\t\u201cEdward Norton is Pete Seeger.\u201d How likely was it that much of the moviegoing world would be thinking or saying those words at the end of 2024 and beginning of 2025? Or that Norton\u2019s portrayal in the Bob Dylan biopic \u201cA Complete Unknown\u201d would even be leading younger generations to find out more about who Seeger was? Some moviegoers consider Seeger the most sympathetic character in this ensemble piece \u2014 even if he is the one with the biggest vested interest in keeping the hero from expressing himself in the loud and brash way the audience is hoping and waiting for.<\/p>\n
\tIn this Q&A, Norton, who looms large in the awards conversation this year, talks about why he had reservations about tackling real-life material that he felt might be \u201ctoo sacrosanct,\u201d and what filmmaker James Mangold said to change his way of thinking. He also praises his primary scene partner, Timoth\u00e9e Chalamet. And, in response to a \u201cprocess\u201d query, Norton offers a spirited and eloquent defense of why some things about the moviemaking process are better left behind closed doors. That\u2019s his general philosophy about revealing too much, but in this case it\u2019s also his answer to the question: What Would Bob Dylan Do? (For our earlier Q&A with James Mangold about the film, click here.) \t<\/p>\n
\tMany of us in the sort of Dylan aficionado world are surprised \u2014 even giving James Mangold some credit for what he\u2019s done before \u2014 that it would be possible to make a movie that felt real about this scenario and this dynamic. So what were your feelings when this film was brought to you, and did you have complete faith that the period and milieu were something that could be captured on film? Or did you have any moment\u2019s hesitation about: How real is this movie gonna be? <\/p>\n
\t\t\t \t\t\tPopular on Variety\t\t \t \t\t \t \tI don\u2019t know if real is the word I would use. But I absolutely had more than a moment\u2019s hesitation. That period and those people, that music, it was all a very big part of the soundtrack of my own young life coming to New York. \u201cSong for Woody,\u201d I used to play for myself; I used to think that\u2019s the narrative of coming to New York, to walk in other people\u2019s footsteps. And Dylan\u2019s early records from that time in New York, I was very steeped in it and maybe almost held it too precious. So there was a burden I was carrying, the burden of feeling maybe that this was too sacrosanct, that you don\u2019t do this. \t<\/p>\n
\tAt the same time, of course it\u2019s very tempting, because I love the music and I love the people. And I think Timoth\u00e9e\u2019s terrific. I\u2019ve known him for a while, and I\u2019ve long thought\u2026 there\u2019s not that many people, I think, that are literally genetically equipped to try to play Bob Dylan. And I knew he could do that; I didn\u2019t think no one could do that.<\/p>\n
\tBut the thing that really got me over was more the way Jim was radically opposed to the idea of a biography, or even the idea of trying to pick the lock and understand Dylan per se. He said to me, \u201cI\u2019m interested in the cultural anthropology.\u201d We know this headline: Dylan plugged in at Newport and that was the end of the folk scene, and it was the beginning of rock (commanding the focus)\u2026 And he said, \u201cWhy were there such stakes in that?\u201d Like, what was going on, in the stakes for that as a cultural moment. And he talked about back-building from there to assess the stew of people who were colliding with each other and affecting each other that created this moment around this emergent protean talent. And I really liked that. I thought, that\u2019s hard, but if you pull it off, you\u2019re not only not doing a biopic; what you\u2019re really doing is an immersive experience in what a certain time felt like. And that\u2019s hard to do. I think that it\u2019s hard to abandon a narrative and focus on milieu and characters and relationship and cultural context and show how it produced a moment. This is all a long way of saying that the more I understood what I felt Jim was really engaged with, the more interested I got in it.<\/p>\n
\tNow, on the back end of it, objectively I\u2019ll say, I am so admiring of Jim\u2019s artistic sophistication in pulling that off. Because if you think about it, there\u2019s really only two acts in this movie. And the truth is, the second act doesn\u2019t start until two-thirds of the way through the movie, with that real shift to 1965. And that\u2019s wild. It is very difficult to break away from the structural tropes and demands of not only biopics, but (conventional) filmmaking, and to hold the attention through the collisions of people. Because really all he is doing is this person\u2019s talent is propelling him through encounters with people, and those encounters with the archdruid, Pete Seeger, and a competitor or lover, Joan (Baez), and an angel (the Sylvie Russo character), and his romance with Johnny Cash, and all these things. It\u2019s really wild to make a film that\u2019s not about plot in that way, and to leave people feeling that they\u2019ve understood something. \t<\/p>\n
\tI am pretty deep on that history, I have to say. I watched the film and it really brought home to me\u2026 like, I tend to think of the early \u201860s as the civil rights movement, but you forget about the Cuban missile crisis. You literally forget about the anxiety of a nuclear war that permeates songs like \u201cMasters of War.\u201d And my hat is off to Jim for the richness of this non-linear, non-life-structured story.<\/p>\n
\tCan you talk about your thoughts on Pete Seeger and how he comes off in this portrayal? If you read the Elijah Wald book about Newport \u201965 that the movie is partially based on, there\u2019s real-life nuance to that relationship as well as all the relationships, really, and Mangold captured so much of that. And of course he is a smart guy, and therefore was never going to make Pete Seeger the villain. But he is antagonist to the anti-hero. And you sympathize with both of them in the film.<\/p>\n
\tYeah. I\u2019ve heard Jim say, and I agree, that he was extremely committed to the idea that there is no antagonist like that. Dylan\u2019s a protagonist, but Pete Seeger\u2019s integrity and value system can coexist with Dylan\u2019s, in a weird way. I love the lack of judgment in the film.<\/p>\n
\tI know it\u2019s a weird analogy, but for me, \u201cDo the Right Thing\u201d was an extremely, extremely important movie in my coming of age. And it was one of the first things that really dealt with all the juicy difficulty of American life. At the end, it has this quote from Martin Luther King and then a quote from Malcolm X, and they\u2019re diametrically opposed, and (director Spike Lee) puts this picture up where they have their arms around each other and he just leaves it in your lap. And I remember being so energized by that way of ending a movie. I kind of think that\u2019s what Jim\u2019s done here.<\/p>\n
\t \t\t\t \t\t\t \t \t\t\t\t\tEdward Norton in A COMPLETE UNKNOWN \t\t\t\t\t\t\tPhoto Courtesy of Searchlight Pictures. \u00a9 2024 Searchlight Pictures All Rights Reserved. \t\t \t \t\t\t \tPete Seeger is Pete Seeger, and he\u2019s got all kinds of admirable integrity in his lane of the type of person he was. And Dylan has an artistic integrity, and for a while, they were in the same lane, and then they weren\u2019t in the same lane. It\u2019s like the breakup of the Beatles. It\u2019s bittersweet, but at the end of the day, that\u2019s life and it has to happen. And I love the messiness, and I love Jim allowing competing ideas to coexist.<\/p>\n
\tBecause you can feel deeply loyal to someone\u2026 If you listen to Dylan today, he reveres Pete Seeger and admires and appreciates him. But you can love and appreciate and revere someone and need to break away from them. And (like Seeger) you can be proud of someone and still have expectations of them, that they might owe you something\u2026 These things can all coexist. And I think a lot of people who had relationships with each other in this time loved each other, and they were competitive, at the same time. You can love someone and be competitive with them too. And the messiness of it all, I found that to be very adult. Very adult. \t<\/p>\n
\tIt\u2019s almost like a thwarted buddy movie in a way, where people that you like for different reasons naturally drift apart, though it\u2019s been set up in a way that you kind of wish they could be close for the rest of their lives, for whatever reasons that brought them together.<\/p>\n
\tYes. To me, you should always hope that a film can be something that people can see themselves in it, whether they\u2019re folk musicians or not. And I think that everybody\u2019s been young and trying to move, and you have to make decisions about what you hold onto and what you leave behind. And that\u2019s true if you\u2019re a doctor. It\u2019s true if you\u2019re part of any cohort of people has dynamics that are like this. So I think maybe the way that people are connecting with it is not just simply because of it being about the people, but because it\u2019s about youth and the propulsive kind of energy of youth, and brothers and sisters and parents and children and the way we try to hold onto each other. And I think it\u2019s applicable. I think it is applicable outside the world of folk stars.<\/p>\n
\tIf we can speak for a minute about what you did to prepare for this role\u2026 It seems like this whole process went pretty quickly, as far as your involvement. It was announced that you were cast in January. You shot in summer. It was at one point projected as a summer 2025 release, yet here it is coming out six months earlier than that, which means Mangold really hustled. For your part, when you were talking about \u201cGlass Onion,\u201d you said, maybe jokingly, that you had been cast because there was a short guitar-playing scene in that and you had already played guitar before. So we know you have some musical ability. But doing Pete Seeger\u2019s banjo picking is another thing, and getting the voice right to the extent that you want to get the spirit of it right.<\/p>\n
\tYou know, I\u2019m not trying to shine it off, but I think process is like\u2026 There\u2019s always some kind of alchemy to figuring out the blend of it all. And then you get inputs from costume and stuff, and you have to cobble it together, sort of piece by piece, and you have to mine the source material in some ways for nuggets of insight.<\/p>\n
\tAnd the work is what it is. I find myself\u2026 well, I mean, you are writing for Variety, so I think I\u2019m gonna make a comment, which goes outside your question, which is: I kind of think that we might be getting into this era where it\u2019s like the old thing of the snake that eats its own tail. I think we\u2019re getting so hung up on process and the behind-the-scenes thing that we\u2019re blowing the magic trick of it all. I actually think we\u2019re starting to have this tendency to talk about how we did it before we\u2019ve even put it out. I had an experience recently where there was something I was sort of interested in seeing, and I saw so many goddamn clips about the makeup process, I was just like: It\u2019s just cooked for me now. They\u2019ve cooked it. \t<\/p>\n
\tIt\u2019s like if David Blaine came out in Vegas and said, \u201cLet me show you this thing I keep in my pocket that lets me magnetize a thing, and this is how I pull that card and this is how I bend that coin\u2026 OK, now I\u2019m gonna walk out and do it.\u201d Then he\u2019d walk out and do it, and you would just go, OK \u2014that\u2019s not why I went to that show. I went to that show to have my mind blown. And when you and I saw \u201cRaging Bull,\u201d it just puts you in the back of your seat. You just went, \u201cWhat the actual fuck? Like, is that that guy?\u201d<\/p>\n
\tAnd Timoth\u00e9e did something I thought was really, really mature. Because they said to him, \u201cWe just want to set up a time-lapse thing to watch you get into Dylan in the thing.\u201d And he said, no. (First) he said to me, \u201cWhat do you think?\u201d I said, \u201cAbsolutely not.\u201d And they were like, \u201cBut for social, for behind the scenes\u2026!\u201d No, absolutely not. I\u2019m like, why? Why do you want to take away from an audience the opportunity to experience the mysticism, the trick, the suspension of disbelief? It\u2019s like, if we don\u2019t stop fucking talking about how much time we spend in the makeup chair or how we learn the guitar, or whatever\u2026 I\u2019m just starting to feel all of us should just leave people alone. Like, leave \u2019em alone; let \u2019em watch the piece. Because I am an audience member, and I want mystery. I want illusion.<\/p>\n
\tAnd I don\u2019t want anybody to hear Timoth\u00e9e talk about this (process of transformation). I just want them to go and see him do what is a \u201cRaging Bull\u201d-like performance. I mean, it\u2019s that good, and it\u2019s transformational, but you need to invest in it. And the studios, I know they\u2019re trying to sell the film, but I think people have started to think that letting people behind the curtain before we\u2019ve put the movie out is a good idea. It\u2019s a terrible idea. Like, imagine when \u201cClose Encounters\u201d came out. When I saw a taste of that movie, I wanted to see that movie so badly. And if I had seen a featurette on the models before I saw the movie, it wouldn\u2019t have been magical.<\/p>\n
\tAnd maybe it\u2019s because this is what Dylan himself was almost like a wizard about: He knew not to let people behind the curtain. He knew not to talk about meaning. He said: You figure out what it means. And I don\u2019t know what\u2019s happened. I don\u2019t know if it\u2019s the corporate machinery. Social media certainly doesn\u2019t help. But I think we\u2019re almost getting to this point where we\u2019re privileging process over magic, and I worry about it a little bit. In this case I feel very defensive, in the case of these characters, but also of Timmy in particular. I think people should just go see it and get lost in it. You won\u2019t like it more for seeing behind the curtain. You know what I mean?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cEdward Norton is Pete Seeger.\u201d How likely was it that much of the moviegoing world would be thinking or saying those words at the end of 2024 and beginning of 2025? Or that Norton\u2019s portrayal in the Bob Dylan biopic \u201cA Complete Unknown\u201d would even be leading younger generations to find out more about who […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":23623,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-23621","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-movie"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/movieetv.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23621","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/movieetv.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/movieetv.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/movieetv.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/movieetv.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=23621"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/movieetv.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23621\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/movieetv.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/23623"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/movieetv.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23621"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/movieetv.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23621"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/movieetv.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23621"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}