The Limits of Control

[Highway 61]

Yet another presentation question: during the climactic scene, did Jarmusch employ some kind of effect whereby the image looked to have been covered with major specks of dirt? I know that sounds ridiculous, and I would normally say it was just the print I saw, but because it only occurred during that particular scene and because it stopped right at the cut ending the scene (which was not a reel change), I just had to ask.

Now as for the movie itself, I loved it. In fact, I'm actually surprised at how many critics dislike it. This film is not that hard to watch, even by mainstream standards. Yes, it's slow paced, but it stars a remarkably compelling leading man and is packed full of beautiful on-location imagery. But more importantly, the conceit of the movie is actually quite interesting: Jarmusch extolls the virtues of discipline and self-control, yet condemns the powers of control exerted by authorities and institutions. Or so that's my initial impression; I still don't now what to make of the

SpoilerShow

post-credit text reading, "No Limits No Control." Which I read as possibly concurring with Bill Murray's character's last words about the dangers of eliminating control.

[James]

I still don't now what to make of the

SpoilerShow

post-credit text reading, "No Limits No Control." Which I read as possibly concurring with Bill Murray's character's last words about the dangers of eliminating control.

I don't recall anything like that, Highway 61, but I'm glad you liked it. Unfortunately, I didn't stick around for the ending credits, but thanks for sharing this, I'm glad you loved the movie also.

[Gregory]

This was pretty disappointing for me, as I had high hopes. It seemed too loose, as though nothing fully jelled. I've seen all Jarmusch's features and this is the first one that didn't feel like it was about human beings -- certain human problems and traits on some fairly abstract level, surely, but not actual people.
Here Jarmusch takes some of the themes that made Dead Man and Ghost Dog so compelling and explores them within a fundamentally different aesthetic, which is extremely brechtian and is essentially just pastiche. Clearly the latter is present in his other works but here it felt like it was left to carry the film, perhaps not entirely but much more than it could. The bad part of it is, the pastiche seemed far too self-conscious, and this either drowned out or just failed to mesh with whatever it was that Jarmusch was attempting to explore beyond merely trying to evoke Le Samourai, Point Blank, and classic-period film noir. I really think some people (including many reviewers) just love pastiche because they enjoy spotting influences and connecting dots.

[Highway 61]

You know, while I clearly enjoyed the film more than you, I partly agree with what you have to say about pastiche. The one scene in the film that I outright hated was Tilda Swinton's because it's only purpose was to delight audiences and critics by nudging them with recollections of Hitchcock and Godard. I'm sick of filmmakers getting milage out of doing nothing other than saying, "Hey, all those movies you love and wish you had had some part in their glamorous making, well, I love them too!" All it does is give the audience--who, like everyone else, wishes they could be in the movies--a cheap, vicarious thrill.

[knives]

You know, while I clearly enjoyed the film more than you, I partly agree with what you have to say about pastiche. The one scene in the film that I outright hated was Tilda Swinton's because it's only purpose was to delight audiences and critics by nudging them with recollections of Hitchcock and Godard. I'm sick of filmmakers getting milage out of doing nothing other than saying, "Hey, all those movies you love and wish you had had some part in their glamorous making, well, I love them too!" All it does is give the audience--who, like everyone else, wishes they could be in the movies--a cheap, vicarious thrill.

That very thing, and his insistence on cool when it distracted from the film, were the only things I really didn't care for. I would never call it a bad, or even simply okay, film but it is too flawed to be the great film that you can see from it occasionally.

[so lightly here]

Was happily surprised that an imaginative and leisurely film can still be financed and released in this county, and that the released result is a pleasure to watch. True, Jarmusch's minimalism is intact and not at all injured by Chris Doyle's winter lit Spain (that man is amazing). Elegant and simple in the finest sense of those words (and that includes even the chiseled cheekbones and fine clothing.) Elegant is a word I would not associate with Jamusch and that, I feel, is due to Doyle's participation.

I did not find Tilda Swinton's slight speech on her character's reason for liking movies the least bit oft putting. Rather it seemed like a good advice to enjoying the movie if one is prejudiced against Jarmusch's late films.

[Antoine Doinel]

Saw this tonight and I'm shocked how readily this was dismissed by critics, and I have to say it's near masterpiece. I'm with james in that I think I need this to sit for a little longer and see it again, but Jarmusch has constructed something unbelievably mesmerizing here. I can't recall the last film that was so obsessed with the method of a hitman to this level, nor incorporated a philosophical and minimalist air so effortlessly. The film achieves a rhythm that is hypnotic, as Bankole approaches his task with the air of a zen master.

I think it's incorrect to read the climatic scene as

SpoilerShow

revenge for the killing of the nude woman and disappearance of the blonde.

Bankole's only motivation - from beginning to end - is the task at hand. The entire film is about how such issues/distractions are ultimately meaningless. The film is about process, inspiration and creative focus. The rest is immaterial.

And yes, a huge nod to Doyle's cinematography. The film wouldn't have been the same without it.

[knives]

I think it's incorrect to read the climatic scene as

SpoilerShow

revenge for the killing of the nude woman and disappearance of the blonde.

Bankole's only motivation - from beginning to end - is the task at hand. The entire film is about how such issues/distractions are ultimately meaningless. The film is about process, inspiration and creative focus. The rest is immaterial.

SpoilerShow

You might be right, but I took away that while he was doing it because he was suppose to, he was suppose to because of the nude death. His job seems to be James Bond, and what did Bond do when his girlfriend was killed?

It's just one of those insane layers to the film I suppose.

[LQ]

SpoilerShow

Gee, and I just thought she was sleeping. But yeah, it doesn't matter anyway.

Antoine said it best- the movie is absolutely mesmerizing.
And I must say, I don't think I've ever seen such fine tailoring ever before in my life. Those suits!

[Gregory]

The film is about process, inspiration and creative focus. The rest is immaterial.

Where exactly is the inspiration in following orders (and arguably doing nothing but that)? And what is created?
Edit: typo, as usual

[Antoine Doinel]

Gregory, good question. For me, what really elevated the film for me was the initial instruction of "use your imagination". For almost each step, Bankole goes to the museum - a completely unnecessary step in relation to the completion of his task - to find inspiration and focus. For me, there is something elegant and beautiful about that. It comes full circle when at the end of the film

SpoilerShow

he receives a blank message and then proceeds to go the museum one last time to clear his mind by looking at a blank canvas.

Jarmusch is clearly transmitting the vitality of art in any task, and it's key to Bankole's character's ability to navigate the obscure waters of his task with success.

[Gregory]

To me the film is essentially a series of exotic philosophical/poetic elements -- often explicitly stated by the dialog -- that are then explicitly elaborated visually. E.g., "the reflection is more present than the thing being reflected" and "each of us is a set of molecules spinning in ecstasy." Some of these elements, such as the ones you're observing, have a pseudo-Zen basis, which in the context of the film ties it even more closely to Le Samourai and to a lesser extent Le Cercle Rouge.
But what I was trying to get at with my questions is that it seems problematic that a character who is supposed to exemplify the use of imagination is himself just an instrument of force used by greater powers.

[Antoine Doinel]

Nice interview with Jarmusch about the film. Interesting to note that Focus Features green-lit the film based on a 25-page story treatment that had no dialogue, and with the knowledge that Jarmusch would be shooting without a script.

[karmajuice]

I saw this with a Spanish girl, who did not particularly like it and claimed that they just filmed all the tourist locales in Spain. I was also in Finland when I saw it, so everyone cheered when John Hurt mentioned the Kaurismaki film.

I liked it, although I'm still not sure (over a week later) exactly how much I liked it. I loved the ritualism of the film and its main character. I could praise the cinematography and all that, but it's pretty much par for the course. The encounters and monologues I'm not sure about -- I don't think the ritualism would have worked without them (it would have been too overbearing otherwise), and they contribute to the ritual (they are a part of it, and every person he talks to asks him about a different kind of art), but they feel like interruptions. My strongest doubts lie with the climactic scene, which felt like

SpoilerShow

a pitiful and simplistic anti-climax to the momentum generated by the film's repetition. Is this really just a story about bohemians against The Man? The mystery of the ritual leads me to believe that there's much, much more, but based on this scene I'm not so sure. Of course, I think the sheer persistence and beauty of the repetition in the film would inevitably lead to an anti-climax, so maybe it will fare better on a second viewing.

Some other questions bug me as well, such as:

SpoilerShow

1. Why does Tilda Swinton's character get kidnapped? Why none of the others? Her monologue mentions The Lady from Shanghai which foreshadows her death/abduction, but I'm not quite sure how to read this.
2. Why does the naked girl follow him every place he goes? What role does she play, in contrast to the others who come and immediately go? How does she get from place to place without traveling with him, and is she naked in transit as well?
3. The ending when DeBankole has finished his job and changes into casual wear. How the camera follows him for a while, but when he walks outside it's almost as if it can't go any further, as if it's being pulled back or pushed away. Not sure what to make of this yet.

But by far the most interesting scene is the one roughly in the middle, where he's supposed to meet the man with the guitar and ends up going into the empty club, where the dancer is rehearsing.

SpoilerShow

It seems to me that he's trying to follow the ritual, meet up with the next person: he seems to be following clues, is focused on the man playing the guitar, and sees the owner of the place with a box of the signal matches. But these all feel like coincidences, that this is the one moment in the entire film that deviates from the ritual. The clues have led him here by chance and the man with the guitar is not the one he should be meeting. He just happens into this place and ends up watching the rehearsal, and for the only moment in the entire film the characters shows emotion, signs of enjoyment: he smiles, genuinely, and he applauds. I am absolutely fixated on this scene, since it's such an essential deviation from the otherwise unrelenting repetition of the film.
And the dancer, by the way, was fantastic. Mesmerizing. The Spanish girl loved that scene, at least.

Just some thoughts. I guess I'm in the camp that mostly liked it, but has some problems with aspects of the film -- which I wouldn't jump to calling flaws, but riddles that I've yet to figure out.

As a side note: I got to see Point Blank (for the first time) in a cinema a day or two after watching this, at five in the morning. I don't have much to say aside from that, but it seemed appropriate that I should see these two together like that.

Edit: To answer one of my own questions, and ask another:

SpoilerShow

I read the Q&A with Jarmusch and he says he thought of Swinton's character as "the angel of the artifice of cinema", which I found fascinating. This seems to complicate the issue of her being kidnapped and possibly killed, and the strange moment where she appears in the movie poster just before. Is he saying something about the state of cinema, or about his film in particular? Why do the two who talk about sex and movies die, while music and science and bohemia live on?

[knives]

Yes, one of my theories proved true.As for everything else, I can only speculate.

SpoilerShow

Maybe it's suppose to reflect his own interest in film. Most modern films aren't as interesting as The Lady from Shanghai. After thinking about the movie I feel that the lone man is either imagination or the audience. Jarmusch's comments for me prove the audience belief in this cypher. Te death of naked is probably unrelated to that element. Just my my guesses though.

[Aki]

SpoilerShow

3. The ending when DeBankole has finished his job and changes into casual wear. How the camera follows him for a while, but when he walks outside it's almost as if it can't go any further, as if it's being pulled back or pushed away. Not sure what to make of this yet.

If you're talking about the final shot of the film,

SpoilerShow

in the May/June Film Comment issue, Jarmusch said Doyle figured it was the end of the shot so he stopped and took the camera off his shoulder. Jarmusch liked it because it broke from the careful compositions of the film and it foregrounded the artifice of the film and of film in general, which was one of the guiding ideas for the film.

[Adam X]

just saw the film yesterday, and definitely feel, like a few others I need to sit on the film for a bit, really need to see it again to figure out what I think of it.
one of my favourite films, Dead Man, I found plain boring when I first saw it, but was instrumental in making me a fan of Jarmusch's work.

Doyle's cinematograhpy was stunning, some of the best I've seen him do outside of his collaborations with Wong Kar-Wai.
Jay Rabinowitz's editing is something that needs to be mentioned too. really subtle, and worked incredibly well with the film's mood. and of course, the soundtrack & costumes.

found myself wishing for more of Alex Descas, though there's always Claire Denis' films...

maybe?Show

I think the one thing I wasn't so fond of was the unnecessarily "hip" dialogue, and the repeated lyrics that sounded great when sung in the various incarnations, but for me didn't seem as profound as it felt they were meant to be? hard to tell.

need to see it again, definitely.

[Murdoch]

Just saw this and, while I'm no Jarmusch fan, this was definitely a great film undone by its hasty "climax".

SpoilerShow

Murray being strangled by Bankole and the dialogue before, like karmajuice said, felt like a contrived showdown between Bohemians and the Man, lacking the careful detail the scenes before and after show.

However, despite that flaw, the film showed a distinct philosophy and I saw it overall as not a film about a hitman, but a philosophy film involving a hitman in which those around him represent extensions of that philosophy repeated throughout the film, relating it to themselves in a very personal, introspective manner.

SpoilerShow

1. Why does Tilda Swinton's character get kidnapped? Why none of the others? Her monologue mentions The Lady from Shanghai which foreshadows her death/abduction, but I'm not quite sure how to read this.

SpoilerShow

What I thought important to observe was that Swinton's kidnapping takes place right after he sees her image on the film poster. She spoke of Lady From Shanghai and how she often cannot distinguish between what she saw in a film and what she saw in a dream. I saw the kidnapping as a play on what she spoke of, that this blur between art and consciousness suddenly extends to blurring the lines between art and reality, she becomes involved in a kidnapping that seems right out of a film noir like Welles's film.

Overall a very interesting film to ponder.

[rohmerin]

Saw last night in an open air cinema in Madrid with four film makers friends.
Horrible, we hated. All of us admire Jarmusch and we don't understad how he made this empty nothing.
Personally, I found very interesting his vision of our country, it was like a Lynch trip to the dry Spain, BUT not all Spain is so dry and brown, please, stop that tourim cliches with flamenco, guitars and fucking dirty streets.

I loved the protagonist suits, may be by Prada. I loved when Tylda appeared on the film.
I didn't found any influence from Point Black, that apparently Jarmush wanted to made a tribute.

All the cult citations alla Godard were unbereable.

[mikkelmark]

I'm not sure its an "empty nothing". When I saw it, I though that Jarmusch was making a James Bond movie with everything upside down.
- There's the agent stuff, but it instead of being something fancy, it's these meaningless simple boxes
- He gets lots of ladies, but ofcourse he doesn't have sex with them.
- Ofcourse he has to be black.
- And when we know there's supposed to be some action in the end, he skips past it.

I remember there being more "opposite stuff", but it's a long time since I've seen it now. He starts with the formula for something very mainstream, and then he has to change it being Jarmush.

[hearthesilence]

I'm not sure its an "empty nothing". When I saw it, I though that Jarmusch was making a James Bond movie with everything upside down.
- There's the agent stuff, but it instead of being something fancy, it's these meaningless simple boxes
- He gets lots of ladies, but ofcourse he doesn't have sex with them.
- Ofcourse he has to be black.
- And when we know there's supposed to be some action in the end, he skips past it.

Hah, I never saw this post before, but you're possibly the only person I know who had the same exact thoughts. It's got all of the elements of a James Bond movie, but it doesn't add up to one, at all. To me, that's the ultimate Jarmusch joke, and the plot is the type of wonderful labyrinthe narrative Jacques Rivette used to make. One of my favorites, it remains polarizing, but it has plenty of admirers (Kent Jones, Andrew O'Hehir, Jim Hoberman, Jonathan Rosenbaum, Glenn Kenny, etc.), enough to place #17 in IndieWire's annual critics' poll.

[JSC]

I saw this film in the theater and I think it's one of Jarmusch's best features.

For me, The Limits of Control is simply about the act of seeing (cinema itself)
with Isaach de Bankolé's character as a kind of surrogate for the director. Apart
from the main character's continual observation of life around him, the film is
crammed full of visual references to other filmmakers (observers), even a literal
manifestation of Godard's 'girl with a gun' appearing in the main character's hotel room.

A key line in the film for me is when Bankole enters a heavily fortified compound as
if by magic and when asked how he got in he replies "I used my imagination."

[ford]

Top five Jarmusch for me. I just got the German blu-ray and look forward to watching it with the sound cranked up. It helps that I love all the actors, the setting (Spain, the greatest country), the political revenge fantasy aspect, and the soundtrack by Boris, Sun O))) and others, which is brilliantly deployed.

[The Pachyderminator]

I'm not sure its an "empty nothing". When I saw it, I though that Jarmusch was making a James Bond movie with everything upside down.
- There's the agent stuff, but it instead of being something fancy, it's these meaningless simple boxes
- He gets lots of ladies, but ofcourse he doesn't have sex with them.
- Ofcourse he has to be black.
- And when we know there's supposed to be some action in the end, he skips past it.

I remember there being more "opposite stuff", but it's a long time since I've seen it now. He starts with the formula for something very mainstream, and then he has to change it being Jarmush.

I appreciate this (saw it thanks to the thread bump). In a way it matches the impression I had, which was that, visually, it was a film about negative space, i.e. how every figure requires a ground. I'll have to see it again to know whether that makes any sense; it's possible I remember modern architecture figuring more strongly in the film than it actually did.

[swo17]

Coming from Arrow Academy Dec 8