Content deleted Content added
Fixed grammar Tags: Mobile edit Mobile app edit iOS app edit |
Fixed typo Tags: Mobile edit Mobile app edit iOS app edit |
||
Line 64:
Jarmusch cites novels about a professional criminal called [[Parker (Stark novels character)|Parker]] written by [[Richard Stark#Pseudonyms|Richard Stark]] as an inspiration and also mentions that he loves [[John Boorman]]’s 1967 film ''[[Point Blank (1967 film)|Point Blank]]'' which was based on those novels.<ref name="Telegraph_Interview" /> [[Jacques Rivette]]'s films were also used as inspiration for the plot full of disorienting cryptic clues with no clear solution. The tile ''The Limits of Control'' comes from an essay of the same name by [[William S. Burroughs]], which Jarmusch notes that he likes the double sense of: "Is it the limits to our own self-control? Or is it the limits to which they can control us, 'they' being whoever tries to inject some kind of reality over us?"<ref name="NYTimes_Interview" /> Jarmusch also employed the [[Oblique Strategies]] created by musician [[Brian Eno]] to reassure himself in the creative process, specifically the using phrases "Are these sections considered transitions?", "Emphasize repetitions.", and "Look closely at the most interesting details and amplify them," all of which were explicitly naming processes that they were doing during the filmmaking.<ref name="Wire_Interview" />
Many small details in the film have personal significance for Jarmusch. He had received the 'Le Boxeur' matchboxes as a gift, first from musicologist [[Louis Sarno]], then from Isaach de Bankolé. The black pickup truck with the words "La Vida No Vale Nada" written on its back was modeled after a truck owned by [[Joe Strummer]] of the Clash, who had lived for some time in the south of Spain and also appeared in Jarmusch's 1989 film ''[[Mystery Train (film)|Mystery Train]]''.<ref name="
The aim of the film according to Jarmusch was to create an "action film with no action" and a "film with suspense but no drama". He states that the film has a rather [[cubism|cubist]] nature, is "interpretable in different ways, and they’re all valid," and that it is not his job to know what the film means.<ref name="NYTimes_Interview" />
|