Skip to main content

Poetry in translation is like taking a shower with a raincoat on.

Paterson
(2016)

(SPOILERS) Spoiling a movie where nothing much happens is difficult, but I tend to put the tag on in a cautionary sense much of the time. Paterson is Jim Jarmusch at his most inert and ambient but also his most rewardingly meditative. Paterson (Adam Driver), a bus driver and modest poet living in Paterson, New Jersey, is a stoic in a fundamental sense, and if he has a character arc of any description, which he doesn’t really, it’s the realisation that is what he is.


Jarmusch’s picture is absent major conflict or drama; the most significant episodes feature Paterson’s bus breaking down, the English bull terrier Marvin – whom Paterson doesn’t care for but girlfriend Laura (Golshifteh Farahani) dotes on – destroying his book of poetry, and an altercation at the local bar involving a gun that turns out to be a water pistol. And Paterson takes it all in his stride, genial to the last, even the ruination of his most earnest, devoted work (the only disappointment is that Marvin doesn’t get dog-jacked, although Jarmusch undercuts such expectation of eventfulness throughout).


One might see Paterson as something of a pushover, as it’s quite clear he’ll do anything Laura asks of him; he even has the route of his walk dictated to him by Marvin. There’s no urge to confrontation there, though, as if he is the same passive observer of his home life as he is of passengers on his routes “Do you think there are any other anarchists in Paterson?” one student asks another, to Paterson’s wry amusement). His poetry reflects this unswerving, ordered mundanity, focussed on the least arresting of topics, the small details (“We have plenty of matches in our house…”), and yet finding a hypnotic, methodical beauty in them; his routine existence informs and enables his creative life.


At first, I was unclear if Jarmusch intended us to regard Paterson as skilled at his chosen recreational pursuit – poetry is, after all, one of the most subjective of artistic endeavours, particularly given its minority appreciation – being as there are pointers on the way, such as the girl he sits with to wait until her mother returns, whose words affect him profoundly and suggest her as talented and literate beyond her years, making Paterson aware of his own fragile talent. But he is belying in his modesty, and Jarmusch invests in his creative technique as that of a true artist (we experience his developing compositions through repetition and subtitling, as the craftsman whittles his words to their final form, Driver’s tones imbuing them with steady, unmoderated rhythm).


If Paterson is quietly dedicated to his solitary art, Laura is a sexy, passionate screwball alighting on all manner of different endeavours, somewhat reminiscent of Dianne Wiest in Hannah and Her Sisters; she wants to develop a cupcake business and has interior decorated their home to varying degrees of success (there are several dog paintings on the wall that even Paterson can’t disguise his lack of enthusiasm towards). The sense is of one harmlessly deluded over their abilities, and who knows their other half will capitulate to their every coquettish demand (“You really need this guitar?”), yet she actually is competent at the guitar almost immediately, and her cakes go down a storm (when Paterson doesn’t finish one earlier in the film, you suspect they’re lousy). Laura announces “I have a very strong visual style” which is certainly true, consisting of painting black and white circles on curtains and gradually spreading the same colours everywhere, including her clothing.


Her lack of aesthetic compass is most clearly signified by her decision to make a Cheddar cheese and Brussel sprouts pie on impulse (the effect of which is to send Marvin into a stupor and require Paterson to drink gallons of water). Despite this, Jarmusch isn’t depicting a flawed relationship, requiring the worm to turn; they’re both endless supportive of each other. Paterson isn’t nursing pent up aggression towards Laura, and she’s the one who has been, unsuccessfully, attempting to get him to make copies of his work (as to why she doesn’t copy it for him, well, it’s his work). In his book of poetry, he confides “Pumpkin… if you ever left me… I’d tear my heart out and never put it back


Paterson: It’s okay. They were just words. Written on water.

Perhaps there’s nothing Paterson needs to set right. Perhaps his lack of ambition in any regard is a talisman of fortitude, his contentment with just being. It is only really the loss of his notebook that brings him down, and by the synchronicitous workings of the universe he receives another at the very point when he is sees no reason to continue with his pastime (“Sometimes the empty page presents more possibilities” he is told). Synchronicity and mundanity – and encyclopaedic knowledge of local icons and obscure pursuits of more famous ones – featured strongly in Jarmusch’s last picture, the superb Only Lovers Left Alive (which also depicted strangely barren urban environs). That was through the filter of bored immortality, but Paterson is all about finding satisfaction in the little things.


Japanese Poet: May I ask if you too are a poet?
Paterson: No, no. I’m a bus driver myself. Just a bus driver.

Quite what the twins motif amounts to is unclear – Jarmusch said “the film is about things not being significant” so it suggests pursuing that line of thought would be flogging a dead horse –  but it recurs, from Laura’s dream of their having twins, to the twins in the bar and on the bus, to the poet girl’s sister, to Paterson’s reaction to Kathleen Burke in Island of Lost Souls – “You look like her, you could be twins” he tells Laura – and Jarmusch may be suggesting, consciously or not, a sense of opposition and duality.


At the same time Laura has success with her cakes (making two dollars less than the cost of her guitar), Marvin destroys Paterson’s notebook, announcing his failure. Paterson encounters fellow poets, as if by magic, wherever he goes (the rapper in the laundrette, the girl, the Japanese tourist with the notebook, who has visited the city because of its famous poet William Carlos Williams) who serve to underline the importance of his activity. Paterson, who maintains unaffected acceptance of his unvarying daily rotation in the face of Donny’s problems and Everett’s heartbreak, is brought (relatively) low by Marvin’s destructive act as the universe strives to maintain a balance. But, as Everett (William Jackson Harper), offers, seeking to console him, “The Sun still shines every night and sets every evening. Always another day”. “So far” admits Paterson.


Japanese Poet: Poetry in translation is like taking a shower with a raincoat on.
Paterson (laughing): I see what you mean.

Jarmusch also observes a quiet synchronicity through humour, such as the repeated response regarding the potential danger of the broken-down bus to its passengers (“Damn, they could have exploded in a fucking fireball”). But his pictures have always been quietly funny (“Sabotage, probably” suggests a child passenger regarding the incident), except when Benigni has been on hand to create an uproar. It goes without saying that Driver is great, the unfeigned flipside to his immodest hipster manipulator in While We’re Young, and Farahani matches him beautifully, both irresistible and impossible as his endlessly-motivated other half. A word too for Barry Shabaka Henley as the most classic of approachable bartenders.


Paterson ends with Monday rolling round again, seven days, its title character having resumed his poetic path as he muses on Swinging on a Star and how “Or would you rather be a fish” was only that line in it that spoke to him “As if the rest of the song didn’t have to be there”. Which reflects Paterson’s acceptance of his own life; that it is what it is, and striving to make it something other won’t help matters. Out of quiet contemplation comes meaning. Paterson is an exponent of art for art’s sake, not for its acceptance by others or his own consequent self-gratification. Which seems to be its Jarmusch’s essential ethos too, albeit one bound by the practicalities of financing (he sees Paterson as cinema in poetic form, although unlike his poet, he writes only one draft of his script, then hones the picture in the editing room). Whether or not Paterson’s is talented – and Jarmusch evidently thinks he is; I’m sure he could have written him as a bad poet if he so wished, although cynics of the form might suggest it would be difficult to tell the difference – it becomes irrelevant when he is his own audience and critic.



Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.