangold chose the only appropriate path; he made no real attempt to humanise Dylan or discern his emotions, other than to catalogue an ongoing irritation on Dylan’s behalf at all such efforts to define or pigeonhole him.
I’ve said before that to my mind the extraordinary thing about Dylan is that he, just as much as his music, is the work of art – he’s into the seventh decade of his career and we really still don’t know who he is at all. I think I’ve listened to just about every note of his music ever recorded, read numerous books, watched numerous interviews, but the force shield of mythos he deliberately cultivates remains impenetrable. We will never again see a public figure of this scale who manages to remain so remote, it’s the precise opposite direction of travel for 21st century celebrity.
Even the film’s title feels like a nod to the above. Sure, Dylan is a complete unknown when he blows into New York at the outset, but that moniker remains just as applicable by the story’s denouement, and even now, 60 years on.
Dylan was consulted heavily on the script and apparently insisted on including at least one scene which did not actually occur in real life. Why? Because he’s always kept the truth at arms length, always preferred to remain unknown and unknowable. Because he had to will “Bob Dylan” into existence, and he knows it’s better to print the legend.
So, if (SPOILERS) Suze Rotolo becomes Sylvie Russo, if Johnny Cash shouldn’t be at Newport 65, if the recording of Highway 61 Revisited is out of sequence, if the “Judas” shout is geographically and temporally misplaced, so what? The movie is just doing what Dylan has always done – a handful of lies to sweeten the pot, a trip down the garden path ever further away from the human being behind the facade. The inaccuracies are so glaring that they’re obviously a conscious choice – we’re being given the sense of how things were, the feel of it all, rather than the actual reality.
I only really had two criticisms (again, SPOILERS); the first was that they took the “fuckin” out of “play fuckin loud” – utter sacrilege. The second was that the intro of the version of Like A Rolling Stone that follows that cry of “Judas” sounded utterly anaemic when compared to the real thing. But I guess that just goes to show how magical the real thing was and is.
Spoilers!
He goes electric. Oh sorry.
So finally saw it today with my daughter who liked it a lot. I thought it was really good. Chalamet was a revelation and Norton his usual dependable self. Elle Fanning also very good
I knew there were going to be inaccuracies and couldn’t give a jot. My daughter very gently said “Didn’t he come across as a bit of an asshole”? not wanting to offend me. I said it was pretty realistic
James Mangold is a fine director. I really liked Ford v Ferrari and apparently one of the few who liked the last Indiana Jones film. I see that it has received quite a few Oscar nominations. My usual criticism we could have maybe lost 20 minutes or so. Most films these days are too long.
Is it films being too long* or age-related lack of patience?
*Some genuinely are, but I suspect age and having previously seen loads of movies is a factor too.
Going to see The Brutalist this week, as it’s been highly recommended by various people, over 3 hours but it does have an in-built intermission.
For me the climactic scene was a bit overdone and could have been pruned a lot. I think 20 or 30 years ago films lasting 2hr 20 or longer would be in the strict minority, now it’s pretty much commonplace. So I don’t think it’s just me
Saw it on Friday and thought it was excellent. Highly recommended other than to Dylan nerds who won’t be able to get past him wearing the wrong shirt at Newport etc. I particularly liked the fact that they are actually playing and singing – miming always looks rubbish to me but I’m a guitar nerd.
I haven’t seen it yet as it runs a bit later down here where I live. I feel like I have seen it given the trailers , clips and reviews I have read.
I have had a good listen to the soundtrack and it is pretty good although the Joan Baez voice is really just a nice voice rather than the stunning voice Joan had – even if annoying at times.
As one of the nerds Twang referred to I expect to spot anomalies but who cares, it is a movie.
Haven’t seen it yet either – since it’s such a pain in the arse going to the movies round here I’ll probably wait until it turns up at home.
I agree that ‘Joan Baez’ isn’t Joan Baez, but I thought the clip of them doing It Ain’t Me Babe at Newport was absolutely electrifying.
I saw it yesterday and overall thought it was great. Biopics can be frustrating beasts, with scenes from the life presented as a series of stepping stones heralded by prophetic conversations played out at the highest levels of emotion. Some clunky dialogue aside, particularly in the parting scenes with ‘Sylvie’ and Joan, this film avoids those traps. There are no flashbacks where Chalomet, who is excellent throughout, closes his eyes and is transported back to Hibbing to show us ‘what really happened’, and the film is all the better for it.
As with any biopic, those who know the story could point out inaccuracies, those who don’t could end up believing what is presented. Apparently, Suze Rotolo’s name was changed at Dylan’s request, which seems quixotic when her name is o well known already. The same authorisation from the man himself might explain some sanitisation. No matter how bleary eyed Dylan is in the later scenes there is no direct reference to drug use.
So , sanitised then.
I don’t like Bob Dylan and I never have. I have one of his albums that I paid money for. Time Out of Mind because I really liked Dirt Road Blues as a song. We have a Best of that my wife had before I met her. I really like many covers of his songs. I went to the film to see if it changed my mind.
I enjoyed the film while acknowledging the inherent problem with biopics of musicians ie that the rest of the cast are largely props and exposition vessels, that this is a version of what happened and not a documentary and that no life can be reduced to a number of key events.
Apart from an overwhelming urge to smoke, I came away unconverted. I really enjoyed it as a film and I think the music was great. Chalamet actually playing the guitar was really impressive. Joan Baez was easier on the ear and eye than I ever found the real one. The audiences were unconvincing; a recurring problem with music biopics. I liked how we could see the development in his music from start to finish but there was little insight into where the inspiration came from. I wondered whether the director was trying to suggest that Bob Dylan was/is on the autism spectrum in terms of his awkward interactions with people, his communication style, his constant working at his songs even when he was required to be present in the world. Maybe this is already documented. I’ve never read about him.
Around 20 minutes from the end I figured out who Edward Norton as Pete Seeger reminded me of. This is for Irish readers only – Brian Kerr, the very likeable football pundit. I’ll try to post a photo below. I’m glad I hadn’t noticed earlier.
I don’t think I’d go out of my way to watch it again.
I’m going later in the week.
I’m intrigued why Suze Rotolo became Sylvie Russo.
At Dylan’s own request apparently, because she wasn’t a public personage in her own right. As I say above I don’t really get that when her name is so well known already (and she’s sadly deceased) but if that was the price of Dylan’s cooperation I suppose it was thought a price worth paying.
Yes, especially as she wrote her own book about that period so one assumes it’s not exactly a no go area for her.
Perhaps it’s the fictionalisation of their relationship that’s unacceptable under her real name?
I wonder (but only half-heartedly, because it’s of no great importance to me) if this alteration of her name in the movie was something agreed after Dylan spoke to / consulted with Rotolo. When the film idea was coming together.
She’s been dead for nearly 15 years. Was the film that long in gestation?
I guess it’s so no-one Suze them.
Soz.
I’ve just purchased my ticket to see this movie in the bijou Robert Burns Film Theatre here in Dumfries next month. Bob Dylan has been part of the soundtrack to my life since the 60’s even though I am not a huge fan. I have also just purchased a ticket for Becoming Led Zeppelin in the slightly larger Glasgow IMAX in a couple of weeks time. Looking forward to both.
I saw it at the weekend and really enjoyed it. Of course there are historical inaccuracies and anomalies, but it isn’t a documentary and is aiming primarily to sell the Dylan story to e new generation. I thought the musical sequences were fantastic, sounded great and, of course, the songs are peerless. Once or twice it is a bit “on the nose” (Pete Seeger telling Dylan to be careful on his motorbike, “but you don’t play keyboards Al Kooper”) or gets a bit cheesy (the writing of Masters Of War after watching the Cuban Missile Crisis on tv) and Chalomet’s speaking voice veered towards parody at times, but overall it was much, much better than I expected. And the fact that the cast apparently performed the music is genuinely impressive.
I thought the ending might even have hinted at the possibility of a sequel. I’d go to it.
Yes I’m looking forward to that too. Saw the trailer at ACU.
Loved it. Not a huge Dylan fan – know enough about him to know that some events had been condensed or shown out of sequence, but it was obviously out of narrative expedience, and didn’t bother me. None of it jarred as much as the scene in Bohemian Rhapsody where Freddie revealed his HIV diagnosis to the rest of the band on the eve of Band Aid.
It bothered me more during the early open mic scenes, when an acoustic guitar magically became loud enough to project to an entire theatre without there being any obvious signs of amplification. And at Newport ‘65, when Dylan kept everyone guessing as to whether he was going to do an acoustic or electric set – literally couldn’t decide himself until choosing his guitar as he walked onto the stage – yet it was set up with a full backline, all set to perfect levels without any soundcheck.
But as noted Chalamet and Norton are fantastic. Chalamet played Dylan with exactly the right mix of obnoxiousness and charisma, capturing his tics and mannerisms, and unlike Paul above I didn’t feel he descended too far into caricature. His reproduction of Dylan’s singing and guitar playing was uncanny – even his stance at the microphone.
And whoever was playing Johnny Cash was so ridiculously cool it made me giggle with delight.
[I did agree with the on-the-nose bits – not only Seeger warning Dylan to be careful on the bike, but also the establishing shot of Joan Baez with people calling “Joan? Joan? MISS BAEZ?”]
Question – which my Dylan-fan friend and I didn’t know the answer to: would this film hold any interest at all to someone with no / little knowledge of the man’s work? My 18-year-old daughter for example. The main character is hard to love, the plot is almost nonexistent, and it doesn’t really have an ending.
Bio pics about living subjects don’t have endings.
If an 18-year-old without any Dylan knowledge has heard of him and is curious, they may find the movie interesting.
If they’re not curious then don’t bother.
Rather than insight into my daughter’s viewing preferences, I was looking for a view from someone who’d seen the film on whether it stands up in its own right – including the choice to leave the story at that point rather than any other (but biopics of living subjects really don’t fictionalise the character’s death?) But thanks for the advice.
“an acoustic guitar magically became loud enough to project to an entire theatre without there being any obvious signs of amplification. ”
It’s surprising how well sound carries in some older theatres. The crew at Brighton Dome are able to communicate with sound and lighting control at the top of the circle just by raising their voices.
On the subject of amplification, I can find no images of the stage at Newport with stage monitors on, even if the cabinets in the film did look home made. I think monitors didn’t really make an appearance until the late 60s, although I’m happy to be proved wrong. Don’t tell @fentonsteve …….
Edit: I couldn’t make out quite a lot of the dialogue, mainly Dylan’s lines. I’m used to this at home but not in the cinema.
I won’t be going out to see this, but I’ll hopefully watch it when it eventually turns up on TV.
Not as great a Dylan fan as some I know, but hoping it’s as good a watch as people are (mostly) saying.
Nice piece in the Graun today, asking the opinion of various Dylan lifers, incl Lucas Hare, once of this parish, when it was still Word. Or Beforeafterword, as none of us then called it.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2025/jan/21/bob-dylan-experts-rate-a-complete-unknown-chalamet-joan-baez?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Duringword?
It has received several nominations in the biggest Oscars categories.
I’ve managed to see it twice (not my choice) and enjoyed it both times, even though I’m not a particularly big Dylan fan.
I’ll certainly watch it again when it appears on Netflix.
I know I can look it up, but I feel I can ask this here without being ridiculed too much (hopefully).
My question is this:
Why was it such a big deal when someone shouted “Judas!” at him, when he first performed with an electric guitar? Every performer is heckled at some point. Why is this written about so much?
Because beard-stroking folkies wanted no truck with electric guitars. Dylan was supposed to be a crusader sticking it to the Man a la Woody Guthrie, and here he was burbling on about Leopardskin Pillbox Hats.
Have you heard it, BC?
It is one of the few Bob albums, and definitely the only live Bob album, I own.
The acoustic set is alright but, when the band (The Band) kick off, there’s an adrenaline surge. It must have sounded like a bomb going off to the audience on the night.
And, yes, I’ve heard (nearly) all of them at least once and, yes, I have the ‘essential’ albums, and, yes, he’s a brilliant songwriter, but, no, I don’t really like his voice.
I’ll see the film when it comes to my telly.
I was there – at the Albert. And it did sound like a bomb going off. LPBH was the loudest thing I’d ever heard in my life.
Somehow I knew one AWer was there, and somehow I knew it would be you!
I was at the Reading Festival the first time Pulp played Common People. It somehow doesn’t compare…
Not really my place to answer this one (wrong generation), but I can’t resist.
The Royal Albert Hall Concert is a fascinating record, because it’s a man going to war with his own audience, and because it has such a fabulous narrative arc.
The first side you get these gorgeous folk songs, performed in what sounds like utterly reverent, pin-drop silence. Some of the most beautiful lyrics anyone has ever written, a man alone onstage, a crowd about as respectful as it’s possible to imagine, every song given an emphatic round of applause.
And then second side it all shifts. A few seconds of tuning up, the band launches into a fierce Tell Me, Momma, and even at a distance of half a century you can feel the air in the room start to change. The applause that greets the song’s end is different in character; like there are less people clapping now, but they’re clapping harder. Or maybe some of them are slow clapping.
By halfway through you start to hear regular yelling from the audience – the congregation beginning to rebel against its prophet. There’s audible restlessness after every song, somehow reverence has transmuted into simmering hostility, because he is playing the wrong music.
He finishes Leopard-Skin Pillbox Hat and the audience disquiet reaches such a pitch that Dylan has to quieten them down with an old carny trick: several seconds of inaudible mumbling into the microphone before the crowd hushes to try to hear what he’s saying and then “If you only wouldn’t clap so hard”, and this great roar goes up, the audience split in two. It’s not a gig, it’s a football match.
And then obviously, the Judas moment. So perfect you would have needed to choreograph it.
There’s been this tussle going on for the previous hour between the performer and a sizeable section of his audience, and then suddenly a single individual gives voice to the sentiment that’s been hanging over the entire affair. There’s a momentary pause and then a rumble of mixed opprobrium and approval. There’s applause. There’s actual jeering. How did we get from She Belongs To Me on side one to this state of affairs?
And then to top it all, Dylan ad libs this completely perfect, characteristically gnomic response, turns to his band, proclaims “play fucking loud” and they deliver the opening to Like A Rolling Stone on god’s own steroids. I mean, just listen to it – the song has never sounded better. Challenge met and answered; you don’t want me to play this music? Well, here’s the best possible version of this music, loud and in your face.
A Complete Unknown does a brilliant job of explaining the broader significance of Dylan’s tilt away from traditional folk music. But it does a lousy job of the Judas moment – it makes it look throwaway, like just another incident where Dylan thumbed his nose at yet another critic. But that’s not all the Judas moment was; it was also the culmination of an hour of guerilla warfare between artist and audience, and I honestly think it needs to be heard in that context – with the full build up – to be properly understood. It’s broadly equivalent to watching a comedian try out new material, get brutally heckled by his own audience and then respond by suddenly and unexpectedly telling the funniest joke of all time.
That’s how it sounds to me, anyway. I’ve been listening to the recording regularly for about 30 years now, and that’s how it sounds to me.
I am flabbergasted that mikethep was there, and obviously defer to him on anything he has to say on the matter.
Though it was recorded at Manchester Free Trade Hall not the RAH.
Yep – I’m referring to the title of the bootleg, rather than the venue. I always quite like the misdirect, it adds to the legend.
Ah I see, I was referring to the official release.
Though I’m now confused which concert @mikethep was at.
Brilliant writing Bingo, I’ve always been floored by that live recording and the shift in the room from hushed reverence to outright hostility. Had any mainstream pop artist been so heckled before? The thundercrack drums at the beginning of Like A Rolling Stone sound like the ceiling is coming down.
Just to say I agree with sbadger it’s an excellent read.
Thanks, both!
I was 16 in 1966 and even at the time I never understood why some people seemed surprised and shocked that he played the electric stuff – hadn’t they listened to Bringing it All Back Home, Hightway 61 Revisited or Blonde on Blonde for pity’s sake? Even Another Side of had signalled a departure from the earnest folk stuff – my theory was that it was the subject matter as much as the electrification that some didn’t like. He was known as a ‘protest’ singer, and this was all about Pill Box Hats and Rainy Day Women….
His first single Mixed Up Confusion was electric
It’s a really interesting point.
Watching A Complete Unknown, I was reflecting that the first half of the “Albert Hall” gig isn’t actually the protest music in the classic folk tradition that people were apparently keen to hang on to.
Visions of Johanna, Desolation Row et al were already a leap on from that stuff, and lyrically have far more in common with the material played in the controversial second half.
Which makes me wonder (and again – I’m saying all this at a remove of several decades, so what do I know really) whether the problem wasn’t what he was singing per se, but rather the presence of a full band onstage and specifically the electric guitar.
If he’d come out and played (say) One Too Many Mornings solo and acoustic, would he have got the same reaction?
Thanks for the responses on this, I understand the overall context better now. The incident wasn’t one lone heckle – it was articulating a sentiment shared by a half the crowd. To which Bob responded by defiantly going louder than he’d planned.
We enjoyed it. The musical numbers worked well, especially the duets. (As someone said in an earlier comment, the ‘Baez voice’ in the film is pretty rather the thing of beauty that captivated people at the time, but it’s not an issue). The performances also reminded me, after years of over-exposure in my younger days, what a powerful bunch of songs Dylan produced in the early sixties.
I thought the film did a reasonably good job of reflecting the hurt caused by Dylan’s move away from acoustic/protest songs. And I enjoyed the time spent on the relationships with Joan and Sylvie/Suze. Edward Norton was, as others have also noted, marvellous as Pete S. Chalamet was very effective overall, although I didn’t find him as charismatic as others reported.
Perhaps the one real issue is that, for me, there is always a bit of a hole where Dylan is. Inevitably, fpr someone so guarded of himself, one never really gets any sense of what he is really thinking. Quite possibly accurate, but a bit limited dramatically. You can see why Todd Haynes went for multiple Dylan’s telling stories that might or might not be true in his film ‘I’m Not There’, which I love.
I say all of this in the context of someone who nowadays isn’t so enamoured of relatively straightforward, linear biopics. I prefer those that either tell a slightly different story, or version of the story. ( the Ian Dury film which was focused on his relationship with his son is an example) or are ,well less linear. The Angelina Jolie film, Maria, was, for me, more interesing for that reason. And her performance better than any in A Complete Unknown.
So overall this is the view of someone who likes Bob Dylan, isn’t really a fan of ‘and then this happened’ films, doesn’t find Timothee Chalamet particularly fascinating, but still enjoyed the film.
Finally got to see it last night and I am thrilled to report that there were all of 10 souls in the cinema, which meant no chatter and no endless popcorn crunching! Result!!
I did feel beforehand that I had actually seen most of it via endless trailers and Facebook adverts, and this was broadly proven true, and I really wish I hadn’t seen those and read so many reviews. I also probably would have better off unaware beforehand of the historical inaccuracies – I am a Dylan fan, but I didn’t really know about most of them, and being aware whilst watching was annoying.
However, the film has haunted my thoughts since. It captured so well the essence of what it must have been like in New York at that time and the personalities of the protagonists so brilliantly. All of the leads are absolutely terrific, and to hear and (sort of) experience those songs in the context of when they were written and originally performed was incredibly moving. Yes, there were a couple of bits of clunky expositional dialogue, but the 2 hours plus flew by and left me wanting more.
If anyone hasn’t seen it, I do recommend ‘ The Other Side of the Mirror’ which documents the Newport appearances by Dylan in 1963, 64 and 65 – this seems suddenly much more contextualised by the new film.