Tuesday 4 March 2014

Film: 'ONLY LOVERS LEFT ALIVE'

Any film by Jim Jarmusch (director and screenplay writer in this) is a must-see in my books. They are so infrequent anyway and nearly always worth the wait.

This is a vampire tale, very gently paced, in all-nocturnal settings - and not at all scary. It isn't intended to be. (There is only one single fleeting shot of anything approaching 'grisly').

Tilda Swinton and Tom Hiddleston are blood-sucking lovers in a long term relationship - actually straddling several centuries! He, in Detroit, keeps a store of illicitly purchased blood supplies from a local hospital through a corrupt researcher. His abiding interest is in composing and jealously guarding his music (a sort of electro-heavy rock) produced through synthesisers and musical instruments of all types and periods, and allowing only his lover to hear them.
The story starts with her in Tangier, where John Hurt makes an appearance as another vampire, Kit Marlowe (yes, the very same!) who, it transpires, actually did write the entire Shakespeare canon. She then travels to Detroit where she and her lover savour and imbibe their special 'beverage' like wine. Swinton's rebellious, spoilt brat of a sister, Mia Wasikowska (also a vamp), unexpectedly turns up and puts a spanner in the works though her uncontrollable appetite, after which Swinton and Hiddleston return to Tangiers in a state approaching desperation, meeting Marlowe once again. Throughout the film there's a bit of name-dropping of past literary luminaries with whom they've socialised.

It's an odd film which, though I didn't find at all dislikeable, I doubt will linger in the memory as some of Jarmusch's earlier films have done ('Down by Law', 'Stranger than Paradise', 'Mystery Train', 'Night on Earth', 'Coffee and Cigarettes'). He tends to point up idiosyncrasies in others while making them seem the most natural thing in the world. This film, on the other hand, is a very placid affair. Very little real drama actually happens. I reckon it's the kind of film which might be most effective when letting it wash over one while sipping at a glass of quality wine (red, of course!). Some of the darkly-lit visuals are quite eye-catching and in tune with the languorous pace of the story-telling.

Several of Jarmusch's earlier films lodged themselves in my memory on very first viewing, making me eager to want to watch them again. I don't think this one is in that category but time will tell. However, just a couple of hours after having seen it to the end, as at now I'll give this a...........................6.

6 comments:

  1. oh this sounds right up my street. and a 6. something worth seeing me thinks. I love your reviews

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think this is one of those films that you either 'get' or you don't, Sol. I'd imagine quite a number of people being bored to tears, especially if they were expecting something really gory as in the Hammer films of old. But it held my attention throughout, though I wait to see if it lingers in my mind as the earlier films of Jarmusch do.

      Delete
  2. When I read the word "vampire" in your review, I was turned off. As I read further, and came across the name, Hiddleston I grew interested. I still remember his Freddy in "The Deep Blue Sea" where he proved he is one of our best actors today.

    I would never go to see or rent the movie "Thor." But a friend brought it over to watch. It is really a fluff piece, but with great CGI. But when Hiddleston makes his appearance, the movie changes. He is so devilishly good as the duplicitous Loki that the film belongs to him. I was so awed and entertained that I bought the film the next evening and now have it stored "in the cloud" for future viewing.

    There is little chance that "Only Lovers - -" will be shown in one of our theaters. But when it is released on DVD I will certainly see it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I suspect you might be pleasantly surprised on seeing this one, Paul, when you can catch it. Not your run-of-the-mill horror film. T.H. is good, exuding a controlled menace which one fears might explode at any moment.

      'Thor' I gave a wide berth to, rather like you did. Even when it comes to TV I'm pretty sure I won't be bothered, though must admit that what you now say about it makes me a wee bit intrigued. We'll see - or will we?

      Delete
  3. ANOTHER vampire tale??? Well, maybe just to see Tom Hiddleston.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not your usual vampire stuff, Mitch - that aspect of the story being just a little more than a 'detail'. Not what one might have expected - I certainly wasn't.

      Delete