The Limits of Control |  | Director: Jim Jarmusch
Actors: Isaach De Bankolé, Alex Descas, Jean-François Stévenin, Óscar Jaenada, Luis Tosar
Studio: Universal Studios
Category: DVD
List Price: $29.98
Buy Used: $6.97
as of 3/20/2010 12:28 EDT details
You Save: $23.01 (77%)
New (24) Used (22) Collectible (1) from $6.97
Seller: StardomMN
Rating:  21 reviews
Sales Rank: 6750
Format: AC-3, Color, Dolby, DVD, Subtitled, Widescreen, NTSC
Languages: English (Original Language), English (Subtitled), French (Subtitled), Spanish (Subtitled)
Rating: R (Restricted)
Region: 1
Aspect Ratio: 1.85:1
Number Of Discs: 1
Running Time: 116 Minutes
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1.2
Dimensions (in): 7.5 x 5.3 x 0.6
MPN: 62105863
UPC: 025195049450
EAN: 0025195049450
ASIN: B002P7UCBI
Theatrical Release Date: 2009
Release Date: November 17, 2009
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
| |
| Similar Items:
| |
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
Studio: Uni Dist Corp. (mca) Release Date: 11/17/2009 Run time: 116 minutes Rating: R
Amazon.com
Jim Jarmusch has been the cinema's deadpan poet of lives in transit, from his breakthrough feature Stranger Than Paradise (1984) to Broken Flowers (2005). Limits of Control pretty much consists of deadpan and transit as it follows--make that contemplates--the mission of an enigmatic hitman through some picturesque but sparsely populated corners of Spain. Whom this "Lone Man" (Isaach De Bankolé) is supposed to kill and why are matters not shared with the viewer. Neither is the content of the various minuscule messages Lone Man periodically receives, reads, then swallows. Presumably they cue the next stage of his itinerary, which includes encounters with John Hurt as a guitar-toting philosophe who disdains the word "bohemian," Tilda Swinton as a platinum-blonde-wigged femme fatale emulating Rita Hayworth in The Lady from Shanghai (and reminding us that that glorious movie made no sense either), and Pas de la Huerta as a young woman called, with incontrovertible aptness, "Nude." Throughout, De Bankolé's magnificent carven-ebony features register little, not even exasperation that every conversation begins with someone saying to Lone Man, "You don't speak Spanish, do you?"--in Spanish. Most of the little that's said in Limits of Control is stuff like "Everything is subjective ... Reality is arbitrary ... Life is a handful of dust" (though that gets translated as "Life is a handful of dirt"). You've gathered by now that no way is this a thriller, although it teases against the outline of one. Its hipster self-consciousness includes name-dropping (Eliot, Rimbaud, Hitchcock; the title is from William Burroughs), homage (Citizen Kane, Contempt, De Chirico), and quite a bit of cutting from paintings to actual scenes that resemble them, and vice versa. It's all impeccably shot by Christopher Doyle, who knows just how to light De Bankolé and his dark monochrome outfits against dark monochrome backgrounds, and make us glad he does. Otherwise, Limits of Control pales in comparison to Jarmusch's other film centered on a taciturn black assassin, Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai (1999), with Forest Whitaker. There the minimalist narrative took on an aura of ritual, devotion, and genuine mystery. The rituals being observed in Limits of Control feel empty and played out. --Richard T. Jameson
|
| Customer Reviews:
Showing reviews 1-5 of 21
 transcendence of the ego February 26, 2010
Joel S. Schneider (San Francisco)
Okay, for all you who say this film is about nothing, I'd like to give you my take on it. Now, I'm not saying that Jarmusch consciously intended this as an interpretation - I have no way of knowing what he was thinking other than the images that he and Christopher Doyle put together. I do think, though, that the artist is often used by the unconscious to communicate what is very difficult to put in words. Here's what I got from this beautiful, mysterious work.
In the film, "The Limits of Control", the lead character, "The Lone Man", is an existenialist hero. He is both detached and disciplined and through his spontaneity and openness to "imagination" he is able to follow his intuition and slay the tyrannical ego, "the American", played by Bill Murray. In both the personal sense and a societal sense (as embodied by the giant corporation) the ego has become an instrument of control run amok - one that crushes the individual and all creativity (mankind's artistic, intuitive side)... he is the ultimate imperialist. The ego, in its overwhelming narcissism, is above all else fearful of its demise and loss of control. "The American" (the ego) creates a fortress, or citadel of defenses to keep out any perceived threats to his dominance and unnatural pretense of immortality. "The American" has literally surrounded himself in an armed fortress, overrunning with hired guards and a flawed sense of security - all to prop up his inflated self-worth. What this does is mask his basic vulnurability and fear of death. He places his toupee (or vanity) on the skull that sits on his desk of authority. He sees himself as the ultimate ruler and force of control - the fortress that keeps out the imagination (the Bohemians of the world) and all other things he can't dictate to - and most fundamentally, his own death. "The American's" arrogance and condescension is a mask to cover his fear of mortality. He wants to be separate from others, but in death he knows he faces his "invincible defeat" (as Leonard Cohen calls it) - in death he will be like everyone else and will be absorbed into the eternal flow of nature ("in the dirt").
The following is a description of Jean Paul Sartre's thinking regarding the "transcendence of the ego" which can be applied to "The Limits of Control":
According to Sartre, consciousness is unstable by its nature. The basic characteristic of consciousness is its dynamicity, spontaneity, and freedom. He believes in the principle of the intentionality of consciousness. Sartre states that all forms of consciousness are somehow intentional. Imagination and feelings need something to appear. They are the ways of relating to the world, and in this relation consists the intentionality. Spontaneity doesn't emanate from the ego, it directs to it. The main thesis of "the transcendence of the ego" states that "transcendental consciousness is an impersonal spontaneity". Sartre puts practical function of the ego above its theoretical function and he maintains that "perhaps the essential role of the ego is to mask from consciousness its very spontaneity". It affects not the ideal unity but the real instant unity of the moment. Therefore, our consciousness sometimes tends to accept the ego for the false representation of itself. All thanks to the ego, it's possible for us to make a distinction between the possible and the real, between appearance and being, between the willed and the undergone - as there is no such difference for the consciousness. Escaping the ego by consciousness, however, can sweep all the barriers and limits hiding consciousness from itself. Then consciousness is suddenly anguished by fear of itself, which is inherent to pure consciousness.
Beyond the limits of the ego - the limits of control - transcendence (death/art) is found in the realm of infinite imagination (where "there are no edges and no center"). In the ultimate state of transcendence, mankind is his own creator - he no longer is dictated to by some unseen authority from which he is separate - art and life become One. What comes to mind is the famous drawing by M.C. Escher that depicts the artist's hand drawing itself into existence.
Was that pretentious? Probably - so what. Go sue me if you like. This is my take on "The Limits of Control" but its just as valid to appreciate it simply for its beautiful imagery, landscape and color. Thats whats great about a work of art - it can mean a lot but it also can mean nothing. Its up to you - nothing is forbidden, everything is permissable.
review of the reviewers February 26, 2010
joshCulliK (northeastUSA)
I won't bother with a review of the movie, but will say that some of the reviews are distressingly ignorant. Like super-wow retarded. Starting with the articulate-sounding Richard Jameson snarky hit-piece (he get's an A+ for that one) which manages to induce a kind of sympathetic nausea reaction(intended to be associated with the movie), and leading through to (stuff like) someone who is determined to point out that both this movie and Ghostdog are "[...] about criminals." Sounds like nothing so much as a criminology major at your local DeVry or ITT or something (anywhere), this retard hints at an in-depth discussion of criminality in Tarantino and Ritchie, with some traceback to this movie and some... Wow-retarded. Wow.
So what about the movie? I'm not saying anything about that here or now. I did give it 5-stars. Whatever that means. I just felt obligated to cry out the alarm on maggot infection in the review section.
 Jarmusch's most polarising film, also his most minimalist...a very good film.... January 27, 2010
Grigory's Girl (NYC)
This film is Jarmusch's most polarising film, one that even many of his fans have hated and loathed. Being a massive Jarmusch fan, I had to see for myself, and I really liked this film.
The visual sense of Jarmusch is always brilliant, but here it's different, yet familiar. Many of the shots remind me of Antonioni's greatest films (particularly La Notte). Jarmusch's typically long tracking shots have been abandonded for more static, yet still excellent compositions. There is hardly any dialogue in the film, and the little there is isn't very realistic, in fact, it's almost poetic. While there is the typical Jarmusch deadpan humour (mostly in the beginning of the film), it pretty much vanishes as the film progresses, and the film becomes stranger, more intriguing, and surreal. In many ways, this film resembles Jarmusch's Dead Man (his greatest work and one of the most unfairly maligned films in the 90's). That film started out with deadpan humour but became much deeper and mystical as it progressed, and this film has the same vibe. The music in that film (and in this one) also contributed heavily to the brilliant mood of each film.
What is the film about? It's a hit man's odyssey, and that's really all I can tell you.
I've seen all of Jarmusch's work, and have never been disappointed. There have been films I've liked more than others, but Jim is always challenging. While The Limits of Control is Jarmusch's most minimalist and polarising film, it's still excellent. The DVD has an excellent behind the scenes documentary called Behind Jim Jarmusch. Jarmusch is engaging in his own deadpan style, and the documentary is done in a Jarmusch style, making it as fascinating as its subject. Jarmusch's fans will like this more than non-fans, but I recommend it highly.
 The Antithesis of Pulp Fiction Presents a Challenge January 25, 2010
J. McQueen (Hartford, CT)
I love some of the reviews of this film, but wanted to offer another unique perspective on "Limits of Control."
Quentin Tarantino, Guy Ritchie and Jim Jarmusch have all made several movies about criminals.
Both directors owe their success partially from their ability to bring the most, unappealing dregs of our society to life in the loudest, most profane and entertaining ways possible.
Tarantino's films feature criminals that are hyper-articulate and steadfast in their twisted beliefs -- think of Samuel Jackson's character in "Pulp Fiction" or David Carradine's title character in "Kill Bill."
Ritchie portrays criminals as magnetic, nihilistic thugs. ("Rock N Rolla" and "Layer Cake" are prime examples of this.")
Jarmusch is the inverse of these two directors. (In fact, I would say that his collection of movies is a quieter version of David Lynch's filmography.)
Both "Limits of Control" and "Ghost Dog" are about criminals. But this is where the similarities with Tarantino and Ritchie end. Tarantino and Ritchie's characters are both completely transparent. Their hopes, dreams and fears are always verbalized.
In contrast, Jarmusch's characters are opaque. Their motivations cannot be explained by simply pointing to one of the Seven Deadly Sins (Avarice, Lust, Wrath, etc.). In fact, many viewers will walk away from both "Ghost Dog" and "Limits of Control" both intrigued and puzzled by the majority of the characters' actions.
Yes, there are secondary characters in "Limits" who are just as articulate in Limits as any Tarantino most memorable characters. But their articulateness seems reaffirm the fascinating remoteness of the nearly mute main character.
If you want to watch a movie, where the plots, characters and social commentary of the film are spoon-feed to you, there's nothing wrong with that. But, this is not the right movie for you. If, however, you want to watch a film where you will have an opportunity to ponder its meaning weeks after you first viewed it, then this movie is probably for you.
From my vantage point, the film is about a man on a mission who only focuses on the things he can control and needs to control in order to be successful. By focusing almost exclusively on how to complete his mission, he dramatically narrows the scope of his life. At the end of the film, his focus shifts dramatically and it causes everything about him: the way he dresses, his outlook, his demeanor, --- to change as well.
 Pretentious Wave January 15, 2010
S. Aydt (Dallas)
2 out of 3 found this review helpful
Ugh. The phrase "watching paint dry" comes to mind while enduring this snoozer. Jim Jarmusch's creeping minimalism might be useful for chronic insomniacs and will probably be lauded by indescrimate fans, who will undoubtedly project pseudo-academic interpretations until the cows retire. As a fan of genuinely experimental cinema (Jodorowsky, Zulawski, Makavejev, Miike) and some of Jarmusch's other efforts (Ghost Dog, Dead Man), I was not only disappointed but fell asleep in the final few minutes without regret. There are times when the film is visually stunning but it isn't the least bit engaging, entertaining or even thought-provoking. Avoid.
Showing reviews 1-5 of 21
|
|
|
