MovieChat Forums > The Limits of Control (2009) Discussion > Re-representation of reality

Re-representation of reality

posted 15 years ago by joe-somebody
7 replies | jump to latest

Throughout the film there occurs symbols of re-representation of reality, most notably when "the mexican" talks about reflections being more real than the thing reflected. The juxtaposition of real scenes with paintings also adds to this.

Does anyone have a clue what these symbols mean?

I found interesting quote by Bazin that may explain the use of paintings in the film:
"Painting was forced, as it turned out, to offer us illusion and this illusion was reckoned sufficient unto art. Photography and the cinema on the other hand are discoveries that satisfy, once and for all and in its very essence, our obsession with realism."

Could this theme be concerned with how we try and capture and control reality, while it is actually illusive and mystical? Does Jarmusch offer meta-criticism of cinema as a subjective/alternative way of interpreting reality (as "the blond" talks about cinema giving insight into life, and "the mexican"'s idea that reflections, i.e. photography or film is more real than the objective reality)?

I thought this was a interesting theme, albeit a bit ambiguous, anyone have any opinion?

[–] sirmalker 14 years ago

Every truth seen from the outside is a lie.

I'm better than you.

[–] Thespear 14 years ago

It is tough movie to figure out, no doubt. However I am sure there is an explanation for everything. It's not just over-wrought artiness nor is it meaningless. There is too much deliberate repetition and structure for it to be that.I find those I don't get it so it doesn't make sense comments so annoying! I saw parts of it once before and fell asleep will watch it again completely and will have a better idea. I was hoping someone here might have some worthwhile clues to help me along, but I guess most people here are as clueless as myself.

"The only 'coercion' I seek is that brought about by reason. "

[–] TheRelaxingVibratingHome 14 years ago

only 1 response in 2 months ??

what the hell's wrong with the crowd around here? did someone drug the punch?

....

[–] dogstarman1 14 years ago

I think it's about art and representation. The extent to which art can represent truth. Also I feel it's about the state of art and how it seems to function these days. It's a parody of an art film. You can introduce fantastical elements and indulge in non-sequiturs so long as you ground it in the old tradition or make it seem like it connects with other elements; the match box being a thing that connects all these characters and events. I.E. you can get away with a lot if you make it seem like it all makes sense by unifying the elements. It has all the tropes of an art film: kooky/hip characters, pseudo-philosophizing, exotic locations, references to art and cinema, nudity, style etc. but it's also basically a mainstream man-on-a-mission action picture stripped of its narrative and violence/action. It's Jarmusch's very cynical statement on the current state of "Indiewood" cinema (or a broader statement on art films in general) I feel which is not that far removed from the Hollywood Blockbuster; film's like "Brother's Bloom" etc. using the elements of a Hollywood picture but hiding behind the pretense of art. If you strip away certain elements you'll have a hip "art" film. Bill Murray is the skeptic who questions these motives and the force that be take him out -- it's unstoppable.

[–] joe-somebody 14 years ago

That's a very interesting interpretation. but the thing that intrigues me most about your argument is the (now) very deep meta-criticism. Because we draw meaning from the "parody of art self", and the usage of art-film tropes. Again we make it into an art-film.

Although I don't really know that much of Jarmusch personally, I agree it could be his critique on the current indie trends in cinema, which in itself has become really mainstream. Indie has become a look and feel, rather than a way of film-making. Jarmusch seems to remind us that a indie film isn't the one that gets alot at the box-office or shows in all the cinema's etc.

What i liked about Limits of Control, is that it doesn't just dish up satisfaction. It doesn't just inject entertainment. It's something you have to muse about or meditate on to really draw satisfaction from.

[–] dogstarman1 14 years ago

You make a good point. We make it into an art film. Ultimately we project ourselves onto these works of art depending on the context. In the end he sits and muses over a painting covered with a white sheet. He is allowed to project his self onto the piece and create his own "reality."

Ebert wrote something interesting. Even in his negative review of the film the basic idea doesn't seem lost on him: "The writer and director of 'The Limits of Control' is Jim Jarmusch. I've seen several of his movies and even appeared in a couple. This one takes the cake. He is making some kind of a point. I think the point is that if you strip a story down to its bare essentials, you will have very little left. I wonder how he pitched this idea to his investors."

He says that like it's a bad thing. Even on that level alone, what a unique experience that is?! It's like a defected Hollywood product that's been discarded and then recontextualized as a work of art. In the end Isaach De Bankole is stripped of his slick and cool clothes in the bathroom stall and becomes a normal guy. Was it all a fraud? Were we fooled? It may be working on 2 levels here. First the Hollywood picture pared down to the art film and second the art film functioning transparently and on a basic level in that we are essentially given the sum of its parts rather than the whole -- which speaks to the whole idea of the meta-critique as the film is riddled with metafilmic devices.

Your Bazin quote was really interesting as well. After all the film is called "The Limits of Control." Art may be a method by which to control reality and interpret it in a manner which suits us. And reality is subjective anyway. It is a creation. The universe has no edges and no center. How do we reconcile the fact and continue to believe in "reality"? Isaach De Bankole kills Bill Murray. "How did you get in here?," "I used my imagination." He used his imagination to kill common sense reality as embodied by Murray. So in the end the imagination conquers reality and takes it place.

[–] TheRelaxingVibratingHome 14 years ago

nice post joe-somebody...

so i saw things a little like this..

the 'symbols' were a form of meditation, mind therapy for the lone man. His ability to exist on a plane separate to those around him may have been dependant on the regular priming of his mnd's eye to...re-representations of reality, you might say.

ie like a surfer whose vision of his world becomes altered by his attunement to the waves...

his successful assassination job was a testament to his skill in defying, or even self-defining, the force of reality in his environment..or the limits of control, shall we say..his denial of sexual activity during a job suggested that his ability to master his interpretation of reality required total mental utilization..and a good amount of coffee.

no doubt Jarmusch is asserting the significance of reality concepts in everyday life, including film..and architecture..i'm reluctant to consider his film as a criticism of his own medium; i think he may be suggesting that film is an extension of reality life- a dream within many other peoples dreams.

mmm interesting trying to put this film into words...