THE LIMITS OF CONTROL (Jim Jarmusch 2009)

[Chris Knipp]

I've searched in vain for any more favorable, or perceptive, reviews of this excellent new film by Jim Jarmusch. The others I've seen are niggling at best and even when they have good things to say about all Jarmusch's oeuvre, they call this example "middling" (CS Monitor). So we still have Howard Schumann,
Cinescene; Steve Erikson, The Baltimore City Paper; J. Hoberman, The Village Voice; and me. Pretty sad really. If anyone finds others, please report.

Needless to say, Hoberman's statement bears the greatest weight, and is quite decisive: the title of his review is simply

Jarmusch's Mythic Limits of Control His Best Since Dead Man.

Pay attention, people.

And when I look for the expanding release schedule and the lousy reviews I'm a little afraid the film isn't getting the audience in theaters it deserves. I hope I'm wrong but this is looking like lost in the shuffle and that's a very regrettable fate for one of the three best American films of the first half of 2009.

[Chris Knipp]

Andrew O'Hehir of Salon.com has some very favorable things to say about The Limits of Control in his introduction to an interview with Jarmusch.

This is not Jarmusch's easiest film, nor his most audience-friendly, but for my money it's the most rigorous and beautiful construction of his entire career. Maybe I can put it this way: If you liked Jarmusch's 1995 "Dead Man," which has a definite cult following but was a commercial failure, "The Limits of Control" is the movie you've been wanting him to make ever since.

I'd say O'Hehir absolutely gets it. This is what I'd say, and if fits with Hoberman's assessment. I love O'Herhir's reference to Bach here:

Working with the Hong Kong-based cinematographer Christopher Doyle (who shot Wong Kar-wai's early films), Jarmusch has created something like a Bach fugue, a complex set of themes and variations. It has the suave hero and the visual vocabulary of a crime thriller, one in which De Bankolé follows a set of clues and codes from one strange encounter to the next, each one moving him from Madrid to Seville and onward into the Spanish countryside. (Let me reassure you about one thing right now: He does have a clear purpose in mind, and his journey does have a destination. This is not one of those postmodern stories with no ending.)

And that's an important point too. This is not merely an exercise in hipsterism as some too easlily conclude. And it's rhythmic variations are very much musical.

Betsy Sharkey's review in the Los Angeles Times is also admiring. "Absorbing and visually mesmerizing," she says, and while she admits some may find the film self indulgent (they obviously do, or self-satisfied, or something of the sort), she is "deeply satisfied camp."

[Johann]

I like Howard's ideas about what Jarmusch is trying to get across.
"Reality is Arbitrary"- it is. It really is.
Bob Dylan said if God is one thing, he's arbitrary. An arbitrary Creator, who doesn't seem to be too interested in the aftermath of creation as he is in Creation itself.
The more I ruminate on it, the more I'm certain that God has only one purpose: Creating. It seems as though God places no meaning on anything except creation. The rest he leaves up to us to find out for him. God knows about his Creation through us. We "fax" him the info of our experience.

How do you explain bad things happening to good people or great things happening to bad peeps?

My naval history friend (who'll remain nameless) thinks that there was divine intervention in the winning of WWII.

I know this doesn't have much to do with Jarmusch's movie.
Just wanted to throw these sentiments up.

[Johann]

And yes, this film is being overlooked by millions.
It's sickening.

[Chris Knipp]

Whatever works for you old boy. I am feeling more encouraged about the movie's fate/future after having looked up more reviews. The Metacritic rating of "40" is discouraging, though. It makes little sense for any film by a director of Jarmusch's caliber and level of craft to be rated as mediocre, even if it was not one of his best, which it is.

Focus Features' website for LIMITS OF CONTROL has material about positive reviews and details about the theatrical releases that allows you to find out where it is showing now. The trailer there is unfortunate, though. He ought to have made his own trailer, as PT Anderson does. The unfolding release system makes it really hard to know without careful study how widely a movie is or will be seen theatrically.

[Johann]

Jarmusch himself said that he pays attention to the bad reviews he gets. I don't think he alters his working methods because of them but he said he likes reading the bad ones more than the good. And I can see why.

Too many people gushing about your movies can turn a guy off.

[Chris Knipp]

I don't know why either kind of review would be any use, to him. Personelly for us or for me the good ones are more usefl. The badones just dismiss the film, and don't say much about it.

[oscar jubis]

I have been wondering for a while how/whether to contribute to this thread. I consider myself a fan of Jarmusch. I have enjoyed all his films to varying degrees. I don't have a review of THE LIMITS OF CONTROL to post. If I were to write a review it would be a mildly favorable one. The review would reflect general agreement with the virtues both of you find in it. If I were to read the generally unfavorable reviews the film received, many of which probably written by folks who don't know or don't like Jarmusch's films, I would probably take a positive stance to provide some balance. On the other hand, this is not a review and I am writing in the context of one admiring post after another. I find that the virtues of the film are as noteworthy as its serious limitations. And that the comments from both of you only reflect one side of my appreciation of the film. My clearest disagreement with your comments probably has to do with comparisons between THE LIMITS OF CONTROL and the films made by Jarmusch after DEAD MAN (all of which I found more enjoyable than this latest film).

As far as the films he made during his first decade as a filmmaker, one thing I love about them is their random, handcrafted quality. There was room for improvisation. The actors were granted a certain freedom to create the characters, or at least the films gave that impression.

It is interesting to note that Jarmusch's transculturalism has been characteristic since the beginning: the Japanese couple touring rock and blues shrines in MYSTERY TRAIN, the cousin from Hungary visiting her Cleveland relatives in STRANGER THAN PARADISE, the casting of Roberto Benigni in DOWN BY LAW; NIGHT ON EARTH is simultaneously set in Los Angeles, NYC, Helsinki, Paris and Rome.

I believe DEAD MAN is Jarmusch's masterpiece. The main reason, as far as I am concerned, is the multiple ways in which the film resonates culturally and historically. Moreover, even if you disregard the inherent sociological allusions, the relationship between Blake and Nobody is endlessly fascinating. They are both such likable characters.

Anyway, I should be saying something about THE LIMITS OF CONTROL. I enjoyed its formal qualities very much. I enjoyed it as an audiovisual experience. I do miss anything resembling the central relationship in DEAD MAN, or the friendship between Bill Murray and his Ethiopian neighbor in BROKEN FLOWERS. There isn't anything in THE LIMITS OF CONTROL that evokes the loneliness of Chloe Sevigny as a young actress alone in her trailer in Jarmusch's segment ("Int. Trailer Night") of the compilation film TEN MINUTES OLDER. The brief performances by famous actors in the new film don't reverberate the way similar performances do in COFFEE AND CIGARRETTES. In the latter, it is fun for the viewer to ponder the difference between the personas of the actors and the way they play themselves in the vignettes that constitute the film. Their scenes in THE LIMITS OF CONTROL are too constrained by ritual to signify beyond the film's flimsy plot. In GHOST DOG, when the protagonist kills there is a certain explanation. It involves a reaction to betrayal and the necessity of self-defense. THE LIMITS OF CONTROL has a plot that is entirely abstract and devoid of any affective connection. Even the "lone man" is not developed beyond its mythic profile.

By the way, the music in this film pales in comparison to the music composed and played by Neil Young and RZA for DEAD MAN and GHOST DOG.

[Chris Knipp]

I like the high style of LIMITS OF CONTROL. Ritual is not necessarly a constraint. I like elegance, and a director who works to please himself, not to bring in millions of dollars or popcorn-buyers.

On the other hand I totally agree that DEAD MAN is a masterpiece. I love Jarmusch, but some more than others of course. I agree with most of your observations. But if we're talking about 2009, LIMITS OF CONTROL stands out as one of the great ones of the year.

[Michuk]

I have finally managed to watch "The Limits of Control". It was not an easy task being in London. It's only being shown for a couple of ways in a small venue called ICA (Institute of Contemporary Arts) which seems like the best venue for the kind of movie Jarmusch created.

To me, "Limits of control" is cinema in its pure, non-compromising form. Fantastic music and great artistic cinematography together with the plot focusing on a lone journey of a man reminded me of "Dead Man" by the same director. And even though the movies are very different, they both manage to create the mystical atmosphere that takes you to a different, simpler world. One of Jarmusch's best.

Mr Ebert doesn't seem to agree though: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...905069987/1001 and even though I think he's far from right, I enjoyed his review a lot, it's a must-read!