First of all, I kindly remind IMDb users that, if you want to click on "Yes" or "No" at the bottom of this review, the question is: "Was the above review useful to you?", NOT "Do you agree with the above review?", nor "Do you agree with the rating without reading the above review?". Thank you.
Second, just to explain where I stand, I do like artistic movies, even slow ones, and even some of Jim Jarmusch's. They are offbeat, contemplative and somewhat poetic. In "Paterson", poetry is obviously his chief ambition: the main character is an amateur poet, there are talks about (more or less) famous poets and it relies on "everyday poetry", if this makes sense.
And then? Well, that's about it. The movie mainly relies on these bits and pieces. It is enough for a short film, however here it drags on for almost two hours. In the end, the ensemble feels somewhat pointless: this is partly intentional, of course, but it did limit my appreciation.
So what is missing? Probably, "Paterson" does not go far enough in its ambition. For instance, the bizarre touch could have been pushed further, to explore a different dimension. Or the humour. Or the elaboration of a stronger poetic structure. Or a progression of some sort. Or the inclusion of themes, adding depth and triggering another emotion than just having a pleasant time.
-----
I cannot rate the movie lower than 5/10 because it is not terrible. There are a few interesting ideas, characters are likable, it is laid back, it changes form the standard blockbuster. Yet I cannot rate it higher because it did not appeal to me: it doesn't have much substance, doesn't evolve and doesn't provide a lasting impression, unlike exceptional films that linger in the mind for days. Not bad, not great, just in the middle. Half-baked.
But then, appreciating poetry is very subjective. Hence it is understandable some persons find the movie captivating and rate it 10/10 (which is easier to defend than the same rating for "Police Academy 6"). On the other hand, it also is understandable persons find it utterly boring and rate it 1/10 (which is easier to defend than the same rating for "Citizen Kane"). Question of personal sensitivity to this style.
"Paterson" tries to illustrate James Tate's brilliant quote: "Poetry is everywhere; it just needs editing." Unfortunately, I missed the editing part. Maybe I am narrow-minded.
Second, just to explain where I stand, I do like artistic movies, even slow ones, and even some of Jim Jarmusch's. They are offbeat, contemplative and somewhat poetic. In "Paterson", poetry is obviously his chief ambition: the main character is an amateur poet, there are talks about (more or less) famous poets and it relies on "everyday poetry", if this makes sense.
- One poetic component is repetition: the main character has the same name as the city he lives in; we see many twins (thus a "double repetition"); events occur repeatedly; there are a few correspondences (for instance Laura has the same name as Petrarch's muse); the camera focuses on leitmotifs (watch, cereals, lunchbox, mailbox, beer glass, etc.). All this creates "internal rhymes" that, interestingly, are missing from Paterson's poems. What about these poems, by the way? They are sort of nice in their genre, however do we really need to hear them two or three times each, and see them written on top of that? It would have required an outstanding style, which I think is lacking.
- Another poetic ingredient is oddity: strange elements slowly spill into an otherwise ordinary life.The black and white motifs created by Laura progressively invade the house: curtains, painting, carpets, clothing, and even the spare wheel cover of their car. When Paterson and Laura go to the cinema, they watch a horror movie which is, echoing Laura's motifs, in black and white (an additional correspondence). Small objects have a magical touch, notably the matchbox. Everett draws a gun in the bar. There are uncommon encounters, for instance the young poetess, the separating couple and the Japanese tourist. Entertaining, in a way.
- Another phenomenon is the "enchanted bubble" sensation. It is a happy life: Paterson and Laura have a relatively easy time (although he seems on the edge, yet nothing wrong happens); they love each other; everybody is friendly; it is always sunny. There are no news from the outside world. The couple is isolated from family, real friends and neighbours, if any; they have no TV, no computer; he has no mobile phone. The rare issues are trifle: gang youngsters in a convertible just provide a fair warning; the Indian driver's problems are not so dramatic (especially considering how he describes them); Everett's gun is fake; the bus breaks down without consequences. The only drama is the loss of the secret book, however Paterson continues to write on another notebook given by Providence. Moreover, it is comforting to see hidden talents behind apparently simple personalities (writing, cooking, decorating, chess, etc.): it demonstrates we all have something to express.
- Last, there is some form of humour, notably with the above-mentioned invasive motifs, the grumpy dog and the contrast between Paterson and Laura. She is enthusiastic, eccentric, willing to try all sorts of activities; she dreams of fame and actually is rather talented. He is reserved, quiet, slightly puzzled by her; he just wants a peaceful life and is talented as well, as a writer. She always is onto something new (and sometimes weird) while he is stuck in routine. Amusing, to an extent.
And then? Well, that's about it. The movie mainly relies on these bits and pieces. It is enough for a short film, however here it drags on for almost two hours. In the end, the ensemble feels somewhat pointless: this is partly intentional, of course, but it did limit my appreciation.
So what is missing? Probably, "Paterson" does not go far enough in its ambition. For instance, the bizarre touch could have been pushed further, to explore a different dimension. Or the humour. Or the elaboration of a stronger poetic structure. Or a progression of some sort. Or the inclusion of themes, adding depth and triggering another emotion than just having a pleasant time.
-----
I cannot rate the movie lower than 5/10 because it is not terrible. There are a few interesting ideas, characters are likable, it is laid back, it changes form the standard blockbuster. Yet I cannot rate it higher because it did not appeal to me: it doesn't have much substance, doesn't evolve and doesn't provide a lasting impression, unlike exceptional films that linger in the mind for days. Not bad, not great, just in the middle. Half-baked.
But then, appreciating poetry is very subjective. Hence it is understandable some persons find the movie captivating and rate it 10/10 (which is easier to defend than the same rating for "Police Academy 6"). On the other hand, it also is understandable persons find it utterly boring and rate it 1/10 (which is easier to defend than the same rating for "Citizen Kane"). Question of personal sensitivity to this style.
"Paterson" tries to illustrate James Tate's brilliant quote: "Poetry is everywhere; it just needs editing." Unfortunately, I missed the editing part. Maybe I am narrow-minded.