Ever walk out of a movie thinking it had been made just specifically for you to see?

Me either.

But it happened this past weekend with Jim Jarmusch’s new masterpiece, THE LIMITS OF CONTROL, starring the brilliant Isaach de Bankole.

Let’s begin by saying that this movie is supremely well made, so much so that the one possible minor technical glitch that occurred sometime near the end could possibly have been an intentional disruption of mental continuity, and I will have to watch again to evaluate that possibility if for no other reason.

Second, if you like action-packed thrill rides… Skip this one.

Two hours and five minutes, and very little happens. Not much dialogue. Only: shot after moving shot of scintillating beauty, breathtaking magnificence in the form of architecture, landscape, cinematographic funny stuff, sartorial splendor, behavioral eccentricity… And on, and on. THE LIMITS OF CONTROL is a long, slow drink of cool water in the middle of the night.

The music was mainly eccentric bursts of droning electric guitar noise. I actually own two of the CDs from which the music was selected, one by Japanese BORIS and the other by Seattleites EARTH. Jarmusch and I, it seems, have similar taste (especially considering Neil Young’s soundtrack to Jarmusch’s DEAD MAN, and the entire movie JJ then devoted to Neil’s band Crazy Horse, YEAR OF THE HORSE) …

Many themes from my recent and distant past life crop up throughout the course of the (absence of) plot … including but not limited to Tai Chi, La Boheme, and perspectives on the nature of reality.

The plot, the action, by the way, takes place mainly offstage, while the main character does his thing and lets it all go by as best he can.

Isaach de Bankole, as that main character (the archetypal “Lone Man”), is brilliant. His characterization is so natural you almost don’t want to call it “acting” … but of course, that is what the best acting is: Natural being, in a context of someone else’s choosing. Isaach is so awesomely talented that he is able to maintain this relaxed state of controlled existence through two hours and five minutes of film, of which he is onscreen, often alone, in very nearly every single moment.

I can’t tell you what this movie was about. I can only say what it meant to me… And ultimately, it shouldn’t mean the same thing(s) to you. So I am not going to say anymore, unless you ask me. (Feel free!) Go see it, in the theater if you can. It’s an eighth wonder, like Kong. Come away changed.

This is the unexpurgated text of an email I wrote to a friend in response to two DVDs he’d lent me. Both DVDs were of movies called Solaris, both based on the excellent novel by Stanislaw Lem. The older movie is Russian, the newer one is American. The newer one stars George Clooney. Perhaps you have seen it?

Anyway, this is what I though after watching both movies. I’m sure a more detailed analysis could be made, but this should be enough for any casual interest.

Wow -

We checked out the Russian version a few weeks ago.

It’s about the slowest-paced movie I’ve ever seen! Even slower than Fitzcorraldo! Slower than The Shining! Amazing - like watching a painting. Very strange, but I enjoyed it a LOT. The use of rain in the beginning reminds me of the Japanese director who made Rashomon and The Seven Samurai. The whole look and feel of it - I wonder how much was deliberate and how much was budget or technology available at the time? It says in the notes it was the Russian director’s break-out success film, which makes me really wonder about his OTHER ones!

I also saw that Lem didn’t feel like the director quite got it - like, what Lem intended with the book is not what finally made it to the screen. I think this is probably true. As I recall, the book is more idea-driven than plot-driven, and the ideas have much to do with the problem of communication with a vastly alien being - ie, the Ocean of Solaris.

Now, Clooney bugs me anyway. He was good in Syriana, and the Coen Bros know how to use him effectively (he’s GREAT in Burn After Reading), but otherwise I have little use for him and this was no exception, he just doesn’t act. The characterizations were good, but generally not well acted on everyone’s part (I’m such a wet blanket!) … The script was alright, but I didn’t feel like the moviemakers knew what they were trying to do - like, no real sense of form, no real sense of underlying philosophy - I had the feeling they used a few imageries as a kind of homage to the first movie (the spaceship docking when Clooney lands on Solaris), and there was a kind of PhilDick-ness to the plot - the way it was hard to tell what was real and what was not - but it lacked Philip Dick’s sense of structure. We both (Zinnia and I) thought we would have been very confused if we hadn’t sort of known what was going on already from the other movie.

That said, it LOOKED really good, it was paced very well, it was moody without being cumbersome… Just poorly acted and nonsensical. Sad, because I think a movie of Solaris could be made that would attend properly to all these things. Interspecies communication is one of my interests, so I’d like to see that happen.

Thanks so much for lending these! I’ve been wanting to see them both for years (tho clearly not badly enough to go and get them myself). I’ll return them to you shortly.

thanks and good luck
5