Enough With the Dylan-Splaining: ‘A Complete Unknown’ Isn’t a Documentary! (Guest Column)

by

As a lifelong Dylan enthusiast who has spent countless hours poring over biographies, listening to his music, and debating the finer points of his career with fellow fans, I must say that James Mangold’s ‘A Complete Unknown’ has left me utterly captivated.

I have always admired Dylan for his ability to reinvent himself, to challenge conventions, and to maintain an enigmatic air about him. So, when I heard that the movie would take some liberties with historical facts, I found myself intrigued rather than perturbed. After all, art is not bound by the constraints of reality but by the artist’s vision.

And what a magnificent vision it is! Mangold and Cocks have crafted a film that encapsulates the essence of Dylan’s early years – the restless energy, the rebellious spirit, the unwavering determination to break free from the mold. The movie may not be a court document, but it is a testament to the transformative power of music and the indomitable human spirit.

Now, I understand that some fans have taken issue with certain inaccuracies, particularly the ‘Judas!’ moment at Newport. To them, I say, “lighten up, folks! It’s just a movie.” If Dylan himself can bend the truth to suit his purposes, why can’t we? Besides, as Elijah Wald so eloquently put it, if we’re going to be picky about historical accuracy, we might as well crawl out our windows and join Mr. Jones in his endless quest for the trees!

In the end, ‘A Complete Unknown’ is a celebration of Dylan’s life and music, and that’s all that truly matters. It reminds us that art is not about the facts but about the feelings it evokes, and in this regard, Mangold’s film is nothing short of brilliant.

Last year, the Amy Winehouse movie “Back to Black” highlighted the pitfalls of musical biopics. Contrastingly, critics and audiences appear satisfied with James Mangold’s portrayal of Bob Dylan’s early life in “A Complete Unknown”. This endeavor is quite a bold move, tackling one of the 20th century’s most pervasive myths – a groundbreaking artist who has sold over 125 million albums, garnered Grammys, an Oscar, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and the Nobel Prize in Literature. One might expect die-hard Dylan fans to be jubilant.

(Note: The apology to Heinrich Böll acknowledges that singing in the shower does not meet the criteria for winning a Nobel Prize in Literature.)

The film starring Timothée Chalamet, penned by Mangold and Jay Cocks, is not a legal document detailing actual events. Instead, it takes creative liberties with the historical account from the very first scene. Contrary to the movie’s portrayal, Bob Dylan, a young man from Minnesota, did not arrive in New York City alone through the Holland Tunnel; he had companions. Unlike the film suggests, Dylan didn’t mysteriously appear at Woody Guthrie’s bedside and perform “Song to Woody” with Pete Seeger witnessing, nor did he have a heartfelt goodbye with Sylvie Russo (her character’s name in the movie) at a Rhode Island ferry station in 1965. By that time, they had already parted ways, and she was not present at the Newport Folk Festival that year.

As a lifelong fan of Dylan’s music and someone who has spent countless hours researching his life and career, I must say that I find it somewhat surprising to see the level of uproar surrounding the alleged inaccuracies in “A Complete Unknown.” Given my background, I have grown accustomed to Dylan’s mercurial nature and his penchant for bending the truth. In fact, I would argue that this enigmatic quality is a significant part of what makes him such an intriguing figure, both as an artist and a person.

That being said, it’s worth noting that biographical films are often subject to artistic license and creative interpretation, especially when they are based on the life of someone as complex and elusive as Bob Dylan. While it’s important for filmmakers to strive for historical accuracy, it’s equally important to remember that these works are meant to entertain and inspire, rather than serve as a definitive account of a person’s life.

In conclusion, while I can understand why some fans might be upset about the perceived inaccuracies in “A Complete Unknown,” I believe it’s essential to approach such films with a critical eye and an understanding that they are works of art, not historical documents. And as for Dylan himself, he has always been a master of reinvention and self-mythologization, so perhaps it should come as no surprise that his life story would be the subject of creative interpretation in this way.

As a devoted Dylan fan, even I can’t help but be swayed by the familiar chord that strikes when I see this particular image. It seems that the gene for explanatory discourse, particularly prevalent among Boomer and Gen X fans, gets activated in response to anything related to Bob. After all, we’ve found ourselves nodding in agreement as we listen to his artistic detours such as “Self Portrait”, “Saved” or the three-disc set of American standards, “Triplicate”. And just like that, the urge to analyze and justify his work arises. I too am grappling with this inclination within myself.

As a longtime enthusiast of folk music and someone who grew up during the 60s, I can certainly understand the controversy surrounding Dylan’s electric performance at the Newport Folk Festival. Having attended numerous concerts and festivals myself, I can appreciate the traditionalists’ desire to preserve the purity of folk music. However, as a fan of innovation and artistic expression, I also see the value in Dylan’s decision to embrace the emerging sound of rock ‘n’ roll. The clash between tradition and progress is a common theme in many aspects of life, and it’s always fascinating to witness it unfold, especially when it comes to music and the arts.

Indeed, you’re correct that the well-known “Judas!” moment from Newport ’65 didn’t actually occur there; instead, it took place in Manchester, England, about 10 months later. Although it’s valid to clarify these discrepancies, it’s quite another to discount the entire film based on them. And if you find yourself sharing this information on Facebook, remember the words of wisdom: don’t forget to jump out your window first!

Elijah Wald, writer of the book “Dylan Goes Electric”, which Mangold and Cocks transformed into a movie, became frustrated with the changes he found necessary and expressed his feelings on his personal Facebook page through a 900-word essay. In this essay, he humorously speculates that although it wasn’t recorded, someone may have indeed shouted “Judas!” at Newport during Dylan’s electric performance. He then defends the movie by asserting that while certain facts may be stretched, it effectively portrays the spirit of the era. In a now-deleted discussion on a Facebook group (whose conversation I have glimpsed through screenshots), Wald responds to a more thoughtful critique of the film from music critic and author of another Dylan book, Chris Morris. Wald mentions that he had already received payment for his work on the movie and would have no incentive to promote it if he didn’t enjoy it.

Others have simply responded to the nit-pickers with some zings.

After decades of comic book details being analyzed by online enthusiasts, it seems that Dylan fans are now relishing their moment in the limelight. While all the “well, actually” comments made online are indeed accurate, the humor lies in how these ardent supporters are unwittingly imitating one of Dylan’s scorned characters, the meticulous “Mr. Jones” from “Ballad of a Thin Man,” who fails to see the bigger picture despite knowing something is amiss – “you know something’s happening, but you don’t know what it is, do you, Mr. Jones?

Read More

2024-12-30 19:55