Yeah, i've seen Ghost Dog and Dead Man, both are great.
The scene with Jack and Meg White in Coffee and Cigarettes is unfortunately one of the most excruciating film experiences i've had.
And i can pretty much watch anything and enjoy it.
wow, really? whats makes it so, for you?
Just how tedious it is.
The dialogue seemed so stilted, humourless and i hate to use the term, but boring.
I can remember sitting there and after about a minute just waiting for it to finish already.
Which never happens when i watch a flick.
The scene with Steve Coogan and Alfed Molina is great, as are a couple of others (Bill Murrary/GZA/RZA, Tom Waits/Iggy Pop etc.)
As a film though, it's just without many redeeming features to me.
I can endure the most pointless and self indulgent cinema as long as there is enough apart from that which interests me.
Coffee and Cigarettes is regrettably pretty forgettable in my opinion though.
Last edited by rat fakerman; 08-27-2009 at 12:00 PM.
What's it about?
Originally Posted by Pandemic
I think a lot of reviewers had a problem with that question also.
It's about a guy, who is doing something, and who travels around, and keeps meeting with different people who give him information in code form.
Since i haven't seen it, that's about as good as i can do lol.
^^^sounds interesting enough to me...i guess i'll just wiki or imdb it to find out the cast lol
the coogan/molina scene was the best one in coffee and cigarettes imo followed by rza/gza/bill murray...your choices reflect my taste as well lol but the film overall seemed pretenious, verging on self indulgent, almost like an inconsequential excuse for him to get together a bunch of friends, colleagues, and people he was a fan of masqurading as a film.
i think jarmusch had the potential to be on the level of the coen brothers for example, but he seems to absolutely refuse to be straightforward and visceral, not necessarily even to eschew these traits in the event that they would be detrimental to his art...i almost get the impression that he's willfully obscure and detached from his subject matter...but that's probably the jean luc godard influence...jarmusch is almost like an old school french 'nouvelle vague' director who just happens to be american lol
sorry for the ramble, i just find myself conflicted in assessing his work.
Hm, yeah, that line is between skillfulness and pretentiousness is always a pretty thin one.
To be honest, a lot of the minimalistic european films i've seen, have been more pretentious than most art house american films i've looked at.
You look at someone like David Lynch (not that their styles are at all similar) just for the sake of comparison, and although the 'meaning' (another term i am hesitant to use) isn't always clear or present at all, but everything else is brilliant.
Eraserhead is a good example. One of the most bizarre films i've seen, but at no point does it seem (to me at least) an exercise in purposeful eccentricity. A comes across that Lynch wouldn't consider it 'weird' or anything like that. That's just how it is, but i don't think it is a conscious decision on his part.
A meaning to me is pretty much insignificant to how enjoyable a movie isa, but when you get a collection of visually dull images in combination with minimal dialogue and an inconclusive plot, it's rare to produce a great film.
Alienation for alienation's sake is irritating for a viewer.
I don't mind feeling uncomfortable, but feeling as though a director is being deliberately obtuse for no reason apart from fulfilling his own ego, annoys me.
Not that i feel this way the whole way through Jarmusch films, but at times, it crops up.
Last edited by rat fakerman; 08-27-2009 at 12:26 PM.
that's why i said i got the impression that he was occasionally being 'willfuly' obcure.
it's probably one of the greatest challenges is filmmaking to be artful (as far as shot composition, cinematgraphy, and manipulating your performers), and obscure or ambiguous while still providing visceral entertainment that is both emotionally and intellectually engaging. some films seem to treat emotional engagement as banal and an unworthy goal lol
like you said, with lynch you get the impression that this is just his perception of the world, or at least the events he is depicting, just as with kubrick you get the sense that clinical detachment or objectivity is part of his world view. sometimes with jarmusch, specifically in dead man and stranger than paradise, i got the sense that he was pushing things in the direction of weirdness or awkardness where it didn't necessarily enhance or improve anything.
Yeah, i mean, i still like the films of his i've seen (bar Coffee & Cigarettes), but it's kind of in the back of my mind.
It's all perspective though, i know a few friends that feel that Lynch is pretentious and purposely confusing, a point which i've tried and failed to argue about with them.
Which reminds me, i'm still waiting to get my copy of Blue Velvet off a dude who's had it for about 6 months.
^^^is it the criterion?
i fail to see where any of lynch's films are pretentious...they do know what pretensious means, right? lol...because some people use the word as shorthand for 'i didn't get it'
eraserhead is the only one of his films that even flirts with pretension imo, and i attribute that to it being his first feature length film and to the feel created in part by the cinematography and sets and lighting...but lynch is lynch. A is A. Jarmusch is occasionally Jamrusch plus affectations and aspirations derived from being a fan of European art films and burgeoning 'auterism'.
Mulholland Drive was the film in question.
It was a pretty narrow discussion, basically involving an off handed, close ended comment something like "lynch is a dick, who tries to make things complicated/misleading/convoluted to disguise the fact that his films are about nothing".
And infuriating comment.
I hate when people say "nothing happened/there was no meaning" about a film.
A dude i know said that about Reservoir Dogs.
I think a lot of people feel cheated or annoyed if, when they reach the end of a film, no obvious moral is presented.
oh ok mulholland drive...sure,i suppose that would be the most likely to get that label...lynch creates an atmosphere with his films that's more important to me than whether or not the narrative is straightforward lol
morality is subjective and life isn't shaped like a story; you're going to get a more evocative and personal experience watching a film that doesn't give you 'answers' and just shows you events and imagery without telling you how to judge it.
Exactly, MD is all about the atmosphere.
Anyway, this thread is getting pretty far off Jarmusch films, i'll see Limits of Control and report back.
sorry to jump back into Lynch tho...i usually tell people who feel the way ur friends do...to watch Blue Velvet if they havent..it is so heavy with symbolism and atmoshperic emotion.
Yeah, Blue Velvet is a good combination of all of Lynch's techniques.
I don't know anyone who's seen it, who didn't think it was great.
I guess Wera is a weirdo. I haven't seen any of his new movies tho, I admit.