Down by Law
Yesterday evening I decided to rewatch a movie that I’d seen fairly recently. Jim Jarmusch’s Down by Law. I first saw it a couple of years after it came out – back in the late 80s. But I didn’t see it again until a month or so ago when I got hold of it on DVD and was reminded of just how good it is. Despite seeing it only a few weeks ago, it suited my mood perfectly last night, so I thought “What the hell” and dug it out once more.
And it was just as good again. Jarmusch captures perfectly the hazy dreamlike landscape of the American Deep South with some of the richest black and white cinematography ever to grace a screen. And the characters played to perfection by Tom Waits and John Lurie are right out of Tennessee Williams. The lost of Louisiana. And yet, into this dark and brooding world Jarmusch throws Roberto Benigni playing… well, playing “Roberto”.
I’ve been told that Benigni’s humour can be something of an acquired taste, and not necessarily appreciated by all (a fact that amazes me)… but if you like him, as do I, then his scenes in Down By Law are side-splitting. His enunciation of the phrase “not enough room to swing a cat” had tears rolling down my cheeks. And the “I scream. You scream. We all scream. For Ice cream.”-scene is an obvious and gloriously funny nod to the Marx Brothers.
That this effervescent Italian clown should work in a film shot with so much stillness is a tribute both to Jim Jarmusch’s skill as a film-maker and to Roberto Benigni’s genius as a comic. And hearing Tom Waits deliver the weather report as late-night DJ ‘Fat Baby Slims’ is an absolute joy.
I’ve yet to see Broken Flowers, Jim Jarmusch’s most recent film, but I can highly recommend Night on Earth, Ghost Dog and Dead Man. And if you’ve not seen it already, I urge you to check out Down by Law. It’s an exquisite film. Up to and including the fairytale ending.
I was extraordinarily lucky with Down By Law in that I saw it for the first time in 1987 in a large open-air cinema in Venice with a sellout crowd made up almost entirely of rabid Roberto Benigni fans.
Even more surprisingly, it was in the original English with Italian subtitles, which is virtually unheard of in Italy – apparently Jarmusch made a point of retaining the rights and making it a contractual condition that it not be dubbed, knowing that the presence of Benigni would guarantee an Italian release whatever happened.
God knows what the audience made of the subtitles, as I doubt they’d ever had much exposure to them in the past (believe me, rumours that Italians dub everything are anything but exaggerated), and it was pretty clear even from my limited knowledge of the language that they were only supplying a fairly sketchy precis, but they hooted with laughter pretty much every time Benigni appeared onscreen, and applauded at the end.
And I’ve been a huge Benigni fan ever since, making a point of tracking down big-screen airings of The Little Devil, Johnny Stecchino and The Monster – two of which I recall having to see in France because they never got a British release of any description, with Johnny Stecchino at the London Film Festival, again with an overwhelmingly Italian audience.
(That said, I’m in no hurry to see his Pinocchio film, which is apparently truly dire, and I don’t regret missing Son of the Pink Panther either).
As for Broken Flowers, if you’re a Jarmusch fan already it’s a very safe bet you’ll like it. Quite why a single unbroken shot of Bill Murray sitting on a sofa in front of his coffee table staring into space for what seems like minutes on end is so mesmerising I’m not sure, but it’s hard to think of a better current match between director and star.
March 13th, 2006 | 11:31am
by Michael
Oh god, ‘Down by Law’. Wonderful. Yeah, I caught it in a magic location as well. Paris, 1987.
Whatever did happen to John Lurie?
Oh no, I suddenly feel an 80s b&w arthouse flick binge coming on (Rumblefish, Stranger than Paradise…). I flippin’ hate nostalgia. This is all your fault.
March 13th, 2006 | 9:33pm
by Shallow
I thought that I’d seen a lot of movies, but I haven’t even heard of this one
March 14th, 2006 | 4:40am
by L
Oddly enough, Michael, the first time I saw Down By Law was in English with Greek subtitles. Confusingly (for me, a non-Greek speaker) they also subtitled Roberto Benigni’s lengthy rant in Italian when he believes the other two have abandoned him by the side of the river. In the original it’s not subtitled in English (a fact I was unaware of back then) and the humour is all in the subtle physicality of Roberto. I missed out on that first time round by being so irritated that I was missing out on what he was saying (which I wasn’t).
I’ve already decided to get out Broken Flowers this weekend and have a Jim Jarmusch double-bill with Coffee and Cigarettes (also highly recommended).
Shallow… it’s years since I’ve seen Rumblefish. If I end up watching that in the next few days it’ll be your fault.
L, you really should check out “Down by Law”. It’s a classic, and I challenge you to not find the “It’s a sad and beautiful world” scene one of the most charming moments on film.
March 15th, 2006 | 3:17pm
by Jim
– To begin with DBL was directed in 1986, so mid 80s.
– Have you ever been to the south US, Jim? Because “hazy dreamlike landscape of the American Deep South” sounds like you have, but I don’t think so. So what is it exactly you’re talking about?
– “some of the richest black and white cinematography ever to grace a screen” which means you’ve hardly ever been to the movies because if you had you wouldn’t spout such rubbish.
– “Tom Waits and John Lurie are right out of Tennessee Williams” another sign of total lack of culture…which your readers must share with you given such a ridiculous comment.
I’m dumbfounded by your utter lack of real interest in this film. You seem more interested in making yourself sound knowledgeable rather than making the film sound interesting.
Keep trying, Jimbo. One day you’ll stop watching films out of the corder of your eye…
March 23rd, 2006 | 4:54pm
by Pavlos Ouppaodan
Wow. Talk about a vitriolic response. And to a film review. Usually it’s the political stuff that gets people so riled. Or maybe you’re not riled. Maybe you’re just one of those people who casually insults others simply because you disagree with their opinion on a film. You know the sort of people? Arseholes.
But hey, maybe you’re not an arsehole. Maybe behind that Pavlos Ouppaodan pseudonym, there’s a certain Greek-American film director trying to bait me and get a rise. This is confirmed by the fact that only he calls me ‘Jimbo’.
But even by your standards Van, it’s a pretty weak swing.
Lambasting my “lack of culture” (and that of the people who read my writing) on the basis of a difference of opinion about whether or not the two “straight” men in Down By Law are tipping a conscious nod to Tennessee Williams? Hell, even Jarmusch mentions it in interviews from the time. Not that an artist necessarily best understands his own work, but…
Rolling Stone Magazine
The Boston Globe
Seems like he made a point in every interview he did at the time of saying something like, “Down By Law came from pulp fiction or Tennessee Williams, films from the Thirties and Forties, your classic prison-break movies where guys run throught the swamps pursued by dogs.”
As I say though, what would Jarmusch know? I never met the guy… maybe he’s got as little culture as my readers.
Oh yeah, and let’s set a few things straight… you “correct” me by saying… “To begin with DBL was directed in 1986, so mid 80s.”
Yes. I’m well aware of that. Which, presumably, is why I pointed out that when I watched it in the late 80s, it was (to quote) “a couple of years after it came out”. I guess you paid as much attention to actually reading the review you slated as you did to watching the movie. Given the willfulness with which you misunderstand both.
“Have you ever been to the south US, Jim? Because “hazy dreamlike landscape of the American Deep South” sounds like you have, but I don’t think so. So what is it exactly you’re talking about?”
Why yes I have. During the 18 months my parents lived in Texas I visited on several occasions and took the opportunity to explore a bit of the south. Perhaps it was merely my state of mind that was hazy and dreamlike at the time? But then again, I always feel that way in hot, humid places that have an insect-hum soundscape. So it’d be hard for me to tell, really.
“some of the richest black and white cinematography ever to grace a screen” which means you’ve hardly ever been to the movies because if you had you wouldn’t spout such rubbish.
Well, that’s what I felt. Sorry you feel differently. Thinking back over the past couple of months, I’d say about a quarter of the films I’ve watched were in Black & White. A higher than average percentage thanks to the fact that I’ve had a bit of a Woody Allen revival, as well as watching some old Bogart movies (sparked off by catching The Big Sleep on TV). Of them all I felt that Manhattan and Down By Law made the best use of the black & white.
Which – to me – makes perfect sense. If you make a film today in black & white, it’s a conscious decision… indeed probably a bit of a hassle given that (I assume) the film stock is something of a speciality item these days. Though I could well be wrong about that. So when you decide to do it without colour, there’s a good chance that it’s a deliberate effort to achieve a certain look. I believe that Jarmusch went for a rich, deep, almost ‘reflective’ blacks and high-contrast (in certain scenes) ghostly whites.
You’re one of the few people I know who will be automatically offensive to someone who doesn’t share your views on the richness of black & white photography. Long may it continue.
I’m dumbfounded by your utter lack of real interest in this film. You seem more interested in making yourself sound knowledgeable rather than making the film sound interesting.
Well, I felt I had some interest in the film. Clearly I was wrong. What with agreeing with the director about the Tennessee Williams influence; believing that the film accurately captured a certain quality about the American south that I experienced during my visits there; having the temerity to mention the period of the 1980s when I saw the film, rather than the date it came out (the reason, incidentally, that I link to the IMDb entry for a film is so people can check the hard facts themselves… if you ever get your head around this new-fangled interweb thing, you’ll understand a bit better. I’m just offering a subjective view, for the little it’s worth); and being an idiot with regards to levels of film richness.
I’d forgotten you were such an absolutist, Van. So very “Thou Shalt” in the way you see things. Subjective aesthetic judgment is right out the window when you’re around. “There is only one way to see a film”, says Van, “and that’s the way I dictate. Those who view the world – or even worse… films! – through a different lens are uncultured fools.”
After all, when you’ve spent as long doing the struggling artist thing in Paris as you have, then your opinions on films or books or music become “The Right Ones”, right?
Oh, and lastly, with regards to being “interested in making yourself sound knowledgeable”… isn’t that one of the motives of almost all writing? Go read some Orwell dear boy; I think it might help you see things a little clearer.
March 23rd, 2006 | 6:10pm
by Jim
I’ve always been amazed by your ability to write so much crap about so little. I guess all those nights spent alone pretending to watch b/w movies has finally taken its toll…
For the sake of your readers, in particular “L” who claims to have seen “a lot of movies” and is no doubt as cultured as you in the art of black and white photography, I’ll bullet-point my response:
– I do not casually insult people. Your a nob, Jimbo. And most of your readers read like nobs.
– J may have been “influenced” by Williams (along with a diverse list of books and films) but his characters do not ‘play’ like TW characters. Jarmusch is the king of UNDERSTATEMENTS! Williams is the king of IMPASSIONED DRAMA! By reading Williams you’ll see this and understand what i’m talking about, twit (and that goes for your readers too)
– Who cares when YOU watched the film? It was made in ’86 – period. Stick to the topic.
– You visited the south? Where did you go? Mobile, Alabama? or St. Petersburg, FLA? Perhaps Memphis, TN? No, I didn’t think so. I think you sojourned on your daddy’s nickel and saw the inside of an air conditioned hotel room…And Texas is not the south – it’s Texas – period.
– This is what I mean about your lack of culture: for you b/w movies are Woody Allen and some Bogart movies. Have you any idea who Jimmy Wong Howe is? Or John Alton, Gregg Toland, Gordon Willis? Do I need to mention some foreign DPs to get your attention? Do you know what their contribution to cinematography is? No, but you know SO much about black and white photography. Here’s a tip for you, Jimbo: black and white films shot today are more likely to be shot on colour stock and reversed to b/w (I won’t go into details because your one-celled readers wont comprende a single thing). Any comments you want to make on reversed colour stock? No, I didn’t think so.
– Simply because you agree with the director doesn’t make his silly comments true. personally I don’t think J got anywhere near capturing a ‘southern’ look to the film. But you agree with the director and you’d probably agree with him if he called you a twit. Which is what you are, so no disagreements there.
– You are perhaps right about “getting my head around this newfangled interweb thing”. Now maybe you’ll accept that you need to get your head around this oldfangled thing called FILM.
– I’m a struggling artist in Paris? That’s awfully kind of you, Jimbo. I guess that would make you a failed artist living back home where things are nice and comfy and your surrounded by fools who lick you nuts at every bit of rubbish you spout.
– If your motive for writing is to make yourself sound knowledgeable (which is what you say) then I can only deduce that you’re still not getting laid and playing the 5 finger shuffle a little too often.
Always a pleasure to spar with you, Jimbo. But you’ll always be a several belts behind me…
March 24th, 2006 | 2:06pm
by Pavlos Ouppaodan
OK you win Van. Well done you. You’ve spent more time watching films than me. I guess the fact that film is your great passion and you’ve spent your life working in it would maybe explain that. And I guess the rest of us haven’t earned the right to express an opinion.
To be honest, of the four cinematographers you mentioned, I’d only even heard of one of them (Gordon Willis did the Godfather films… even I know that). But you know what? This isn’t a film blog, Van. It’s my blog. This website is actually about my thoughts. And given you think so little of them, why don’t you piss off back to your own blog and tell us how “Dantesque” and “gripping” the TV show Lost is.
I mean, my hat’s off to you Van. You know more about film than anyone else I know. But the fact that you would even use Dante’s name in the same sentence as that tenth-rate pseudo-intellectual soap opera, tells me that you know sweet fuck-all about literature or else have your head so far up your arse that you’re chewing on kidney right now.
But anyways, all of that is fair enough. You are right and I am wrong when it comes to Down By Law. But about the more casual personal insults…? You make too many assumptions.
So to answer those “bullet points” which are not about subjective aesthetic assessment…
I do not casually insult people. Your a nob, Jimbo. And most of your readers read like nobs.
– Life’s too short for reading the musings of ‘nobs’, Van. Why don’t you go do something more valuable with your time? Watch an episode of Lost or something. Seriously. I’ve no issue with you insulting me (hell, why change the habit of a lifetime?) but throwing out personal insults to strangers based upon reading a couple of dozen words they’ve hastily written… that’s just crass. I mean, you talk about a lack of culture? You’re aware that ‘culture’ is far more than knowing the work of a few cinematographers, right?
Who cares when YOU watched the film? It was made in ‘86 – period. Stick to the topic.
– As mentioned, I was sticking to the topic. This blog is about my thoughts. Whether about literature, music, film, politics, whatever. The handful of people who choose to read it do so for that reason. If you want a website about films, then there’s already plenty to choose from. Go with haste and spend your time harrassing one of them won’t you?
You visited the south? Where did you go? Mobile, Alabama? or St. Petersburg, FLA? Perhaps Memphis, TN? No, I didn’t think so. I think you sojourned on your daddy’s nickel and saw the inside of an air conditioned hotel room…And Texas is not the south – it’s Texas – period.
– All those assumptions. Once again, read what I wrote… when my parents were living in Texas (just outside Dallas), I took the opportunity to use the place as a base to visit the area. Of the three towns you mentioned, I visited two of them… never been to Florida.
Oh, and not “on daddy’s nickel”… that was back when I had a career. And it wasn’t about expensive air-conditioned hotel rooms either… that would kind of defeat the point of visiting a place like the Deep South I’d have thought.
Incidentally, are you trying to make me feel bad because my dad was financially successful? I just don’t get that… like I had anything to do with it?
Regarding that whole “reversed colour stock” malarky. Honestly, Van, do you really think anyone outside the 0.001% of the population who actually works in the industry, or follow it nerdishly, give a flying fuck about that? I spent 10 years working for a company that built and installed packaging equipment. People encounter packaging far more often than they watch films, but I’m not so myopic as to believe that anyone gives a rat’s arse about the workings of a Krones labeller.
So no Van, I haven’t got a comment to make on “reversed colour stock”. Why would I have? Do you have a comment to make on Simonazzi’s new palletiser / stretch-wrapper? No, I didn’t think so. And you know what… outside of two very specialised groups of people, both subjects are equally uninteresting.
I guess that would make you a failed artist living back home where things are nice and comfy and your surrounded by fools who lick you nuts at every bit of rubbish you spout.
– Not really Van. Things are far from comfy for me right now, but that’s a long story (I’m “back home” because my health crapped out on me as it happens). As for being a “failed artist”. Well, I don’t see it that way. I’m sorry that you do, but there’s not much I can do about that.
And again, broadly insulting anyone who chooses to read my writing simply makes you look boorish and uncultured. So keep it up Van; it’s always good to give people an accurate idea of who they’re dealing with.
If your motive for writing is to make yourself sound knowledgeable…
– Did you read the Orwell piece I pointed you at? Or weren’t there enough shiny graphics and animated images on the page to hold your attention. As it happens I agree with Orwell when he points out…
Putting aside the need to earn a living, I think there are four great motives for writing, at any rate for writing prose. They exist in different degrees in every writer, and in any one writer the proportions will vary from time to time, according to the atmosphere in which he is living. They are:
1. Sheer egoism. Desire to seem clever, to be talked about, to be remembered after death, to get your own back on the grown-ups who snubbed you in childhood, etc., etc. It is humbug to pretend this is not a motive, and a strong one….
Anyways, given your obvious need to stamp your ego all over my film review, it’s ridiculous that you would claim to be writing for any other reason than to make yourself appear knowledgeable (or at least, more knowledgeable than me). Which – on the subject of film – you clearly are, and always will be. I don’t dispute that, but the stench of testosterone coming from your comments seems to suggest that you think I do. I have different opinions on art than you do, Van. And however much you insult people and make yourself look like an obnoxious arsehole, that will remain the case.
Your insistence than anyone who feels differently to you about a film is “a twit” or uncultured is so much more egotistical than any “Desire to seem clever” on my part. So much more so, that it could almost be self-satire.
March 24th, 2006 | 3:35pm
by Jim
I do not casually insult people. Your a nob, Jimbo. And most of your readers read like nobs.
Tremendous. Let me try:
“I never fantasise about Margaret Thatcher’s anus. I woudn’t mind spredding Magie Thachers’ mudflaps and giving her one in her rinkly old sphinctor.”
Jim, who is this joker?
March 24th, 2006 | 4:56pm
by Larry Teabag
Jim, who is this joker?
That, Larry, would be a long story. Van and I went to high-school together. He’s got this alpha-male thing going on that I find amusing (to a point, Van. To a point). I haven’t seen him for years, though we do get on quite well (not that you’d know it). I think he’s angry that he was too young for punk (whereas me… I’m bummed out that I was too young for hippy). Hence all the random aggression and insulting of people.
March 24th, 2006 | 5:17pm
by Jim
Jim, now I (slightly) regret pointing Van to your site – I did not imagine such a vitriolic reaction.
Mind you, I was laughing out loud at several points in the above exchange. Whatever your difference in opinions, you both wield a mighty pen!
Hey Pavlos, what’s up with the aggression? I thought you might have mellowed out with time but it seems the opposite has happened.
March 25th, 2006 | 7:00am
by Pp
Oh my. Looks like I’ve insulted a few people, made things personal and hurt a few feelings. Were it not for Laughable Larry I might have a little more to add…
Phil, you had a good laugh (regret is a terrible thing); I had a good spar (Jim, your articles are empty, but boy you can go on…); Larry…well, with a name like that I’d also be hiding; and Jim, keep this in mind: If you can’t live with the balls God gave you…you can always share Larry’s…
March 28th, 2006 | 9:53am
by Pavlos Ouppaodan
Larry…well, with a name like that I’d also be hiding
Yeah, excuse the pseudonym I use “Larry” because I’m a bit embarrassed by the name my parents gave me: “Tampon”.
If you can’t live with the balls God gave you…you can always share Larry’s…
I’m not sure what this means, but I don’t like the sound of it.
March 29th, 2006 | 1:39pm
by Larry Teabag
Larry: you said : “I thought that I’d seen a lot of movies, but I haven’t even heard of this one”. Which is like saying: I’ve the seen the world, when all you’ve seen is the inside of a public bog in Tonbridge. Has anyone reading this hopeless blog ever seen HARVEST: 3000 YEARS? Have you seen CABIRIA? Does Murnau’s SUNRISE mean anything to you? If not, then you’ve never seen a film. Stop with all this self-agrondisement and GO WATCH SOME FILMS RATHER THAN stroking each others egos.
And Shallow (very appropriate name), you say : “b&w arthouse flick binge coming on (Rumblefish, Stranger than Paradise…)” YOU HAVE GOT TO BE FUCKING KIDDING ME! Rumblefish, and arthouse flick?! Are you stupid or did your mother hit you too much as a child? Where do you hang out and what is it that you drink because you must be renting these films while drunk…
Arthouse films: CASSAVETTES, JAGLOM, GREENAWAY, FASSBINDER, GODARD – art, people! Not Matt fuckin Dillon!!!!!
March 30th, 2006 | 1:26pm
by Pavlos Ouppaodan
Larry: you said : “I thought that I’d seen a lot of movies, but I haven’t even heard of this oneâ€
No I didn’t. Someone else called “L” did.
Since you pride yourself so much on your knowledge of films, I have some movie quotes for you. A point for each one you can correctly assign without looking up the answer:
1. “Damn, boy, you the stupidest asshole I ever set my eyes upon.”
2. “You dumb bastard.”
3. “You fuckin’ asshole! Everything’s a fuckin’ travesty with you, man!”
4. “Your mother’s cunt stinks like carpet cleaner.”
5. “Jesus Christ. What. An. Asshole.”
6. “You one jumped-up, stupid-ass, son-of-a-bitch and no mistake.”
7. “Are you going to help me, or are you just gonna be a big, fat, stupid asshole? ”
8. “You know what motherfucker? You’re an asshole.”
9. “You terrible cunt.”
10.”No disrespect intended, sir, but shove it up your ass.”
March 30th, 2006 | 3:22pm
by Larry Teabag
Yeah…that would be the about the level of your film culture…and your childish ability to find film quotes online. I’d put the Tampon back in if Iwas you…
Jimbo, who wre these people?! Or…are they the machines you’ve built in place of friends your burned?
April 3rd, 2006 | 2:21pm
by Pavlos Ouppaodan
0/10 ass-hat.
April 4th, 2006 | 1:17pm
by Larry Teabag