So I've been back from Paris for a week now and have been able to catch up on my movies. I mention Paris because it was there where I discovered a certain kinship with legendary independent filmmaker Jim Jarmusch. He also moved to Paris after graduating and worked for an art gallery making deliveries all over the city. I worked as an intern for a production company and also did my share of deliveries. I'm just glad Paris is as small as it is. Anyway, after learning about the parallels between our career paths, I figured I owed it to myself to check out some of his films and interviews. I learned that we share similar philosophies on the relationship between films and music as well as the two in and of themselves. It's only now that I've been able to check out his latest film, The Limits of Control.

Prior to Limits, I'd only seen two Jarmusch films. Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai (which was amazing) and Stranger Than Paradise (which was boring, stereotypical arthouse crap). I found Limits to be between the two.

So what is The Limits of Control about? Well... Nothing. Okay. Maybe that's a little unfair. I'll try again... Okay. Maybe not. 90% of the time, this film is about nothing. Technically, it's about a hitman (Isaach De Bankole) on a mission in Spain... but you don't really find that out until the end. The rest of the time, it's just a dude having random conversations with famous actors (Tilda Swinton, John Hurt, Gael Garcia Bernal). What do they talk about? Philosophical mumbo jumbo in the context of topical conversations (films, music, art, etc.). The rest of the time, it's pretty much sequences of the dude walking around town, drinking coffee, doing yoga, sleeping... seriously. This was 90% of the film.

Earlier on, there's a really hot naked chick (Paz de la Huerta) walking around the hitman's hotel which, needless to say, makes the film a little more interesting. I think the "nice tits" mentality of watching a film is the death of cinema, more than anything else in the world. But for real. This felt like the plot was actually surgically removed from the film. The whole thing felt sort of like a neutered film noir. What else is there to hold your attention? A naked chick is going to do the trick better than anything else.

Is there a point to all this? Actually, yes, there is. At the end of the film, you find out the hitman's been ordered to take out a mysterious target (Bill Murray). Why? In their final confrontation, Murray's character explains everything. The purpose of all the pointless conversations, the title of the film... everything. Unlike most independent films, the commentary is totally in-your-face in a very "Unobtainium" sort of way and Murray's delivery of it is totally heavy-handed. It's basically all about control vs. imagination. Very intellectual, "art imitates life" kinda shit. Then... it's over.

The whole thing feels sort of like a parody of independent film but Jarmusch is such a huge figurehead in the scene that I just don't think that's possible. Still, I was glad the whole thing did have a point. In fact, I was glad it was a really overblown, blatantly obvious point. I was really afraid the film was going to pull an Andy Warhol and actually be 100% pointless and boring (Jarmusch even looks like a Warhol clone so I didn't rule this out at all).

So was there anything good about this film. Yes, there was, actually. "Nice tits?" Well... yeah. But seriously, the cinematography was amazing. For any film. It was extremely rich visually, full of color, contrast, all that good stuff. And yet it didn't look overly glossy or music video-esque. The shots were actually interesting and felt meticulously chosen. The style resonated very personally with me, actually. If there were actually a real plot, I'd say this could've been really good, even with the stereotypical arthouse message. There was also excellent use of silence which I always appreciate but when there was music, it was amazing. The score was done by Japanese avant-guarde stoner rock/metal band Boris. It wasn't too in-your-face and didn't take away from the images (not that it matters since the film was about nothing) but it was very different, very distinct, very powerful and easily crushed John Williams and his contemporaries into dust.

Would I recommend this film to anybody? No. N-O. Aesthetics and decent (albeit meaningless) performances aside, this really is a film about a dude walking aimlessly around and stirring cups of expresso for two hours or so. I'm not exaggerating. Even diehard film fans (unless they're diehard Jarmusch fans) will have difficultly with this and it's debatable whether it's even worth it in the end. Still, I think it definitely had a unique style and I'll certainly be checking out other Jarmusch films in the future.

I saw Limits Of Control at a film festival last year and while being a huge Jarmusch fan, this can be definitely filed under folder labelled “acquired taste”. I totally get your reluctance in not wanting to recommend this to anyone as it’s simply not for everybody.

Personally, I liked it while at the same time completely appreciating why someone wouldn't. Self-indulgent, art house BS, slow, plodding, ridiculously nonsensical, repetitive and ultimately pointless are all valid criticisms of the film, among others but I still found myself immersed in its dream-like, detached quality, swept away by the "journey" of Lone Man moving from place to place meeting one absurd caricature after another. Sure they talk a lot of high-blown nonsense most of the time but for me it’s enjoyable nonsense, while Jarmusch does take himself very seriously I had a smile on my face for a lot of the philosophical pow-wowing, I took it with a pinch of salt and "went along for the ride." charmed by its surreal, fairy-take tone. I mean, the fact that all these people are corroborating in what seems like a rather important assassination yet dress in the most conspicuous, attention grabbing clothing gives you an idea where the films place is. This isn’t about plot, getting from point A to Point B the conclusion/resolution or some forced epiphany stemming from the protagonist “learning something”. It’s purely a spectator’s film, observing the journey, the interactions, locations and visuals complimented by a exceptionally nuanced score and thus forging them into a wholly different, intriguing (if oft unsatisfying) experience exclusive to yourself. I watched this with five other people and we all interpreted to suit are own tastes, both positive and negative opinions were voiced each with perfectly viable standpoint.

Whatever about the distinct lack of an engaging plot, the lyrical, poetic, dream-like moments, stunning scenery and interesting locations cannot be denied...if that's your thing of course. Christopher Doyle has always being a favourite cinematographer of mine and this ranks as some of the best work I've seen from him, a joy to watch. Like you said (and typically Jarmusch) it has gorgeous music throughout; the trippy, swishing, instrumental interludes permeating the travelling sequences in between his meetings with each character were a pleasure to behold...again, if that floats your boat.

A pet peeve of mine that I've become increasing conscious of in recent years is the gratuitously bombastic, over laden scores which weigh down films nowadays, distracting you rather the accentuating what is happening on screen. It’s rarely, if ever, you watch a film and come out saying "I wish it had more music" it doesn't happen simply because they seem dedicated to adopting the "more is more" approach. I totally agree with you on the protracted silences in the film and was all the more appreciative of them due to the scarcity in todays sonically over saturated productions.

I think a lot comes down to knowing Jarmusch's work and to some degree, knowing what to except from him. If you are looking for conventional plot and structure, look elsewhere, this is not what he's about. He has always made films his way, zero compromises, often having to go abroad (predominately Europe) to secure funding. So no matter what you think of his work that is something to be cherished and admired, a true independent filmmaker beating his own path.

It's great that you are open minded to check out his other work without being over enamoured by this, which I said above, I can completely understand. My favourite film of his that I've seen is "Down By Law" starring the great Tom Waits, superb film that carries more of a tangible plot then "Limits" but never deviates from is true vocation, the relationship between the three disparate characters. Shot in beautiful black and white too bookended with two songs from Waits magnum opus "Rain Dogs" On the basis of your review I can (nearly) guarantee you'd really dig it.
Others I'd check out would be Dead Man, Coffee and Cigarettes (2003 version) and Broken Flowers which incidentally was he's first film funded in his US.

Although LOC is something I definitely want to watch again I won't be going back to it anytime soon. But that doesn't diminish my respect for Jim Jarmusch as a hugely significant and important filmmaker who should be continually encouraged and embraced by those bothered enough to care. Film in general need (lots) more people like him more than other more popular, socially acceptable money makers I'd rather not mention.

P.s Did you notice Paz De la Huerta’s lopsided boobs?

Saw Broken Flowers yesterday. Way better. Liked it a lot. It did seem to be pretty mundane compared to Limits but the Jarmusch style was still there. I really liked the shooting style. Laid back but interesting and meticulous. There were a lot of shots of people doing nothing but somehow they worked and added to the overall feel. Almost never happens, needless to say. The music wasn't as good as Limits but it still stood out and brought a different mood to the film where most directors would've gone for something more traditional. I agree. They totally overdo it with music nowadays.

There definitely do need to be more directors like Jarmusch. He does his own thing and he has a style that's different and stands out. I respect that. Sometimes it works (Ghost Dog, Broken Flowers), sometimes it doesn't (Stranger than Paradise), sometimes it's halfway (Limits of Control). I'm actually surprised that his most critically acclaimed film, the film that arguably started the independent film movement in the US, has been his worst film so far, at least to me.

I didn't hate Limits. I just found myself fast-forwarding a lot and most of the time, I was fast-forwarding over shit I'd already seen.

Didn't notice the lopsided boobs. Maybe she was lying at a weird angle? I was too busy looking at her ass the first time around.

I'll wager Coffee and Cigarettes is up next for me. Seems like a good mix of old and new Jarmusch.

I loved Broken Flowers, only watched it again recently. Some very funny moments in it, particularly Jeffrey Wright’s character, while it still possesses that familiar slow, breezy, off-key pacing of a few of his other films.

Yeah, Coffee and Cigarettes is more experimental in that it’s basically a series of 12 conversations on a range of different subjects between people (e.g. Jack and Meg White, Alfred Molina and Steve Coogan, Tom Waits and Iggy Pop, Rza, Gza and Bill Murray plus our good friend Isaach De Bankolé, among others) over...you guessed it - Coffee and Cigarettes.

But as I said, check out Down By Law and Dead Man when you get the chance.