Showing posts with label jim jarmusch. Show all posts
Showing posts with label jim jarmusch. Show all posts

Wednesday, 12 March 2014

REVIEW: Only Lovers Left Alive (2014)


The Twilight films, in their depiction of untroubled romanticism, finished with a large question mark hanging over them, one that the first film’s poster referred to without addressing – “When you can live forever, what do you live for?” Jim Jarmusch, despite giving assurances in the March issue of “Sight and Sound” that he has not seen the Twilight films (or any vampire film and TV series more recent than Tomas Alfredson’s turgid Let The Right One In), sets out to look at this question in more detail.

Adam and Eve (played by Tom Hiddleston and Tilda Swinton) – named more in reference to the length of time that they have been on the planet rather than for any religious significance – are two vampires stuck in the modern world. Adam is a Romantic and a moody rocker, disillusioned with life and with the humans he is surrounded by (he calls them ‘zombies’), and considering suicide. Eve is older, much older, and has a more Classical bent, still boundlessly curious and excited by the world and content with the awareness of the circularity of life, having an apocalyptic relish for the coming fall of the West. Both are fairly reclusive and, despite Adam living in Detroit and Eve living in Tangiers, are very much in love.

The film is primarily about the wealth of knowledge and interest that the world has for people and, in this way, it is disarmingly optimistic. Eve believes that the humans, particularly the West, will soon lose their battle against the Earth and that some kind of apocalyptic reversal is coming, though having seen all sorts of plagues and floods (as well as the Inquisition) she doesn’t seem particularly bothered. However, she is boundless excited about being alive. When she packs for a trip abroad, she fills her suitcase with her favourite books – two books that are easily discernible are Cervantes’ “Don Quixote” and David Foster Wallace’s “Infinite Jest”, showing her ability to still be inspired. Adam, meanwhile, is depressive and contradictory and allows himself to get bored. He pretends that he has no heroes, although he has a wall covered with framed photographs of people who could only be heroes – Kafka, Proust, William Burroughs, Neil Young and Buster Keaton among them. Adam’s centuries-old ennui is made the butt of a few jokes, the kind that may bring only a murmur of appreciation from some of the audience but are welcome nonetheless. However, when Eve discovers his plans for suicide via a specially designed wooden bullet, she is outraged. In one great scene, she tells Adam about what makes her want to keep living, before putting on a record to which they both dance, and not at all like amateurs. The heart of the film is in this scene, creating a sense that curiosity and the joy of discovery is where the value and meaning of life lies – ultimately the film is about being glad to be alive.

The film has an infectious love of culture and science and, particularly, music and many of the film’s best scenes are simply moments revelling in these simple pleasures. Adam and Eve’s breadth of reference is not the product of snobbery, as Eve’s sister Ava (Mia Wasikowska) mistakenly claims, but the entirely enviable product of time well spent. The appearance of Ava midway through the film gives a sense of urgency and heightens the plot in a way that was not entirely necessary, since the film was enough fun when Adam and Eve were merely hanging out.

In a timely fashion, the film is able to create a sense of the destruction and desolation of the earth by the zombies. The film shows Detroit as an empty wasteland, full of cavernous abandoned buildings, the real world equivalent to the Gothic castles of tradition but equally a sign of the zombies’ destruction and waste. Despite their obvious political resonance, these sequences do not feel as heavy-handed as they may seem since any ancient vampire with an ounce of nostalgia would be angered by a huge music hall's relatively immediate transformation into a car park. Adam frequently derides the zombies’ ability to ignore or undo their own great achievements such as Detroit’s auto industry or the works of Nikola Tesla, thanks to whose work Adam has found the means to develop a machine that creates clean energy and which he is too bitter to share with the rest of humanity. However, Only Lovers Left Alive is an optimistic film, and where Detroit may represent the decline of American industry – though the music still seems to be pretty vibrant – and of the West in general, Tangiers represents a kind of hope. Though similarly crumbling and full of vice but nonetheless multicultural and very much alive, Tangiers seems to suggest that the zombies can still surprise – especially towards the end when Adam is moved by a performance by Lebanese singer Yasmin Hamdan.

Jim Jarmusch has not always been the easiest filmmaker to like – the inclusion of Neil Young on Adam’s wall of heroes can only bring back memories of the awful Year of the Horse. With Only Lovers Left Alive, he has made a film that is unexpectedly romantic, funny and excited by life. It has an infectious love of music – the music choices feel slightly dated but totally assured – and for writing. Optimistically, it suggests that love and culture can make life worth living and that time should be spent wisely lest any of it be missed. Only Lovers Left Alive does not have a highly original message, but it is one worth transmitting and if the method of transmission is as pleasing and imaginative as this, why complain?


Sunday, 30 June 2013

DVD REVIEW: Year of the Horse (1997)

Jim Jarmusch, Neil Young, Year Of The Horse




Year of the Horse is a 1997 concert film following a tour by Neil Young and Crazy Horse directed by indie icon Jim Jarmusch, probably best known for Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai and Broken Flowers. How could it not be unique?

Filmed ‘proudly’ in Super 8, 16mm and Hi-8 video, Jarmusch attempts to show the truth behind the band – how they get along, how they play together and the thirty years of history behind them. The film mixes footage of Neil Young and Crazy Horse from various different times with original concert footage from the 1996 tour.

All of this seems fairly conventional and the film’s opening minutes don’t do anything spectacular – there is a cringingly square lift of the famous opening intertitle from Scorsese’s The Last Waltz exhorting the viewer to play the film loud, footage of the band on stage and old footage of them charmingly setting a decorative arrangement of flowers on fire in what looks like a small hotel room and then complaining to the maid because they didn’t expect the blaze to get as big as it does. However, it’s not long before things get a little more Meta. Guitarist Frank ‘Poncho’ Sampedro challenges Jarmusch, wondering how one filmmaker, and an artsy-fartsy one at that, can possibly contain all of what Neil Young and Crazy Horse means in one little movie and a few snappy questions. Sampedro likes this theme and will repeat this same idea throughout the film, but it seems that Jarmusch does too. As a result, Year of the Horse becomes an attempt to capture the essence of the band, their camaraderie and their music in a unique and innovative way.

So it is probably best to read Year of the Horse as an experiment by a trendy filmmaker stuck with a cumbersome format – the concert film. When there isn’t an inadvertent distillation of a historical or cultural moment (the Summer of Love and Woodstock in the otherwise tedious near-four hour Woodstock or the symbolic death of the previous in the haunting Gimme Shelter - not to mention the actual death accidentally caught on camera), there isn’t really much reason to watch a concert film. They bring across neither the feeling of being at a concert nor even the quality of the music played. Nor are they visually interesting since few people go to concerts for the visuals alone. Film is a versatile medium but, I suspect, the concert film is a stretch too far. So what can Jim Jarmusch do, caught as he is with an unrewarding cinematic style and a mass of important information to get across with only an apparently paltry 106 minutes to do it in?

Someone, I forget who, says during an interview that the Crazy Horse sound is elusive and, when it is there, it is as if all four musicians are playing as one. The music takes over for a golden moment, the musicians merely existing through their instruments rather than performing. Jim Jarmusch seems to be trying to capture this miracle of synchronicity, loading the film with long passages in which Neil Young, Frank Sampedro and Billy Talbot endlessly improvise, their guitars squealing and screeching. The film runs through ten songs from the 1996 tour and in each we see long drawn-out riffs, which may or may not represent that one sound. After a while though it all sounds the same.

When he’s not doing that, Jarmusch shows us scenes of the band when they are not playing on stage, often unplanned, seemingly improvised sequences to which the band members talk or argue or mess around. These include the aforementioned sequence in which they set some fake flowers on fire but also a scene in which they all get high and another in which they fight about ‘parts’ or ‘sets’ or something. Sampedro lounges in his hotel room, watching Robocop 3 on TV and then complains about this film’s inability to capture what Crazy Horse is. Soon Young calls, asking for help with his computer that he hasn’t yet worked out how to use. Then Jarmusch reads some nasty passages from the Old Testament to a rather dumb Young. Jarmusch is attempting to film the band with their guard down, to capture their being and not just the performance, since years of experience is revealed through tiny moments, not floods of information. Fair enough, but the finished film is a messy assemblage of unrelated bits and pieces, falling way short of profundity but hitting the mark with pretension, becoming a dull and rather unlikeable portrait.

A late experiment, cutting between old and new footage of the band playing “Like A Hurricane”, shows that Jarmusch was trying to do something interesting, but ultimately the film represents more about Crazy Horse and life on tour than Sampedro would probably have been happy with. The film sort of captures the tediousness of life on tour and the egos that will inevitably clash when thrown together for long periods of time. Individually, the band members talk about their great friendship and onstage chemistry but together they just seem to get on each other’s nerves. Just as Young has been singing “Like A Hurricane” throughout the long years and each song played here has a long, indistinguishable guitar riff, life in a rock band can be tiring and repetitive.

Concert films are rarely rewarding and, it seems, self-conscious and artistically insecure concert films are even less so. Neil Young and Crazy Horse are great musicians and a lot of their songs are classics, so listen to a CD. It won’t come across in Year of the Horse.