Timothée Chalamet's Bob Dylan is ELECTRIC in 'A Complete Unknown'

[@ABC-wq4ie]

I’m a big Dylan fan and I really enjoyed the movie and your analysis, but there’s a couple of things I think you should consider. Bob Dylan is not a politically radical or active person, you just want him to be and he wants to be what you don’t want him to be. He does not want to be the “archbishop of anarchy,” as he said. He’s an artist first and always has been. He has obviously cared about certain injustices (Hurricane, Lonesome Death of Hattie Carrol) but arguably the main theme of his career has been trying to distance himself from the role of a prophetic revolutionary or political figure that’s been foisted upon him by the media. He wanted to be Elvis, and especially Buddy Holly and Little Richard, since high school. After high school, he fell in love with Woody Guthrie’s music and went to New York to meet him, joined the folk scene, and quickly rose to essentially the number one spot because of his skills as a writer and performer. However, he viewed most of the protest music/folk scene as too topical (distanced from universal artistic truths) and especially too dogmatic. I think the movie does a good job showing this trajectory, with him in 65 becoming distanced both sonically and politically from the folk scene. This distance would increase as he toured the world in 65 and 66, which is shown in the scenes in Don’t Look Back and No Direction Home where he’s entirely tired of the media viewing him as a “voice of generation,” political leader, or even a folk singer. He thought the idea of him being a communist or anarchist was absurd, not just because it would get him in trouble, but because he didn’t believe in those ideologies. Also the love triangle in the movie is kind of misleading towards the end, as in 65 Dylan ended up marrying a woman who was completely unmentioned by the movie, Sara. He’d step out of the spotlight and start a family with her after 66, but still would record music, just shifting again from rock to a more country direction with his last two albums in the 60s. I agree with you that it would be very interesting if the movie had focused on the political dimensions of his role as an artist and his rejection of being labeled as a voice of a generation. I think they did this a little, but it is closely tied with them not wanting him to go electric, which the movie may present as more of a sonic debate instead of political one. Going electric meant abandoning the folk protest movement and the civil-rights songs, and instead writing what many folkies considered pop garbage that had no political cause, which was the main reason his switch was viewed as such a betrayal. As the 60s went on the protest movement and hippies very much still wanted Dylan as a figurehead, with the Woodstock festival literally happening in Woodstock because that’s where Dylan lived after the motorcycle crash, as they were trying to lure him out to perform by having the festival in basically his backyard. He didn’t perform there, but his songs were covered a lot, and it does bring up interesting questions about the differences between the real Bob Dylan and the figure and songs that he has created.

[@laredolassoo]

Exactly right on all of this.

[@8ohm1]

Read Dylan's Chronicles. He never wanted to be "the voice of a generation" which the press wanted to pin on him. He only wished to be a musician. If the movie wished to portray Dylan as an artist and an enigma they have it right. I have never perceived Dylan as an angry person, just pissed off with the press. Later after the timeline of this movie he was understandably distressed at not being able to protect his family from the public intrusion on their private lives.

[@christopherjarrett9067]

liked this discussion!

[@dylanthompson8511]

I dont think Dylan was conventionally attractive or unattractive. He just looked so utterly unique, with an instantly recognizable profile, that when combined with his genius, a lot of people (though not everyone, obviously) found him very attractive.

[@heatherbukowski2102]

"strangely confident but also neurotic" lmao that's exactly how he is

[@laredolassoo]

Neurodivergent?

[@laredolassoo]

I don't think for a minute that it's right to conclude Dylan was a 'deeply angry, lost intellectual ', nor a self-hater or fearful of anti-communist reaction. Like, none of that. Nor did the film avoid his prickly and combative personality. He sabotaged a whole show in the movie ffs. And I can't believe you watched NDH and DLB and concluded he may not be aware of how he was perceived as a figurehead of an era. To be clear, he never struggled with whether to be a social justice activist - he just plainly was not.

[@willjohn1517]

Thanks for the review- as a person who has been immersed in the music & life of Bob Dylan - I don’t agree on your highlighting your opinion that Bob is an angry dude as a primary characteristic of personality. IMO - he isn’t willing to allow individuals or the press in general to drive a narrative without really knowing the facts. It’s lazy - and presumptuous. Let’s say it again lazy & presumptuous. Dylan won the Nobel Prize in Literature- - please sit with that for a bit. He didn’t go to the award ceremony- and sent Patti instead. Why was that? Dylan embodies accurate Christian theology in his trilogy of “Christian LP’s” - and then moved in a sophisticated way in and out of religious imagery and themes since through his lyrics. My point is - your take on Dylan is so simplistic. He’s able to present many aspects of a diamond simultaneously which is reality in the moment. Very disappointed in your view of the man - he’s probably a seer who will be understood a hundred years from now better than in this present generation. Outliers are always misunderstood- it’s the genius & non conventional- outside the box that many folks just can’t catch the frequency of. No wonder he rarely does interviews any more.

[@daguy8275]

Kelsi notice me senpai