He lives near KJ – that is all I know.
Hmm, I just watched Down By Law and had similar thoughts to you. I can’t really understand how anybody could LOVE his films, he seems to be consistently good, but never great. I guess it’s subjective.
I remember him saying that filmmakers should steal as much as they can from other places (which isn’t a bad thing necessarily), but watching his films I get the impression he doesn’t really have a lot to say. He has his own particular style of filmmaking, obviously (although you can see a lot of influences in his work).
I do love Gus Van Sant’s films so this is perhaps a little hypocritical. Jarmusch’s films are like jazz/blues to Van Sant’s shoegaze. And I like shoegaze a lot more than jazz/blues….
I think Mystery Train is a great film and Down by Law is a masterpiece. Though I haven’t seen either in many years. Jarmusch was my first experience with minimalism, and I fell in love with his style. His rock and roll sensibility and deadpan humor complement his slender story lines in a manner that, for their time, were very refreshing. I like the other films by him that I’ve seen, but those two are my favorites.
Broken Flowers is probably my least favorite, but its problems are more related to the screenplay than to the direction.
His choice of cinematographers (Tom Di Cillo and Robby Müller) is a great asset, as is his eye for casting.
My feelings about him are alongside yours Kyo. Jarmusch’s seems like a guy that I would love to hang around with and shoot the shit because aesthetically I love a lot of things that I’ve seen. Intellectually he resonants with me, but nothing I’ve seen by him connects with me from an emotional stand point.
…
Well, my favorite is still Stranger Than Paradise, which captures the essence of Jarmusch’s style without some of the cuteness that would come later. If you like Jarmusch’s droll humor, you might check out the Eclipse set on Aki Kurosmaki, especially The Match Factory Girl.
i love ghost dog, probably cuz i love samurai flicks and gangster flicks and it manages to be both :D
I agree with you that he’s style over substance. The Limits of Control was one of the most laughably bad movies I’ve seen in a long time
A bloated sacred cow ripe for tipping. :)
If someone wanted to torture me, they might lock me in a room and play Dead Man in a continuous loop.
One of my exes would have thought that was paradise. He worshipped the movie. He also had a infinity sign that he got tattooed on his arm after watching the movie Pi. Suffice it to say we didn’t work out.
Oh but what style Kate.
I agree with Kyo that Dead Man is his best. I kind of liked it, and Neil Young’s soundtrack rocked. I really haven’t been able to get into his other stuff, though.
I love Dead Man. Like @Ralch Broken Flowers is my least favorite but even that was worth it due to Bill Murray, Jeffrey Wright and the cast of female lovelies.
I’m thinking of other minimalist directors that I love like Hong Sang soo, Ozu, Kiarostami, etc and I know he worked under Wim Wenders but what their films have and his seem to lack is an overarching theme that resonates with me after the film is over.
At the same time I always enjoy Jarmusch’s films while I’m watching them but like the rendezvous he depicts the film itself is a fleeting experience.
Style can be substance. Jarmusch’s style, more often than not, is substantial. Observance and humor can be as profound as killing an animal onscreen or spouting well-phrased ideas. Not everyone has to like it, though.
Broken Flowers got better as it went along, and the last 20-25 minutes were quite moving, but the narrative foundation, the trigger of Murray’s odyssey, is very weak. Jeffrey Wright is wasted, too.
“Dead Man” is a masterpiece and may be his most beautiful film. I love Jarmusch. Haven’t seen a bad film from him yet, though admittedly I haven’t yet watched his two newest ones. His films are small jewels that always have at least a couple of precious things in them.
Well, shit. You all have me convinced that I should try Dead Man again.
^ so my evil plan HAS worked. <twists my cat’s whiskers in place of an evil mustache>
Wow. This thread works out fine for me, considering I have never seen a JJ film but just blind-bought Dead Man and have a free evening ahead of me.
I was one of the few people who actually liked “Broken Flowers” and that one he did a couple years ago with Issach De Bankole and a nude Paz De La Huerta (who’s character was named…. Nude). I forget the name of that one though for some reason.
Dead Man is his weakest film for the very reasons that most people think it’s his best film. It’s more like a Coen brothers films, filled with “deep” insights than his best works. His best films, Strangers, Down by Law, Mystery Train, don’t give you symbolic meanings but rather force you to experience the confusion, social hesitation, and even boredom of the characters. Those works don’t give the viewer the net that Dead Man does where one can sum up the whole thing in the popular allegorical fashion that is sociological/symbolic criticism. You know, where every beautiful shot means something about whatever culture is being examined.
Those points in Strangers, Down by Law, and Mystery Train where you’re wondering what the point is or feeling distracted are the meaning of the films.
Actually, I felt like all that symbolism didn’t even add up to something you can hang your hat on. It was too obtuse for me. The comparison to Coen Bros. is weak, Mike. They rarely employ symbolism with such a heavy hand. And if there is symbolism in a Coen Bros. movie, you can usually enjoy it without understanding what it means. In fact, the Coen Bros. have openly disregarded attempts to codify the meaning of objects – see their response to attempts to understand certain elements of Barton Fink.
You know, where every beautiful shot means something about whatever culture is being examined
Which in the case of Dead Man was white American male culture, that’s why I liked it. Instead of Native American culture being romanticized and exoticized it was presented as matter-of-fact, even playing with those conventions, and white American masculine culture in particular was defamiliarized or made strange through the narrative. I enjoy those little inversions.
@Japeman – I didn’t know Paz de la Huerta was in “Limits of Control”. She’s terrible.
The extent of De La Huerta’s “acting” in “Limits of Control” (now I remember the title :p ) was essentially be naked and pout. She’s only in a few scenes but that’sthe extent of her role.
It’s not a perfect film in the least but Bill Murray’s cameo towards the end as essentially the film’s only real representation of Americans (revealing any more is a major spoiler) is worth the price of admission alone.
I’m one of the film’s few supportersand I forgot the dang title earlier hehe.
I haven’t seen a Jim Jarmusch film in a long time, but I remember liking Down By Law and Mystery Train. I also liked Dead Man, though I would have rather watched that on the big screen as it’s rather meditative.
Jarmusch was big in the ‘80s… I was surprised to see a film like Dead Man coming from him, actually… very atypical of the style I remember him being known for, and the spirit of the times he seemed to capture when he was lots of peoples’ darling.
I think I like Jarmusch so much because we are both from Akron.
Stranger Than Paradise is super hip. Down By Law is his landmark. Mystery Train has Joe Strummer AND Screamin’ Jay Hawkins in it. Night On Earth is hysterical. Dead Man is an Acid Western. Ghost Dog is ballin’. Coffee and Cigarettes is genius. Broken Flowers was the first Jarmusch movie I saw and I saw it in theaters, I think it is a good place to start. The Limits of Control is ambitious.
I like the slow pace because it gives me time to think.
“its not about where u take things from, but where u take them to.” – Godard
PS – Winston Rules. It’s just a little Cheeba.
I’m with Nathan, regarding Dead Man. I’d like to request that those who love the film help me understand why that film is so good. (I was going to say, “issue a challenge” but that sounded too adversarial.) I did not get that film at all. Ditto Limits of Control—despite Robert’s attempts to enlighten me.
For me, I sense that Jarmusch has two approaches to his films: 1) films about the mundane, where nothing seems to be happening (e.g. Down By Law, Stranger Than Paradise, Coffee and Cigarettes, etc.). If you fans of mumblecore would like this films and vice-versa; 2) arty (read: highly symbolic) films that feature a journey (e.g. Limits of Control, Dead Man, maybe Ghost Dog).
I much prefer the former. What I like about this approach is way these films almost wipeout the canvas of any kind of drama so that smaller moments of humor or drama become more palpable and even poignant. It can be a tough to watch, but at least there is a payoff.
The second approach seems heavy-handed and pretentious to me. It just seems like a Jarmusch is trying too hard to be arty and deep. Now, before Jarmusch fans jump all over me, let me just say that I can’t say this with much confidence because in all honesty, I don’t feel like I have a good grasp of what’s going on in these films—to the extent that I can confidently say the film is to blame more than myself.
I like him, but he is nowhere near the level of some other ‘minimalist’ directors like Kiarostami and Costa imo. He comes off like a observational stoner rather than an ‘intellectual’ most of the time, and that’s cool, but it doesn’t make him deep. I don’t think there is a lot of substance to his work, but he does give you something.
I appreciate him more for his quirk than anything else really.
“His best films, Strangers, Down by Law, Mystery Train, don’t give you symbolic meanings”
What about the opening shot of “Strangers”? The graffiti messages on the walls? Ditto for the graffiti in “Down By Law”. What about the drawing of the window in “Down by Law”? Chaucer Street in “Mystery Train”?
Post-Kyo
I’ve seen a few of his films Down by Law, Mystery Train, Night on Earth, Dead Man, Coffee and Cigarettes and Broken Flowers.
With the notable exception of Dead Man which I think is an amazing, subversive, beautifully shot and scored film, I find Jarmusch’s other films charming and cool but don’t truly love any of them.
These vague and entirely subjective descriptors tend to be as far as I can get with most Jarmusch films – I find a clear intellectual grasp on his work for the most part eludes me.
Is it because his strength as a director is mood, tone and atmosphere – more style than substance? Transient moments with mysterious characters who always seem to not completely understand each other?
Thoughts?