That made me smile. Sure the situations were entirely different but there is something very satisfying to me about the way Dylan can generate such visceral negativity across contexts. That's just kind of the figure he is. People feel very strongly about him one way or another, the fact that the movie was able to pull that off means something to me. Still I prefer my "Asshole Bob Dylan" as one who counters expectations. One who doesn't play the hits, unless you don't expect him to. The one who preformed at Tinley Park as opposed to the basic jerk of A Complete Unknown.
I guess I should just get it out of the way and say I did actually like the movie a lot. How couldn't I? I'm not immune to feeling affection for homage that gestures toward the things I love, especially when it's so slickly presented. Leaving the theater though I had to wonder how anyone not already as deeply in love with the music as I am could come away feeling anything but confused disdain for this unexceptional, somewhat anti-social, weirdo.
I think the movie generally does a poor job of communicating why the public of the movie are so in love with Bob's music and by extension Bob himself. When he breaks into a wild rendition of horny deep-cut "All Over You" we are, I guess, expected to understand why the audience is so impressed with him. It even wins the affection of Sylvie, one of our two female leads. This was the kind of thing that catapulted Bob to fame we are meant to believe and it just doesn't really land for me.
The writers seem to be invested in downplaying the role of topical/political songs in Bob's early rise to fame. Especially with respect to the civil rights movement. We do get a little taste of how he had his finger on the pulse in one of my favorite scenes, where Joan Baez rushing down the streets amidst the panic of the Cuban Missile Crisis happens upon Bob performing "Masters of War" in the basement of a folk music club. That and literally less than 10 seconds of footage from the March on Washington are the only indication that anything he said was speaking to a specific societal moment.
The fact is that the distance between "The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carrol" and "Mr. Tambourine Man" is much greater than that between "Mr. Tambourine Man" and "Like A Rolling Stone". Was the fear that the film would make Bob out to be a grifter, who built his career on the back of the suffering of people who he later abandoned? Personally I think that's the more interesting topic to confront, it's the tougher one to confront and isn't it really the conflict lying at the heart of the real life 1965 Newport performance?
With context at the fringes, anthems like "Blowin' in the Wind" and "The Times They Are A-Changin" come across as platitudinous and the audience who eat them up as vapid. Meanwhile the smarter-than-everyone-else Dylan of the film comes across as annoyed for having written them. I'm not sure how the movie-goer is supposed to feel. At one point Dylan and Seeger duet on a version of "When The Ship Comes In" at some kind of house party or something, it's a standout performance but after it concludes we learn that Bob feels like a phony for having to play a song like that. It's an odd effect.
Regardless of how viewers are supposed to feel about the music, the movie clearly wants us to understand that Dylan needs some kind of a change, he needs to get free. A point that's drilled home when he accuses his fling-of-the-week Becca of trying to control him the same way the folkies of the house party apparently were. Is he not free though? He can sleep around, treat the people closest to him callously and record whatever music he feels like. We never get a real good sense of the social pressures coming down on this version of Bob outside of the standard "it's hard to be famous" until the final moments leading up to his electric performance at Newport.
That Newport set is another point of confusion. Bob and the band are received unbelievably badly by the crowd, garbage is flung at the stage and actual fist fights breakout between audience members. Bob is unmoved. He plows through the set, as if this reaction is what he expected and wanted. Why though? Even if he had beef with Pete Seeger, or Alan Lomax (the film's villain for all intents and purposes) why does he hate this crowd? Up to this point they've loved everything he has done regardless of the content of songs, but he's not even a little surprised that this previously unquestioning audience now turns into a violent mob because of an electric guitar. I mean Johnny Cash got away with it earlier in the film. What makes Bob so different? I think the film makers could feel this emotional contradiction because as the set unfolds the previously blood-thirsty audience becomes peppered with people placidly grooving in their chairs. That's theoretically fine but you never get the impression that Bob has won anybody over, more like pro-bob NPCs have spawned into some of the seats.
When the moment comes for "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue" the emotional distance between the viewer and the song is unfortunately palpable. One last chance for Dylan to throw a middle finger at the crowd. Devoid of any of the pathos that original performance had. The single tear rolling down Dylan's face in the actual footage from Newport is, in my opinion, more powerful than anything in A Complete Unknown, and is also evocative of the kind of mystery the film seems to want to revel in.
There are other aspects that I could go on about. The portrayals of Al Grossman and Joan Baez, are quite poor. On the other hand Pete Seeger is very vividly realized, the highlight of the movie if you ask me. There's the historical inaccuracies which are innumerable. Meanwhile the set design is fantastic, the best I've seen in a movie recently. None of that really strikes me as super important though, and none of it sits at the heart of my feelings about A Complete Unknown.
I'm left wondering if anyone will walk out of this film a newly minted Bob Dylan fan. How might they come to understand his work, in particular the aspects largely ignored by the film. How has my understanding of his work changed if at all since I saw it? Only time and maybe another viewing on Blu-ray will tell.
No comments:
Post a Comment