Awards season is upon us. The glitz and glam of the red carpet looks coupled with a buzz as momentum builds for the grand finale: the Academy Awards. While all viewers have their favorite category, the evening culminates with the Best Picture award. I will be the first to tell you that I am no cinephile, but what I know for certain is that one nominated film has me questioning the Academy.
A Complete Unknown details the rise of Bob Dylan as he arrives in New York. The biopic stars an ensemble cast that unites generations, with Edward Norton pulling out all of the stops as Pete Seeger. Timothée Chalamet did work as Bob Dylan, already securing a Screen Actors Guild Award for Best Actor. James Mangold, director of the award-winning Johnny Cash biopic Walk the Line, directed and co-wrote the feature film.
Before I dive into the negatives, I must mention that each cast member did stellar work. Monica Barbaro entranced audiences as Joan Baez, few could take their eyes off her. Elle Fanning made a meal from a character with little agency or arc. But even with their hard work, the film is a case study on why women should be in the writing room. Each of the female characters served as a tool for Dylan to advance, and after viewing I was left thinking he was a narcissist.
RELATED: Yacht rock icon fueled career dealing weed, wrote hit on acid
This depiction could be offloaded onto the writer’s room, or maybe Bob Dylan was the quintessential 1960s f*** boy. As a viewer, I’m left with a distaste for the artist and his treatment of women.
While I could write a dissertation about how this film made in 2024 doesn’t pass the Bechdel Test, the problem I want to harp on today is historical accuracy. In other words, where in the world was the weed?
Diving in to A Complete Unknown
The film takes place in early 1960 when Dylan is said to have arrived in New York City. It culminates at the Newport Folk Festival, where he made history by plugging in his amp and playing an electric set for the first time ever. It is not a completely historically accurate take, but the Dylan camp is reported to have given its blessing. Still, the one glaring cannabis issue has me particularly peeved.
Cigarettes and beer bottles are everywhere during the latter end of the film as Dylan veers from Seeger’s wholesome folk culture into the 1960s hipster scene. However, despite this character depiction, the film shows no joints or ground-up bud. I heard not even a mention of reefer.
There is a lot of proof that drugs were prominent in Dylan’s life during the latter years shown in the film. Ringo Starr told Conan O’Brien just last year that Dylan introduced The Beatles to the plant in 1964–smack dab in the middle of the period shown in A Complete Unknown.
This biopic does many things well, but I don’t consider it Best Picture-worthy. Is it a romp that has inspired new Dylan fans while pleasing Boomers immensely (cue oddly placed laughs in theaters when a clearly inebriated Johnny Cash drives drunk)? Yes. Is it so groundbreaking that it deserves a nom alongside cultural beacon The Substance or emotionally gripping political drama I’m Still Here? No.
A Complete Unknown made me less of a Dylan fan
My review may be considered harsh compared to other accounts. The fact that I’ve dated too many boys in bands who leech their personalities from epic women made viewing it a visceral experience. As for the storyline, those with an emotional connection to Dylan’s music may feel more strongly about his act of rebellion at the Newport Folk Festival. At that time, it was an enormous deal.
However, in a world where the federal government is being slowly dismantled, and climate catastrophe looms, it is hard to drop into the gravity they must have felt in those moments. It honestly seems like a bit of fun in comparison.
Don’t get me wrong, I voted for Norton for Best Supporting Actor in my work pool. I am almost positive he acted the entire film with his nostrils flared. And Chalamet becomes Dylan. I forgot I was watching Timmy Tim moments into the film. But leaving weed out of a retelling of the 1960s NYC music scene and winning Best Picture? Naw. And as for the writing, let’s invite a woman in the room next time.
That said, the performances are stellar, the casting was genius, and Boomers seriously loved it. It is a win for a biopic and even a nice watch. But Best Picture is a stretch, especially while lacking historically accurate drugs. Sure, I would recommend this film to fans of Dylan, but if the Academy awards it the statue of the night–I call bull.
