Should there be one, you might now be asking? Well, in one sense no, not at all – people can make films for whatever reason the want and we can choose to see the kind of films we prefer.
Yet, in another sense, yes there should have been. The point of a horror film is to ‘frighten’ us with horror, a rom-com will try to charm us with romance and (we hope) laughs, mystery will intend to intrigue us with a puzzling mystery and so on.
But what is it? Why was it made? Who is the target demographic? To me that isn’t at all clear.
A Tinseltown films go, as in production terms, it is towards the top of the game. and director James Mangold has a sure and steady hand.
A Tinseltown films go, as in production terms, it is towards the top of the game. and director James Mangold has a sure and steady hand.
I’ve only seen three of his films so far, Cop Lane, Identity – wholly recommended – and 3:10 To Yuma, a remake of a classic and all three hit the spot.
Then there’s Timothy Chalamet performance as Dylan, in which we are told he did all his own singing and guitar-playing. And, we are assured Bob Dylan himself gave the film his blessing, which is notable as he comes across of more than something of a jerk.
Other actors, notably Edward Norton as Pete Seeger and Elle Fanning as ‘Sylvie’, representing Dylan’s first New York girlfriend Suze Rotolo contribute to the overall top quality of the piece.
We follow, more or less accurately Dylan’s arrival in New York and on its folk scene up to his break into electric and the anger he engendered by apparently abandoning the acoustic ‘voice of a generation’ person that had been foisted on him by going electric.
It’s all there, though we are assured ‘for dramatic purposes’ some of ‘the action’ is fictional. Which brings me back to my initial question: but why was it made?
I don’t doubt ‘Dylan buffs’ will love it. I happen not to be a ‘Dylan buff’ (or ‘buff’ of any kind, the lord keep me clear of buffs), but I have long like Dylans music and songs. And although I like folk music, and I not at all keen on the folk music scene. All the finger in the ear stuff, the sincerity, the authenticity leaves me cold.
Then there’s Timothy Chalamet performance as Dylan, in which we are told he did all his own singing and guitar-playing. And, we are assured Bob Dylan himself gave the film his blessing, which is notable as he comes across of more than something of a jerk.
Other actors, notably Edward Norton as Pete Seeger and Elle Fanning as ‘Sylvie’, representing Dylan’s first New York girlfriend Suze Rotolo contribute to the overall top quality of the piece.
We follow, more or less accurately Dylan’s arrival in New York and on its folk scene up to his break into electric and the anger he engendered by apparently abandoning the acoustic ‘voice of a generation’ person that had been foisted on him by going electric.
It’s all there, though we are assured ‘for dramatic purposes’ some of ‘the action’ is fictional. Which brings me back to my initial question: but why was it made?
I don’t doubt ‘Dylan buffs’ will love it. I happen not to be a ‘Dylan buff’ (or ‘buff’ of any kind, the lord keep me clear of buffs), but I have long like Dylans music and songs. And although I like folk music, and I not at all keen on the folk music scene. All the finger in the ear stuff, the sincerity, the authenticity leaves me cold.
I like how he did not stand still, I like how he was always his own man, I like that despite a fucking awful voice he could sing and had a definite melodic gift. But I am not one for nostalgia, and essentially A Complete Unknown is an exercise, though a subtle one, in nostalgia.
There is no drama, no development, nothing of that kind: it simply is, an account – I’ll repeat, a very well-made account – of the first five or six years of his career. For many that will be enough, but not for me.
The film ends with what we are led to believe was a disastrous ‘electric’ performance at the 1965 Newport Folk Festival, though some reports say the booing and discontent was as much because a sound set-up for acoustic folkiness was wholly inadequate for an electric band. Who knows?
And then we get the final two scenes, which – I must stress ‘for me – leave a little of a sour taste in that they pander to the American addictions to gooey-ness. The first is with Dylan’s occasional shag Joan Baez and the second with folk legend Woody Guthrie (who watches from his hospital room window as hour hero rides off into the sunset (on his motorbike). I could have done without those.
Am I talking through my bum? Well, I hope not and if I come across as doing so, that’s because I haven’t managed to express my reservations. But I do have a reservations. Sorry.
There is no drama, no development, nothing of that kind: it simply is, an account – I’ll repeat, a very well-made account – of the first five or six years of his career. For many that will be enough, but not for me.
The film ends with what we are led to believe was a disastrous ‘electric’ performance at the 1965 Newport Folk Festival, though some reports say the booing and discontent was as much because a sound set-up for acoustic folkiness was wholly inadequate for an electric band. Who knows?
And then we get the final two scenes, which – I must stress ‘for me – leave a little of a sour taste in that they pander to the American addictions to gooey-ness. The first is with Dylan’s occasional shag Joan Baez and the second with folk legend Woody Guthrie (who watches from his hospital room window as hour hero rides off into the sunset (on his motorbike). I could have done without those.
Am I talking through my bum? Well, I hope not and if I come across as doing so, that’s because I haven’t managed to express my reservations. But I do have a reservations. Sorry.
No comments:
Post a Comment