Monthly Archives: December 2016

  • Paterson

    Jim Jarmusch (2016)

    The title refers to the principal character and to his home city.  Paterson (Adam Driver), whose forename we never know, hails from and still lives in Paterson, New Jersey.  He’s married to Laura (Golshifteh Farahani).  They are childless but have a bulldog named Marvin.  Paterson is a bus driver and an unpublished poet.  He writes during his work breaks and at home whenever he can.  His poetic hero is William Carlos Williams, whose best-known work includes the modern(ist) epic Paterson, published over a twelve-year period (1946-58).  This five-volume poem is an account of the history, people and spirit of Paterson, NJ.  Williams was born elsewhere in the state but his medical career was based at (what was then) the Passaic General Hospital and he spent plenty of time in Paterson, the largest city of Passaic County.

    When Paterson gets into conversation with a young schoolgirl (Sophia Muller), who also writes poems, she asks if he likes Emily Dickinson and Paterson replies that Dickinson is one of his favourites.  The last thing the girl says as she bids Paterson goodbye and gets into her mother’s car is, ‘Wow – a bus driver who likes Emily Dickinson!’  Although he’s too self-effacing and undemonstrative a man to react strongly to the child’s remark, we can tell from Adam Driver’s face that Paterson is stung by it.  William Carlos Williams is famous for combining a professional career as a doctor with a writing life but a bus-driver poet is, to many people, an oxymoron.  A persistent problem I had with Jim Jarmusch’s new film was that it seemed to be expressing a view akin to the little girl’s.  It kept nagging at me that Jarmusch wouldn’t have made a movie about Paterson if he only drove a bus and didn’t concoct nice-verging-on-twee little love poems to his wife.  (It made me grateful all over again for Manchester by the Sea.  Kenneth Lonergan doesn’t feel the need to make his janitor protagonist a cultured soul inside his blue collar.)

    Paterson comprises a week in the life of its main man, from early one Monday morning to the next.  The daily episodes illustrate the strongly routinised nature of Paterson’s world.  He wakes and rises early.  He eats the same breakfast cereal.  He listens to his bus passengers’ conversations.  He jots down lines for poems as he sits eating his packed lunch alone.  In the evening, he takes Marvin for a walk and goes for a drink at a local bar.  But an unvarying routine is necessarily something that a character on screen – and the film-maker who has created her or him – must break out of, sooner or later.  Jim Jarmusch doesn’t describe Paterson’s procedures in the same detail or at the same length as Chantal Akerman describes Jeanne Dielman’s.  The climactic rupturing of routine isn’t comparably startling:  in Paterson’s case, more or less normal service is eventually resumed.  Even so, as the weekend approaches, Jarmusch introduces changes to the normal pattern and their effect is mildly ominous.  Paterson wakes several minutes later than usual on the Friday morning.  Later that day, the bus he’s driving break down mid-route.  He isn’t at work Saturday or Sunday but still wakes quite a bit later than he intended on the first of these days, by which time Laura is already preparing to set off for the big event of her week, going to sell homemade cupcakes at the local farmers’ market.

    Jim Jarmusch’s lack of formal rigour à la Chantal Akerman has advantages beyond making Paterson easy to watch compared with Jeanne Dielman.   Jarmusch can pick and choose which details to make diurnal.  A couple of times, Paterson makes the mistake of asking Donny (Rizwan Manji), a colleague at the bus depot, how things are, and receives a long moan in reply; when Donny asks Paterson how he is, the answer is ‘Fine’.  The joke isn’t up to much first time around and its repetition is as tedious as Donny’s litany – after which Jarmusch wisely drops it.  The evening meals that Laura cooks – innovative and highly unappetising – are dealt with similarly.  However, too much of the (modicum of) incident in the film seems to take Paterson by surprise, to an extent that rather undermines the sense of a life lived within fixed parameters and steeped in repetition.  The rate at which Laura redecorates their small home makes you wonder if she repeats the exercise on a weekly basis.  In the bar, Paterson, for such a regular, doesn’t seem familiar enough with the stalled romance between two other habitués, Marie (Chasten Harmon) and the self-dramatising Everett (William Jackson Harper), and isn’t already aware that the wry, seen-it-all bar owner Doc (Barry Shabaka Henley) is also a henpecked husband.

    Jarmusch doesn’t give Paterson any backstory.  There’s a photograph of him in the house in what looks to be military uniform but no further reference is made to this.  When he and Laura wake on the first Monday morning, she tells him about the dream she’s just had, in which they were the parents of twin babies.  Paterson responds, rather oddly, ‘One for each of us’.  Unless I missed it, there’s no suggestion that the couple can’t have kids of their own but their childlessness also remains unexplored throughout.  It’s a relief that Laura’s relating her dreams isn’t a daily occurrence but her garrulous kookiness – which her husband seems to find occasionally exasperating but mostly endearing – proved a hindrance to my enjoyment of  the film.  Laura is a designing woman in a new and horrifying way, with a particular penchant for black and white patterns.  The choice of items on which she expresses herself is sometimes amusing – fruit in Paterson’s lunchbox, Marvin’s collar, the spare tyre for the car – but the wall-to-wall effect of her creativity in the home is increasingly claustrophobic.  So is the effect of her voice.

    She sometimes seems as self-preoccupied as Donny but Laura clearly loves Paterson and urges him to try and get his poems published.  She discovers during the course of the week that she shares her name with an all-time-great poetic muse and suggests that Paterson take photocopies of his work while she’s out at the farmers’ market but her technophobe husband fails to do so.  Flush with the success of her cupcake sales, Laura insists they go to the cinema that evening (a black-and-white movie, needless to say).  When they return, Marvin, while unusually home alone, has reduced to shreds the notebook in which Paterson writes his poems – a case of the dog ate my life’s work.  (The somewhat artful arrangement of the shreds on the floor suggests that Marvin may also have taken a leaf out of his mistress’s book.)  On the Sunday morning, a dejected Paterson goes for a walk and ends up in a favourite spot, on a seat overlooking the Passaic River waterfall.  He’s joined there by a Japanese academic (Masatoshi Nagase) whose enthusiasm for William Carlos Williams has brought him on a pilgrimage to the area.  The two men have a brief, friendly, halting conversation.  When the Japanese asks if he himself is a poet, Paterson says no; yet the visitor leaves him, as a parting gift, a virgin notebook.  This scene is very well played.  Its curious blend of consolation and mystery, although contrived, is emotionally effective and welcome.

    The poem the little girl reads to Paterson is also inspired by the waterfall:  he only has to hear the child recite it once in order to commit lines from the poem to memory.  It seems surprising, then, that, when Laura asks to hear her favourite William Carlos Williams poem (you know it’s bound to be the one about the plums), her husband can’t oblige without looking it up and thumbing through pages in a book before locating it.  ‘This is Just to Say’ is a very short poem – a total of twenty-eight words – but thumbing through a book is what people usually do in a film on such occasions:  in this respect at least, Jim Jarmusch is conventional.  It’s fortunate for him that his lead actor is so persuasive.  You believe in Adam Driver as a driver, in his Paterson as a man with Paterson in his soul and to whom poetry matters.  The combination of Driver’s long, sad, droll face and vocal wit is very engaging.  He keeps this charming but thin and flawed film going strong for longer than it deserves.  He also receives excellent support from the dog – proper canine acting, since Marvin is played by a bulldog bitch called Nellie.  Sad to say, Nellie died before Paterson premiered at Cannes this year but she was a thoroughly deserving (and the first posthumous) recipient of the Festival’s Palm Dog award.

    1 December 2016

  • Le Doulos

    Jean-Pierre Melville (1963)

    It begins with a somewhat unwieldy explanation of its title:  ‘doulos’ is slang for hat, which, in criminal vernacular, means ‘one who tries it on’, which, being interpreted, is an informer.  (Or words to that effect.)  It ends with a shot of a hat, fallen from the head of the ‘informer’ character Silien (Jean-Paul Belmondo) as he collapses to the ground, dead – the way nearly everyone else ends up in this policier, which Jean-Pierre Melville adapted from a novel of the same name by Pierre Lesou.  Although the brisk storytelling and the visual scheme of Le Doulos reflect the influence of American film noir, Melville seems at pains to make immediately clear that this is also a distinctively French and therefore intellectual piece.  Those crime dictionary definitions are followed by a legend on the screen that sets out the philosophical poser the movie is set to explore:  ‘One must choose – to die …or to lie?’

    These verbal preliminaries are followed by the intriguing opening sequences of the film proper.  An uneasy, ill-looking man walks beside a canal, down through a gloomy underpass, back up and out into the open air of a bleak urban landscape.   A train goes past along a railway bridge far above but there’s no other human being in sight.  The man, dominated by his alienating environment, wears a belted mackintosh and a fedora (these will prove to be the outdoor uniform of the male characters in Le Doulos).  By the time the man reaches and enters a house, even though only a couple of minutes of screen time have passed, he seems to have completed a long journey.  The viewer experiences a sense of relief but it’s only momentary:  the interior of the place the man has entered is dark and unwelcoming.  The voice of another man offers him food but he says he’s not hungry, though he looks it.   The two men are criminals.  The undernourished one is Maurice Faugel (Serge Reggiani), newly released from prison.  The other, older man is Gilbert Varnove (René Lefèvre), whom we see at work examining jewels, the fruits of a recent robbery.   They discuss the heist Maurice is planning for the following evening and which he’ll carry out with two accomplices, Silien and Rémy.  Maurice insists that he trusts Silien, in spite of Gilbert’s warning that he’s a nark.  Gilbert tells Maurice where to find the gun he needs for the next night’s work and Maurice takes the weapon from a drawer.  They talk a little more.  Maurice exudes fatigue and cafard so strongly that he looks spent.  It’s a shock when he suddenly shoots Gilbert dead, and pockets the jewellery and a wad of notes.  He leaves the house just as two other gangsters arrive to collect the loot.  Maurice, with his bare hands, digs a hole in the ground beside a lamppost, scrabbling like a burrowing animal.  He buries the gun, the cash and the jewels there.

    So far, so compelling.  How come that, within another fifteen minutes, I was struggling with Le Doulos and, not much later, was bored and looking forward to its ending?  The struggle was largely a matter of failing to keep up with the who’s-fooling-who plot which, although it may not be greatly complicated by the standards of the genre, was too much for me.   The impatience had more to do with the film’s reversion to the wordiness of its introduction, in the form of dialogue, and so to wearing its brains on its sleeve.  I noticed when I picked it up that the BFI programme note was an extract from  Ginette Vincendeau’s 2003 study of Jean-Pierre Melville (subtitled ‘An American in Paris’) and was headed with a spoiler warning that the note ‘give[s] away some of the plot’:  there were times, as my grasp of the plot slackened, when I regretted sticking to my habit of never reading the programme note in advance.  But, in retrospect, I’m glad that I resisted – that I jotted down ‘Moral of story (in spite of intellectual pretensions): crime doesn’t pay.  And how’ before I read Vincendeau.  She concludes that:

    ‘In a more conventional film one could see in this ending a classic ‘crime does not pay’ message.  Silien’s palatial new home, paid for with ill-gotten gains, will not be lived in.  But this would be to ascribe to the film a moral framework that is alien to it.  The incursion into nouveau riche suburbia, which rhymes with and yet points to the difference from Gilbert’s seedy abode at the beginning, hints at a critique of 1960s embourgeoisement or at least a deliberate departure from it.’

    That sounds like a fancy way of saying ‘crime doesn’t pay’.

    Ginette Vincendeau’s piece is evidence of how differently a film scholar like her and a lay filmgoer will see Le Doulos.   As you’d expect, Vincendeau describes the picture in relation to other parts of the Melville oeuvre, classic French crime films and Hollywood noir.  She also describes the ‘spectacular narrative twist’ that Melville delivers some twenty minutes before the end of Le Doulos – the revelation that Silien is not, after all, a police informer.  We are, by this revelation, ‘stunned into rereading everything that has gone before’.   This may be true for cinéastes knowledgeable enough about Jean-Pierre Melville’s style and movie cross-references to be fully absorbed by these, and caught off guard by a ‘spectacular narrative twist’.  It wasn’t true for me and I doubt it would have been for much of the French audience that made Le Doulos a major commercial success on its release in 1963.  Silien is played by Jean-Paul Belmondo, one of the biggest French film stars of the time.  (The original trailer for Le Doulos, available on YouTube, is dominated by Belmondo, even though Serge Reggiani’s role, in terms of total screen time, is at least as big as his.)  Belmondo had already played criminals, notably in Breathless, but his phenomenally strong audience rapport, as well as his celebrity, would have militated against viewers simply taking Silien as the nasty nark he’s reputed and appears to be.   Because it’s Belmondo – as simpatico as he’s elusive – we are, rather, waiting for the explanation of how it turns out that he’s not just a despicable villain.  The temperamental and physical contrasts between him and the excellent Serge Reggiani are the strongest element of Le Doulos.  Both have star charisma yet inhabit their roles fully – they’re fascinating to watch just walking towards a building.  So is Michel Piccoli (one of the gangsters who gets to Gilbert’s too late in the opening episode).  The film is well cast and acted throughout – René Lefèvre’s Gilbert and Jean Desailly as a police inspector are particularly good.  The few women in the cast – Monique Hennessy, Fabienne Dali and Paulette Breil – all look convincingly used, even before their characters are variously abused at the hands of men.

    30 November 2016

Posts navigation