News & Articles

James Mangold directing A Complete Unkown. Photo courtesy Fox Searchlight.

Ahead of the highly anticipated release of A Complete Unknown this Christmas, JP Olsen, PBS North and The North 103.3 Senior Director of Content, sat down with acclaimed director James Mangold to discuss his new film, which chronicles the early career of music icon Bob Dylan.

Starring Timothée Chalamet as the young Dylan, the film offers a compelling look at the artist’s evolution from his humble beginnings in the Northwoods of Minnesota to his rise as one of the most influential figures in modern music. 

Directed by the Oscar-nominated Mangold, A Complete Unknown explores not only Dylan’s artistic journey but also the deeper questions of genius, identity and the creative process. 
In this exclusive interview, Mangold shares his insights into the making of the film, his collaboration with Chalamet, and how Dylan’s early life shaped the voice and persona that would change the music world forever.

In their conversation, Mangold reveals how Dylan’s music and persona were deeply influenced by his Midwest roots and discusses the universal questions the film raises about fame, genius and the relentless pursuit of artistic reinvention. He also touches on the unexpected motivations behind Dylan’s decision to go electric, emphasizing the artist’s desire for camaraderie and his hunger for creative collaboration. With A Complete Unknown set to bring Dylan’s early years to the big screen, Mangold hopes to inspire a new generation of listeners to discover the enduring brilliance of Dylan’s music.

JP Olsen: I’m curious, in your research, is there something about this region that you can see that deeply influenced Bob Dylan’s work?

James Mangold: My God, I mean, I even think the persona he’s developed – the vocal, the voice, the grit he kind of wants to embody – are all of the area, even his fantasies, you know? To the degree that, as a young man, we can project that he...while he told stories about riding the rails, working on the carnival or circus, or picking up chords from cowboys in the Dakotas, these are all kind of Midwest fantasies, in a way. And maybe his real yearning, you know, like, wishing he wasn’t just a middle-class kid, son of a hardware store owner in Hibbing. That wanting a sexier story to tell about where he comes from, but one still built on the mythology of the Midwest? Certainly. And I think he’s also strong, you know, kind of... represents a kind of obstinate nature, even.

JP Olsen: If there’s one antagonist in the Dylan story or your Dylan story, what would that be?

James Mangold: Well, it’s really important to remember what the word “antagonist” means, which simply means a character who is in opposition or at least putting up obstacles to your protagonist. It doesn’t mean bad. It just means in opposition. Well, clearly, this is not a story which I organized primarily along the lines of a singular protagonist-antagonist. I mean, I really think it’s as much a slice-of-life kind of story about a character, a bunch of characters. And really, the questions that my movie tries to raise are, as much as it’s a biographical tale, I think there’s kind of universal questions about genius. And, what is it? And do the people who have it deserve it? And do the people who don’t have it? Should they be resentful, envious, covetous or protective? What is our attitude about this? Because there’s no way to contextualize a 19-year-old man who, within four years, has written half of the important songs of the century. There is no way to minimize the prolific and monumental output of this young man. And nor should anyone try. Nor can you minimize the length of the career, the creative career of this artist, and how long he’s been reinventing himself and how often he’s repeated the pattern. You know, there’s no coincidence that the movie, my movie, opens with his arrival in New York, which is, of course, a departure from somewhere else and ends with a departure from Rhode Island, and – hey! – which is, of course, an arrival somewhere else. Bob’s whole life has been a series of rebirths and rebuilds, investigations and then suffocations, and then escapes. Rebirth and repeat. You know, rinse and repeat. And, in many ways, that’s where some of the mysteriousness of his life might come from. But he’s been utterly clear to us. Like, that’s where I don’t accept the word “enigma” with him. I think he’s been flat-out honest with us so many times. “He who is not busy being born is busy dying,” or even more recently, “I contain multitudes.” These are all very clear subject-verb statements of fact about himself. Not at all obtuse. That really reflects someone who is committed to being courageous and venturing into places they haven’t gone before and testing themselves.

JP Olsen: You certainly said that it’s all in the words of his songs if you want to figure it out. He’s been very clear about that for a long time.

James Mangold: Yeah. It’s that people want him somehow to do what so many others do, and in fact, I’m doing now, which is explain. I wish I had the courage to kind of go, “No, just watch the movie.” Because, on one level, it is all there. But people do like a kind of Cliff Notes. They do like a handle. And we do want them to come see it. So, we want to give the promise. I mean, but Bob doesn’t... it isn’t necessarily enigmatic to not want to informationally create data points that explain poetry.

JP Olsen: There’s, you know, Timothy Chalamet has said that he wasn’t necessarily a Dylan listener. Now, five years in, he inhabits an incredibly authentic creation and expression of what his interpretation of Bob Dylan is. How does that happen? know that you could talk about this for days. But if you give us some insight …

James Mangold: Well, I think it couldn’t have been any better because, in a way, he entered the process without reverence, without idolatry, without dogma, without an agenda. He really was too young to know who this person was. And instead of it being someone forcing him to listen to records, it was the act of learning to sing and play them through it and be him through which he... and by “be him,” please, Bob fans, I don’t mean he’s Bob. Okay, so calm down. By that, I mean he became an approximation of him – a kind of version of him for the purposes of our drama. And in doing that, he excavated and discovered the treasure that is in these works. He found it himself, not being pointed out to him by a book or by a guide, but the actual digesting and learning the songs became an act of love and investigation of a man’s art. That couldn’t be more personal or dedicated.

JP Olsen: Great. I’m curious, is there an aspect of the Bob Dylan legacy that you would like to see illuminated for this next generation?

James Mangold: Well, the next generation... I’m just thrilled that they’re going to hear the music and be exposed to this cool cat. And, in this time of everything meaning nothing and cynicism and snarkiness being the kind of lexicon of the realm, there’s something to me about a poet who tells it like it is – hard and strong – and who lays it out on the line, but also has a sense of humor. But drives that humor through a level of musicality that is unparalleled. I just think people being exposed to this brilliance is all I ask for people who’ve never heard it before. I mean, you know, I’m still that guy. Maybe you are, who loves making mixtapes or making CDs and burning things for people and sharing music. So the act of making a movie that can actually open the door for millions of people to discover Bob Dylan is phenomenal. I mean, like, that to me, that’s really profound.

JP Olsen: You studied at CalArts, which has a long tradition of deep artists. If you were to have advice for a young artist or writer or musician or filmmaker, what would that be like?

James Mangold: Make your art. Finish your piece. Make another. Too often, people follow the first two steps but don’t do the third. They go, “I’ll write a screenplay,” to use filmmakers as an example. They finish the screenplay and then go, “Why haven’t I been discovered?” And if you were a furniture maker in Vermont, you’d make a chair. You’d put down the chair. You wouldn’t run to market with the chair. You’d make another chair, and then another chair, and then another chair, and then a table, and then another table and chairs. And then maybe finally, you’d go to market with your two or three tables and sets of 12 chairs, and people would go, “What wonderful chairs and tables you’re making!” And you’d earn your following. Too often, I think, because there’s been examples of lightning striking so fast, people commit one creative act and then go, “Why hasn’t it happened yet?” Why hasn’t it happened? And often the reason isn’t a lack of talent, it’s a lack of production. Sometimes the best argument for the work is the volume of it. Bob is a good example. If he had written one of these songs and then waited for destiny to find him, he may have either been a one-song wonder or may have vanished completely. What he never stopped doing was writing another and then another, and being unsatisfied, and writing another, and not waiting for somebody else to control his destiny and decide when he would get played. He kept making music. And whether it’s furniture, music, films, or painting, nothing is more commanding than a portfolio of creativity.

JP Olsen: Thank you so much. Do you have time for one more?  

James Mangold: Sure. Go ahead.

JP Olsen: I appreciate it. So, if there’s one thing that surprised you, because I know that you worked with Bob Dylan in person on this, was there anything that surprised you in your interactions?

James Mangold: Well, surprised might be too strong a word, but there was a kind of common-sense quality to the choices he made that came much more from primal feelings, as he explained it to me, and less from some kind of sense of destiny or charting a course somewhere. For example, the desire to have a band was something he had since he was 13. In Minnesota, he was a fan of Little Richard, Johnny Cash, country music and blues. A lot of these genres were played with a band. He described sitting in the audience at Buddy Holly’s concert and being fascinated by these guys on stage, having so much fun making music together. So I think one of the misconceptions when he went electric was that it was simply a rebellious or hostile act toward folk music. I think he had never committed to the dogma that that was all he was ever going to do with his life. Others did who were part of it, but that’s just how it happened. He was really good at making folk music and singing it, so he ascended quickly. But, you know, very often what we’re good at isn’t necessarily what we want. Those are two different things. I think there was a level of dissatisfaction Bob had, or maybe a better way to put it would be loneliness. That’s how he described it – it’s lonely being that kind of singer-songwriter, and he yearned for company. I think processing his desire to go electric was a kind of desire to have friends who didn’t want anything from him. The friends he had as his star rose all became people who were either managing his career or hoping to get a song, a date or something. There’s something very pure about jamming and collaborating with other musicians. It’s very much like playing basketball or baseball. You just do it, and there’s nothing anyone wants from each other, other than the chords, the beat and the charts for the song. One of the illuminating things was just that desire for friendship and camaraderie, and that was a huge motivation in his movement toward bigger, louder music made by more than one person.

JP Olsen: This is wonderful. Thank you so much, James Mangold.

James Mangold: Thank you. My pleasure. Great questions. Really enjoyed it. Stay warm.

JP Olsen: Thank you. You too!

James Mangold: Thank you. Bye-bye.
 

A video version of this interview can be found at thenorth1033.org.