Split Decision: "A Complete Unknown"
Tuesday, February 18, 2025 at 5:30PM In the Split Decision series, two of our writers face off on an Oscar-nominated movie one loves and the other doesn't. Today, Eric Blume and Ben Miller discuss A Complete Unknown...
ERIC: Hey Ben! It's cool to be able to discuss A Complete Unknown with you. I didn't love the movie, but I did find it very entertaining until its final reel, and it kind of felt like the kind of sturdy Hollywood films they don't make very often nowadays. I have lots of thoughts about it, but where do you stand on the movie overall?
BEN: This is where we diverge, because outside of some of the supporting performances, I found it dreadful. I wasn't even entertained. The entire film felt like an anti-musical biopic, but the more it tried to get away from the formula, the more it leaned into it...
I abhor musical biopics because they are so dependent on the music. Without the music, the producers won't greenlight a film. In order to get the music, you have to placate the rights holders, who are usually the subjects, or their families. In order to placate the rights holders, you have to water down the narrative to not piss them off. Therefore, you have a muted narrative where the only subject's only fault is that no one understands his genius? Give me a break.
What are film-version Dylan's faults? He loves too much? He's too revolutionary? He wants to evolve too quickly? Where the world sees a dynamic performer, I see a blowhard who was unhappy the moment he got everything he wanted, and that is extremely uninteresting to me.
ERIC: My boy Ben is fired up!
Okay, a few questions to your response. First, it sounds like there is little to no chance you ever would have liked this movie, as you do not enjoy musical biopics? Like, it appears there's nothing Mangold and team could have done to make you enjoy this movie?
When you say, the more they tried to get away from the formula, the more they leaned into it, what do you mean by that?
I mean, musical biopics are what they are, and I agree with you on how the process waters down the storytelling inevitably. I can go into some things I think Mangold and company did that were smart, as well as some other aspects of the filmmaking that I think were artistic and accomplished.
BEN: I'm not sure I can ever like a musical biopic that isn't willing to get down to the nitty gritty. I can appreciate the self-effacing effort from something like Rocketman, or even the pure entertainment value of Straight Outta Compton, but there are still a dozen moments in each where I groan out and say, "Well, that definitely didn't happen." That's the bull these filmmakers try to push. They will push a "based on a true story" narrative, but then treat these real life events with the absolute bare minimum of truth in a situation that is not difficult to recreate. Bohemian Rhapsody is obviously the biggest offender, but even something like Better Man, that tried to be different by making the main character a monkey, ended up being an extremely conventional episode of Behind the Music.
As far as the formula, you could tell Mangold didn't want to do the cradle-to-the-grave biopic, but in rejecting that idea, he did it anyway. Instead of starting with unresolved childhood trauma leading to artistic breakthrough, they just took out the context and started with the arrival in the big cit-tay. From there, he impresses people more famous than he, ruins his relationships, gets very famous, pushes against that fame, then attempts to transcend it by driving everyone nuts. It's like they made a 200-minute movie and just chopped off the first and last 30 of the traditional biopic, which then made it unconventional.
I'm a real negative Nancy when it comes to this film and these types of films in general.
Please Eric, bring me back towards the positive. What about it did you really connect with?
ERIC: Ben, I'm sending you a supportive hug to calm you down!
Well, a few things. I'd argue that "they chopped off the first and last 30 minutes of the traditional biopic" is actually one of the smart artistic choices. At least we were spared the litany of cliches that come with the birth-to-grave format. Again, this doesn't make it unconventional...A Complete Unknown is completely conventional, and completely unsurprising. But at least we got only a limited wedge of Dylan (the period where he truly was the most interesting)...and I do think that's something. But agree with you one hundred percent that it's by-the-books.
To me, some of the pleasure is in how intelligently they did the by-the-books. Dylan is a complete cypher as a human and an artist. Todd Haynes made esoteric play of exactly that as his thesis for I'm Not There, but because Mangold is a very conventional Hollywood director, and this is a big Hollywood studio film, the approach is going to be more straightforward. That said, I thought they still smartly found a way to make a "biopic" without losing that essential mystery of Dylan. Chalamet captures the unknowingness of Dylan: that can't-catch-me quality that makes him so compelling. It's difficult for an actor to play a sphinx, and I think Chalamet and Mangold worked together to give Dylan blood in his veins while not playing their whole hand. I think that's a major accomplishment.
That said, I cannot find myself defending James Mangold too much. The fact that he is up for the Best Director Oscar over, say, Mohammed Rasolouf, is preposterous. At best, A Complete Unknown is still just a well-executed, workmanlike directing effort.
Let's talk about the performances. I'm not rooting for Chalamet to win Best Actor, but in addition to the challenge of making Dylan human (and unlikeable), his singing is kinda of bonkers perfect. I think we take for granted when actors who do their own singing end up sounding so good...it is difficult as fuck, and we have so many talented actors that they make it look easy. The likeness of sound, phrasing, timbre, and emotional effect that Chalamet gleans from Dylan is irrefutably impressive. Unless you'd like to refute it? :) Also interested in your thoughts on Ed Norton, Monica Barbaro, and Elle Fanning...
BEN: Let's get the Chalamet out of the way to start. As an actor, I am consistently blown away by him. He is a performer where I specifically watch him work because he has a tendency to make choices that suit his characters in a way that no other actor would choose to make. If he is in a project, I am going to give it the benefit of the doubt. That being said, I hated this performance. I just couldn't find anything to hang on to. I will agree with you that the singing is pretty spot on, but it's mostly a straight-up SNL impersonation without the comedy. It feels like the hair and the voice (which is spotty as hell between gravely and just a slightly baritone Chalamet-tenor) does 90% of the work.
I never like tearing down another performance by lifting up another, but that's where I am with Barbaro's Joan Baez. Much like Dylan, Baez is an extremely famous person with plenty of examples on how she walked, talked, and behaved. While Chalamet does a straight impression, Barbaro captures the essence of the woman without emulating her 100%. I'll use a pair of Oscar-winning actors as an example. Chalamet pulled a Rami Malek in Bohemian Rhapsody (but with his own singing), while Barbaro pulled a Daniel Day-Lewis in Lincoln. At the same time, I think the film gives her the leeway to do what she does because it doesn't have much desire to explore Baez other than surface-level. Barbaro puts much more substance into the character that would otherwise be there. It's the performance that has grown on me the most and it's also a nomination I am really glad she has. Also, check out those quads! That woman doesn't skip leg day.
As for Norton, he has always been an actor I have thoroughly enjoyed. The worst thing about him was his pickiness, but thanks to all the favors he called in to make Motherless Brooklyn, those favors means he shows up in something like this. 10 years ago, I didn't see him playing Pete Seeger, but it's a role he nails. I love the idea of an actor with a prickly off-screen persona playing a genuinely sweet and gentle man and it coming across authentically on-screen. Seeger is just a good-hearted boy playing Frankenstein whose monster has grown beyond his control. I don't think it's a difficult or even a tricky performance, but Norton does a fine job.
I would talk about Elle Fanning, but the film didn't care about her or give her anything to do, so why should I? I kid, I kid. Another performer I really love that filmmakers haven't figured out what to do with. I hate the long-suffering wife trope, and even here they didn't give her much long-suffering and never made her a wife. She's just a girl that happens to be there in the background but never gives her a reason to exist outside of Dylan's orbit. At least she has great taste in movies.
What are your thoughts on the supporting trio?
ERIC: I'm on the fence about the supporting performances. All three actors are enormously appealing, but they really don't have much to do. I'm a bit mystified by Monica Barbaro's Oscar nomination. She gives the film an earthiness it needs, and she's sexy AF (lending the film some level of sensuality as well). She's a completely welcome presence, wonderfully easy on the eyes and the ears, and delivers moment-to-moment. But Joan Baez doesn't feel like she exists off the page. I didn't feel Barbaro captured something that made Joan Baez Joan Baez. She just felt like any other girl in this role in a biopic of a male star. As much as I think Reese Witherspoon's Oscar for Walk the Line is immensely silly, she was able to make June Carter Cash specific and interesting. I didn't see the substance you did...she just felt like a kind of boring person who had a little bit of spunk in her now and again and was able to stand up for herself.
Agreed with you on Norton. It's not the most challenging role for him, but it's fun to see an actor known for his volatility tackle such a centered, calming presence. He makes you believe that Woodie Guthrie started a movement on peace, and that his warmth and purity would inspire millions of people to follow him. But there's not a lot of there there. As for Elle Fanning, I think she's possible *the* most gifted actress of her generation, full-on brilliant in The Great with extraordinarily difficult material, but the movie gives her zilch to play.
Before we wrap, any thoughts on other elements of the movie. I must say one thing about the cinematographer, Phedon Papamichael. I usually find his work curiously uninspired, and I was *shocked* that he got an Oscar nomination a few years back for the execrable Trial of the Chicago 7, which not only was a dog of a picture but just looked flat and square. But I did like his work here. I didn't think it was inspired, per se, but I loved all of his chocolate-y interiors...so many scenes felt like being inside a warm bar in New York City on a cold night. I saw this film the day after I saw Wicked, and perhaps it's because that movie's cinematography is so brassy and ugly...but the creaminess in the cinematography here felt really good.
Any other thoughts on your end?
BEN: As far as the Oscar chances, I think Chalamet may be the only opportunity for the film to walk away with any statues. Elsewhere, there are just more deserving things in the mix. In conclusion, I am BEGGING for Hollywood to stop making these films. I'm going to be pessimistic going into the Bruce Springsteen story Deliver Me From Nowhere, because it will be equally as pointless. There are some super sketchy reports about the upcoming Michael Jackson biopic, and I expect to hate that too. I haven't liked any of these since Love & Mercy. Take a chance filmmakers on a film like that, or even what Todd Haynes did with Dylan in I'm Not There. I didn't like that film, but at least it wasn't as standard as humanly possible.
Sorry to be such a bummer, Eric. Thanks for the digital hug
ERIC: Friends can only be honest with each other, so I’m sorry to let you know that Hollywood is never going to stop making musical biopics, and many of them are going to be a lot worse than this one! Let’s regroup next year to talk about Jeremy Allen White as Springsteen…we may just be able to reprint this exact conversation. Thank you, brother!
Previous Split Decisions:
Reader Comments (4)
I have to agree with Ben,these jukebox biopics from Respect to Bohemian Rhapsody to RocketMan to last years Back to Black,they never seem to do their subject any justice.
They often feel like a cynical cash grab then cinema,the type of thing your Dad thinks is a great film.
Some of the actors playing them are wildly miscast Malek,Hudson and Egerton were never going to convince as huge icons like Freddie,Aretha and Elton.
I enjoy the films but I never think they are great cinema and no matter how the actor tries and some try really hard,sometimes an icon is hard to emulate.
I always think Sissy and Angie Bassett did it best but even then it's always the actress playing the person,I never invest totally even though I enjoy their performances.
Also a lot of the footage they recreate is pointless,you can click on YouTube and watch the real thing.
Chalamet is obviously going to be Leo'd and made to wait till his 40's to win,Brody is a safe win.
Barbaro much like Rossellini rode the coatails of a popular film.
Agreed about Reese the Oscar was overkill but at least she tried to make June interesting and individual and not just Cash's famous wife,the 2005 Actress category was very weak so her win was inevitable.
Ben: I agree with what you say about the problematic nature of biopics - but I actually think what's interesting about this one is negatively it portrays Dylan. This is a movie about a creative opportunist - not some golden boy.
I don't think it totally works. It's still quite safe and cluttered, but it's POV is pretty interesting. And I think Chalamet - who is the ONLY actor I would think to cast - is pretty blank.
Love Barbaro though.
The problem is this is a movie about Dylan where the actor playing Dylan is the weak link of the cast! Twinky Timmy doesn't look anything like Dylan and he seems like a lost puppy trying to play grown up!
Ben, I liked this slightly more than you did but I basically agree with everything you said about A Complete Unknown. Especially Monica Barbaro being such a highlight, Norton’s unexpected tenderness, and the aspects of musician biopics (and biopics in general, frankly) that made me put this off for so long. Movie never feels like it has anything essential to say, but I got something out of it so . . . . yay?