Anton Corbijn: Control (2007)

ANTON CORBIJN: CONTROL (2007)

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/3...magesamril.jpg
SAM RILEY AS IAN CURTIS IN ANTON CORBIJN'S CONTROL

Rise and fall of a rock legend

The first thing that strikes you about Control is its silence, and the chilly beauty of its black and white images. As a still photographer first-time director Anton Corbijn photographed Joy Division in black and white during their short existence. He knows how to get the remorselessly grim feel of the north of England in the late Seventies. (The boys came from the outskirts of Manchester. Joy Division formed in 1976.) This film (there's a documentary just coming out on the band too) is loosely based on a memoir of her marriage by Deborah Curtis, lead singer Ian Curtis' young wife, who had a baby girl by him and then tragically found him after he'd hanged himself in 1980, two months short of his twenty-fourth birthday, just as the band was to tour America for the first time.

Control's strength is a certain recessiveness. In the English style, it's offhand and avoids huge dramatic crescendos. That's refreshing. And besides the images and the restraint, the film is worth seeing for the concert sequences. The cast actually plays the Joy Division music live, and Sam Riley, who plays Ian Curtis, not only closely resembles him, but is a riveting and intense, almost at times scary, performer. When he says the public doesn't know how much of himself he puts into his performances, we know what he means.

The film is excellent at showing Ian's dilemmas. The band is a sudden success. He has an attack in their car as the band returns from a gig. Doctors tell him he has a form of epilepsy. He's given a fistful of pills to take every day and told to have early nights and stay off the booze. How faithfully he takes the pills is unclear but he suffers from their side effects in various ways, while late nights and booze are essentials of his existence. It doesn't seem that the English doctors knew very well how to treat him, and he was so busy performing he didn't take the time go go to specialists and have more extensive tests.

Ian had gotten married to Deborah (Samantha Morton) early--too early. On the road he meets a Belgian part-time journalist, Annik Honor� (Alexandra Maria Lara), and they fall uneasily in love. He's not strong enough to decide between the two women. Fear that his disease will only get worse hounds him, and the fits go on. Riley is fascinating to watch as he undergoes an increasingly visible meltdown. Other cast members are cyphers, though Joe Anderson, who has the role of Max in Taymor's Across the Universe, is the lead guitarist. Morton has a drab role but Deborah's unfortunate situation is present as a constant counterpart to Ian's story. The two other important characters are the Manchester music guru Tony Wilson (Craig Parkinson) and the band's wise-guy manager Rob Gretton (Toby Kebbell).

The creative inspiration of the band, the nature of their songs, the cast of their lyrics, the reason why Joy Division is a cult band today when it only existed for four years--these are matters the film is unable to elucidate. Watch it for the cool visuals, for the tall, soulful Sam Riley, and for the terrific live performance scenes. Enjoy the understatement, and the silence. Don't expect more.

Harvey Weinstein has chosen both for Control and for the soon-to-open Todd Haynes Bob Dylan film I'm Not There to have a slowly-unrolling distribution system, and hopes to bestow early cult status on both films by having them premiere at that temple of cinephilia, Film Forum, in lower Manhattan, New York City, and wait for the buzz of the cognoscenti to multiply and spread. It may work. But both films are tough sells. But A.E. Scott of the NYTimes has said Control is "enigmatic and moving, much in the manner of Joy Division's best songs." And that's a good send-off.

I'm almost scared to watch this movie because I'm too close to its subject. I cannot believe anyone can do justice to Ian Curtis. Perhaps the film will direct young ears to the original records. (emo kids will love this guy to death). I look forward to the documentary, and the one about my other idol of the era, the great Joe Strummer. Dramatizing their lives is to invite banality.

Saw the preview for the Joe Strummer documentary at IFC Center NYC last night before watching Kurt Cobain: About a Son.

In 1979, during my first year as a student at UM, I worked the night shift at a record store. It was the only place where kids could buy the latest releases from the UK. One of my favorites that fall was "Unknown Pleasures", an all-black album from a Manchester band called Joy Division. The singer sounded a bit like Jim Morrison and the music had the stereo separation I found so attractive in the recordings of The Doors. But Joy Division had the propulsive energy of the punk rock movement to which they belonged. They lacked the political activism of The Clash, my favorite band, approaching the social ills of 70s Britain with resigned bemusement. What Joy Division offered was more lyrical and personal; something that reflected the interior dilemmas of their lyricist and singer Ian Curtis.

Biographical details about Curtis were hard to come by because Joy Division never came to America, and because they regarded fame and popularity with suspicion and reticence. The albums, with monochromatic covers and no pictures, didn't even list the names of the band members. When Curtis died, neither his wife nor his partners were willing to divulge much. Gradually over time, the assumption that the tormented lyrics penned by Curtis were highly autobiographical was corroborated. They reveal a close acquaintance with the pain and paradoxes of life and his despondency in the face of personal demons. These were lyrics to be taken seriously because they were genuine, not the type of affectation adopted by many of the artists that would later claim Joy Division as an influence.

I had a powerful affinity with the single released a month after his death. At the time I was wrestling with my decision to end a long relationship I thought had run its course. And so was Ian Curtis that spring when he wrote "Love Will Tear Us Apart", which would become their biggest hit. The passionate gravity and hypnotic rhythm of the music was the perfect complement to Curtis' exalted expression of the anxiety of conflicted termination. When I write criticism about Control, the new Ian Curtis biopic, I cannot avoid looking at it from the point of view of someone who has a shared history with the content.

The material comes from two main sources: "Touching from a Distance", the 1996 book written by Ian's widow Deborah Curtis (played by the talented Samantha Morton); and the concerts as remembered and documented by photographer and music video director Anton Corbijn. Control is primarily concerned with Joy Division coming under contract with Tony Wilson's Factory Records , the relationship between Deborah and Ian, and the latter's losing battles with marital infidelity and epilepsy. Within these parameters, Control is quite accomplished. The idea that the pharmacological treatment of epilepsy was so rudimentary then that it probably did Ian more harm than good rings true. Ian's romantic instability and indecisiveness is also dramatized with clarity and conviction. Control looks great in black & white and the casting and performances are beyond reproach. A great deal of effort has evidently been spent in recreating the live musical performances that made such an impression on Cobijn. Sam Riley probably spent countless hours studying Curtis' singing and stage mannerisms in order to create a facsimile_however the shortened length of the show numbers indicates insufficient trust in their power to engage the non-fans in the audience.

Control takes a number of liberties with the historical record. Corbijn takes the John Ford approach to the signing-of-the-contract scene, and decides to "print the myth" about it being signed with blood. Deborah's reaction to finding Ian's body is the opposite of the wordless shock described in the book. This is not necessarily wrong, just worth pointing out. What's lamentable is that Control leaves out essential stuff. For instance, there is very little sense of the group dynamics among the members of Joy Division and no effort made to explore their creative process. The film ignores the evolution of their sound, which became more distinctive, even exotic, as evidenced by their brilliant second album "Closer". It's music to be played in solitude, ideally late at night.

Control will turn some in the audience into new fans of Curtis and Joy Division but, as one who loved them when it was possible to envision growing old with them, Control is ultimately too reductive and limited in scope to satisfy. Ian Curtis is significant because he was a great songwriter, evocative singer, and a member of a band that was a vital, creative force in modern music. His death represents a great cultural loss. Control leaves the impression he was most noteworthy because he was the first rock musician to commit suicide.

You obviously are a devotee, and one respects that, while at the same time wishing you had talked as much about the film as you do about the band and your personal history in relationship to it.

Quote:

---

Ian Curtis is significant because he was a great songwriter, evocative singer, and a member of a band that was a vital, creative force in modern music.

---

Yeah, I guess so, but how do we know that? The movie doesn't really make these things clear either--or show how Curtis became who he became. It's not easy to do that, and this is where the film draws a blank for us.

Quote:

---

A great deal of effort has evidently been spent in recreating the live musical performances that made such an impression on Cobijn. Sam Riley probably spent countless hours studying Curtis' singing and stage mannerisms in order to create a facsimile_however the shortened length of the show numbers indicates insufficient trust in their power to engage the non-fans in the audience.

---

Though you find the performance sequences too short, you do acknowledge, I guess, that they are riveting, though you say that only by commenting that a lot of research went into recreating the music. Probably the shortness of the performances was not due to any assessment of the audience's level of patience but the desire to achieve artistic economy. That said, I admit I like sustained perrormances myself, and this is one of the things I dislike about TV music documentaries--they're too choppy. So I can sympathize with you, while also seeing Corbijn's desire to avoid a sprawling work.

This is where Control excels: it feels like a slice of life, a piece of the time and place, and not a biopic. It may leave a lot out for the admirer of Joy Division, but by limiting its focus it achieves particularity and freshness. Sam Riley, whose performance you say nothing personal about, is also striking looking and charismatic, very effective in the role of Ian. Did you respond to him?

P.s. "UM" could be "University of Montana," "University of Michigan," "University of Missouri," etc. Evidently you mean the University of Miami?

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
The movie doesn't really make these things clear either--or show how Curtis became who he became. It's not easy to do that, and this is where the film draws a blank for us.
Indeed. Now only how Curtis became who he became but also how Joy Division became what it became as a musical group, and how their music evolved over the amazing two years plus from the time they settled on Stephen Morris as their drummer to the death of Curtis. Control does not do justice to the subject. However, there are several aspects of the film that are worthy of praise (and my review mentions them).

Probably the shortness of the performances was not due to any assessment of the audience's level of patience but the desire to achieve artistic economy. That said, I admit I like sustained perrormances myself
Having witnessed and photographed the performances is what the director brings to the table, the rationale behind his being chosen as director, and too important an aspect of Ian Curtis not to show a single song performed live at regular length. This is where Riley is most convincing.

Sam Riley, whose performance you say nothing personal about, is also striking looking and charismatic, very effective in the role of Ian. Did you respond to him?
I don't feel passionate about it. I said that the performances in general are "beyond reproach", which would definitely imply he was effective.

P.s. "UM" could be "University of Montana," "University of Michigan," "University of Missouri," etc. Evidently you mean the University of Miami?
I'm being presumptuous and its an acquired local disease. The University of Miami is known around the country as "the U" (the official logo doesn't even have an "M". Around these parts, no one can envision anybody thinking the "M" in UM can mean Michigan or Montana. Any criticism of this practice is deserved and expected.

About "UM" I wasn't trying to chastise you, only to urge you to be clear for a wider audience. This may seem like a small site but you never know who may check in and from where. It's the World Wide Web. Also please when you say you've posted a certain comment or review previously don't just say "elsewhere" but actually give the linked cross reference so people can look up the other context.

While you seem disappointed in Control and I am not is due to the fact that maybe no film about this group that you loved and identified so closely with would satisfy you. If a full-scale biopic had been made, you might have chided that for being too conventional. Consider that this has the virtue of individuality and freshness, of being wholly unlike some Hollywood epic full of romantic loser cliches.

One song performed at regular length would have been okay (if it wasn't too long!) and I've already agreed with you on not liking performances of music to be chopped up on film; however, I can only explain your reserve about the onscreen performances despite granting Riley as good in them, is, again, your passion for the original group, which no film facsimile e by others could ever satisfy.

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
About "UM" I wasn't trying to chastise you
I didn't think you were but I wanted to acknowledge I'm aware I'm being presumptuous when I write UM and assume everyone will know precisely what it means.

While you seem disappointed in Control and I am not is due to the fact that maybe no film about this group that you loved and identified so closely with would satisfy you.
I disagree, but I think it was important to reveal my personal connection to the subject so the reader is free to dismiss my criticism of the film as you do.

Dismiss your criticism? I hardly do that.
You know I like the film a lot, so I might consider it one of he year's best, but at the same time I think that it's such a little film.....there's something about it that lacks ambition, which is maybe the same thing you're talking about. I don't dismiss your criticism of it; I just think maybe I'm more in a position to like it, it's easier for me to like it than it would be for you, because I have no "baggage" between me and the Corbijn movie. But why would I ever dismiss your criticism just because you are emotionally involved with Joy Division and Ian Curtis' songs? For some, that would give your criticism far more weight than mine. When all is said and done, maybe we rate the movie about the same. But of course this isn't just a rating game. As arsaib said once, it's more interesting how we arrived at our ratings and choices than the ratings and choices themselves.

How and why we rate a movie a certain way is the only interesting thing. I think it's important and ethical to disclose just who one is. It's up to the reader to decide that I like or dislike a certain film more than I should because I'm leftist, or agnostic, or Latino, or blue-eyed, or because I am emotionally involved with the music of Joy Division, or for any other reason. By the way, I absolutely revere Bob Dylan and named my only son after him, and I wanted to write a proper review of I'm Not There. I think it's a very good film, perhaps just short of masterpiece. And most definitely not a piece of hagiography. But I lost my notes. I don't think I'll get to write it at all because of time constraints. I'll probably end up posting something brief.

One more point regarding Control: notice that the film seems to ignore aspects of the subject(s) as artist(s) in favor of sensational stuff like his epileptic seizures, romantic affairs, etc. Events like the signing of the contract and Deborah's discovery of the body have been overdramatized not unlike the most conventional biopics. I wouldn't say Control is "wholly unlike" something made-in-Hollywood.

How your argue your evaluation of a movie is the key, of course, but some people have more interesting opinions than others as well as more convincing ways of defending them.

I'm glad you found I'm Not There worthy of interest and I hope you can make a contribution to discussion of it, if not now, later on. The threads remain open.

When you find all these faults with Control, maybe you can understand why sometimes I find so many faults with literary adaptations--the same principles apply. But not No Country for Old Men!.