Can someone please explain Jim Jarmusch to me? I just don't get it. I don't understand how he keeps making films. Where is he getting the funding from? Are any of his films making any money?
I've tried to like this guy so many times, but every time boredom overcomes me. I thought "Dead Man" was okay, as well as "Broken Flowers". "Ghost Dog" was one of the most boring movies I've sat through. Even the fact that it was shot in Jersey City and that I recognized some of the locations did nothing for me.
I put "The Limits of Control" on my queue because Gael Garcia Bernal was in it. I didn't know it was a Jim Jarmusch film. By the time I realized this, the DVD was already on the way and I decided to give it another shot.
I had to stop and start this thing so many times. I couldn't get through it in one sitting. I always try to see the whole movie, including credits, no matter how bad it is, in the hopes that there is one redeeming thing about it.
I definitely enjoyed the first few minutes. I loved the composition. Any film not shot in handheld is rare nowadays, so that was refreshing. And then it went nowhere. Just the usual boring Jim Jarmusch stuff.
I really hoped to be able to appreciate it, but I don't know. Maybe I'm just dumb. Most of it is over my head, I guess. I'm glad I didn't somehow end up watching this in the theatre. I don't know if I'd be able to stand all the pretentious people who would appreciate this.
He's some sort of experimental genius. I get it. How many films does he have to make to prove this? In the DVD extra, he says that althought there are a limited number of stories that can be told, there are unlimited ways of telling them. Unlimited boring ways.
"The Limits of Control" references other films. Which Jim Jarmusch must have seen. Didn't those films entertain him? Okay, he's seen all these films and photos and heard all this music, and all that inspired him to be as flat as possible? I just don't get it.
Don't directors pusue filmmaking because of how the movies have made them feel? Didn't those stories touch him in some way? But instead he decides to just make films that no one likes. I just don't get it.
David Lynch and Michael Haneke are also auteur type directors but they can make their films watchable. They are also making a point about the medium itself, but not in an utterly boring way. I mean, if you refuse to connect with your audience, what is the point of creating a medium?
I wonder if Jim Jarmusch ever actually rewatches any of his films. I don't know. He's a pretty odd fella from what I can tell. He probably jerks off to them.
Even the nude woman being all nude and bare naked couldn't erase my disinterest. Why waste your money on sleeping pills? Put this DVD on your queue.
And now here is a "Family Guy" clip:
My sentiments exactly.
Tweet Follow @dvdvill
This is great. I think my favorite one of his films was "Down By Law," in no small measure because Tom Waits is in it. But it's been a long time since I've seen it - back in the days when I was younger and I had to see "important" movies. At the beginning of the film, Ellen Barkin spends about ten minutes throwing Waits' stuff around a New Orleans apartment, and you just watch Waits sit there, sadly, quietly letting it happen. A real Jarmusch moment.
ReplyDeleteI think I saw that once but have forgotten all about it already.
ReplyDelete