When it comes to the world of Bob Dylan, I am incredibly biased. Like other folksy young women on the internet, my interest in the Dylan and Joan Baez love affair borders on obsession. I think about them at least once a day. A photo of them performing at the 1963 March on Washington hangs above my dorm bed. So naturally, going into a Dylan biopic, I was deeply invested in the portrayal of their relationship and whether or not Baez would receive a just characterization. I feared the worst: that “A Complete Unknown” would do to Baez what “Elvis” did to Priscilla Presley. And while it wasn’t that bad, it fell short of exploring the full depth of Baez’s character as well as the story of her relationship with Dylan.
For the uninitiated, Baez was a popular performer who had already been dubbed the “Queen of Folk” in the early 1960s, before Dylan even debuted on the scene. The pair met in 1961, and Baez’s early collaborations with Dylan played a crucial role in catapulting him to fame. In 1965, during a tumultuous joint tour of the United Kingdom, the couple separated. Baez would later recount in her memoirs that Dylan refused to let her perform with him on stage as planned, and she went home early.
I was excited when I found out that Baez would feature prominently in “A Complete Unknown,” portrayed by actress Monica Barbero. I thought that with her inclusion, this film could be a chance to set the record straight on their relationship and memorialize one of the most beautifully tortured romances in music history. This is not what “A Complete Unknown” does.
In the film Baez serves two main narrative purposes: 1) to elevate Dylan to fame, which is historically accurate, and 2) act as the wedge that separates the film’s primary love interest Sylvie Russo (pseudonym for Suze Rotolo) from Dylan. While she likely contributed to the disintegration of Russo and Dylan’s relationship, to reduce Baez to “the other woman” is insulting and minimizes the impact of her relationship with Dylan.
Baez was not only a folk singer, but an activist in the Civil Rights Movement as well. She often encouraged Dylan to join her for protests, hence their appearance at the March on Washington. Granted, Dylan was never incredibly political, but these high-profile appearances combined with his protest songs largely facilitated his rise to fame. This is crucial context for the third act of “A Complete Unknown,” when Dylan makes his controversial shift to electric music at the 1965 Newport Folk Festival, but it’s entirely missing from the actual film.
Dylan’s transition from acoustic to electric music occurred as he began writing fewer and fewer of the “protest songs,” which fans had come to expect from him. Many perceived Dylan to be abandoning folk music, the language of protest, in exchange for the more commercially viable rock-and-roll. This decision is the climax of the film. Unfortunately, the significance of this decision is lost on a viewership who haven’t been able to properly follow the evolution of Dylan’s songwriting and his disillusionment with the persona of “civil rights icon.” The minimization of Baez is partially to blame.
To be clear, I don’t think that director James Mangold has some kind of vendetta against Baez. I think a more accurate statement would be that every character in “A Complete Unknown” is confined by the limits of the biopic genre, and Mangold does relatively little to rescue the film from its worst impulses. I like to call it “biopic syndrome”: in place of a cohesive narrative, a dizzying number of scenes are stitched together in a montage of events that decorate Dylan’s rise to fame. This style of filmmaking is endemic to the genre, and it’s the source of many viewer complaints over the years who regard biopics as messy, disconnected and worthy of ridicule. And because “A Complete Unknown” places most of its attention on Dylan’s personal relationships rather than his art, the climax of the film is rendered completely ineffective, more akin to a love triangle than a portrait of a complicated artist.
Despite these issues, “A Complete Unknown” is better than a lot of biopics—if that really means anything when your competition is “Elvis” and “Bohemian Rhapsody.” Unfortunately, however, “A Complete Unknown”’s case of biopic syndrome is terminal, and it fails to recover in its entire two-hour runtime. Now I can only wonder, should Baez receive the “Priscilla” treatment and get her own film? My vote is yes.
Chris McLafferty • Feb 2, 2025 at 11:57 PM
The fact is, Joan Baez was a hack who propelled her career on the backs of credible songwriters. Dylan got tired of carrying her weight. He was not a hippie or liberal, so he wanted to distance himself from political activism. He is known for his music. She is known for her activism. He was much better without her.
Keith Jaeger • Jan 27, 2025 at 9:13 PM
Enjoyed your review. I entered the theater with an open mind and was enthralled in moments. Never saw Dylan live and wasn’t a great fan but worshipped Joan. Still do. The film has notched up the buzz about both of them. They are both bigger than the buzz.
Great times with Joan at UC Berkeley. Caught her in Santa Cruz the last year she lived in Carmel Valley. So surprised she was performing. From the film I figured out she was living just an hour away.
I have turned my daughter on to Joan. We turned UCB this past summer.
Steve • Jan 25, 2025 at 3:40 PM
I find it very hard to believe that a person averse to drug use – Joan Baez – would drug someone else. Also, Hibbing, MN is not a dying community (I live in MN), and my understanding is that Dylan’s family had a retail business and Dylan was able to attend the U of MN before leaving for NYC. That just sounds like middle class MN to me.
I was not impressed with the movie. It lazily returns to the Newport Festival three times with the same scenery and actors. During the 3rd visit (’65 ?), the organizers’ fighting scene seems phony and sophomoric, and the booing at Dylan’s electric music is hardly interesting. While Timothy Chalamet convinced me he his Dylan, the movie seems like a weak Oscar candidate. Biopics with “what happened” only answer “what” and not why or how. It’s just a disjoint set of scenes that don’t really go anywhere.
What would have been more interesting would have been to capture Dylan’s conceit, his arrogance, his somewhat caveman’s attitude towards women (Lay Lady Lay being an example).
Those aspects of Dylan were not told. What I think the movie could have also shown us (instead of a love triangle and Dylan high points) is a high profile competion between romance and ambition. In other words, we adore the picture of Dylan and Baez from the ’63 March on Washington, but we we’re dying to know and understand the background. Not only is there a Baez who initially realizes stage leverage with a subordinate Dylan, but also a Dylan who could sooner sign a record contract if he could gain the contacts and experience needed by appearing with the established Baez. There had to have been competition and jealousy which ultimately leads to Dylan banning Baez from the London stage in 1965, and that downfall would have been interesting to see, regardless of whether “the facts” came from a Baez or Dylan interview. The betrayal and inevitable breakup which did occur would have been heart breaking to see on film, and would have left us something much more memorable.
Taddyd1 • Jan 23, 2025 at 9:26 PM
Yes, she deserves her own, probably terrible, movie too. Her life wa very likely way more intersting than his, considering all her musical and political journeys and all the incredible people she encountered. His was more confined to the rock world, in which Baez was also engaged. but she was active in countries all over the globe in many fascinating activities far beyond the music scene.
Kevin • Jan 24, 2025 at 9:56 AM
Joan came from a wealthy family with coastal property in Carmel California. Bob came from a struggling middle class family in a dying community in the mining region of northern Minnesota. Somehow, I find it hard to see her life story as far more interesting than his. He quit touring and the music scene for upwards of 8 years to raise his five children. Joan gave up custody of her one child to continue to pursue her touring career. Very huge differences.
Liz Thomson • Jan 25, 2025 at 9:32 PM
she did not come from a wealthy family – read the books. Her father was a struggling Mexican academic. She had made her own money by the time Dylan became famous. Nor did she give up custody of her son – she and her husband amicably divorced and they shared custody. This is just more of the misogynistic Dylan cult shit
Kevin • Jan 23, 2025 at 8:12 PM
The story of Joan Baez secretly dosing Dylan with prescription narcotics without his knowledge before shows, because she wanted to tone him down, were freely admitted by Joan in both published and recorded interviews by Anthony Scaduto. She admitted that he would have been furious if he had known. She knew very well that Bob liked wine before shows and that wine did not mix well with such drugs. Though Bob did learn about this, assuming he read Scaduto’s books, he was still a gentleman and has always praised Joan to this day.
Yet her doping him without his knowledge was not only illegal but immoral.
People may ask why they never became a couple. This story explains a lot.
Liz Thomson • Jan 25, 2025 at 9:33 PM
yes she gave him Librium. He was taking harder stuff, with wine. More Dylan cult stuff