MovieChat Forums > The Limits of Control (2009) Discussion > Just because it's ambigiuous doesn't mea...

Just because it's ambigiuous doesn't mean it's good


There are many films that are surreal and hard to understand, such as several works by Bunuel, Jodorowsky, Lynch and Herzog. While watching a film by any of them, even though you do not necessarily understand what the film means you feel that it has a certain philosophical or spiritual point. Mulholland Drive is for example a film that is not easy to understand but nonetheless millions of people watch it and sense and feel that it has a meaning and even though it is ambigiuous as hell it somehow speaks to you. In my opinion, and those that agree the movie stinks more or less, The Limits of Control does not subtly contain the same or similar amount of depth as the works of the previous mentioned masters. It is a film that tries to be meaningful but fails, it fails because it doesn't reach to that hidden part of our Souls or consciousness that it tries to reach. Every other film Jarmusch has done is a success in my book but this one I have to say is pretentious. Trying can be so pretentious, especially in art. When an artist tries to create instead of creating he is in a way pretending. Southland Tales by Richard Kelly is IMO similar to The Limits of Control in this way.

reply

hated southland tales. liked this. go figure!

reply


Would you agree that there is no objective standard or definition of whether a film succeeds in being art\spiritual ? (That's not a trick question by the way)

What I mean is that some people will say - the film did speak to me and did reach my soul and to me it was meaningful etc.... At which point you and they can only agree to disagree. They have had an experience which you haven't - not that, that makes one person better or right or wrong. What works for some people doesn't work for others.

In a way the message board records this fact - those that were touched and those that were'nt.

I would make another point which is that sometimes you need the right tool to open up and understand a film or piece of art. A film might have a strong existentialist message or theme and if you're not aquainted with existentialism then you may find it ambiguous whereas someone who is aquainted with existentialism may understand it. I say this because having read oddles and oddles of Jungian books I found the film corresponded very well with this depth pscychology and I could see hidden depths and a great deal of subtlty in the film. In fact it corresponded so exactly with one those pocket books you find in bookstores "Introduction to Jung" that I was tempted to e-mail the author and inform him that his copyright had been infringed - ha ha.

I thought your point of view was made intelligently and thoughtfully which I responded - hopefully in the same way.





reply

Just in response to your title--

It was at the very least a series of strikingly beautiful images coupled with thought-provoking moments.

That's a lot better than many movies out there.

reply