# Hooray! New Jim Jarmusch! (structure Spoilers in OP- No Plot Spoilers in OP) **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [June 5, 2004, 9:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hooray-new-jim-jarmusch-structure-spoilers-in-op-no-plot-spoilers-in-op/248788 "2004-06-05T09:42:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![bienville](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@bienville](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bienville)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2004, 9:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hooray-new-jim-jarmusch-structure-spoilers-in-op-no-plot-spoilers-in-op/248788/1 "2004-06-05T09:42:03Z")
New Jim Jarmusch- Hooray! Just saw it yesterday. It was so cool. Question: [IMDB lists](http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000464/) three prior shorts by the same name: 1986, 1989, 1993. I’ve never seen the shorts but the casts listed match certain segments from the new feature. Have the shorts simply been edited into the new feature or were the segments re-filmed? When I first watched the film I didn’t know about the shorts so I just assumed it was all new- it never seemed to me that Steven Wright and Roberto Benigni looked 18 years younger than they should or that Steve Buscemi looked 15 years younger than he should, I just figured I was watching them as they had been filmed for this feature. So does anyone know the history behind this project(s)? I highly recommend it if you haven’t seen it. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2004, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hooray-new-jim-jarmusch-structure-spoilers-in-op-no-plot-spoilers-in-op/248788/2 "2004-06-05T14:42:03Z")
I haven’t seen it, but I can’t let a Jarmusch thread go un-replied to. The last Jarmusch film I saw was _Ghost Dog_. I really like his work. My favourite is _Down By Law_. ---
**Author:** ![Lisa-go-Blind](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7c8e57/32.png) [@Lisa-go-Blind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lisa-go-Blind)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2004, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hooray-new-jim-jarmusch-structure-spoilers-in-op-no-plot-spoilers-in-op/248788/3 "2004-06-05T15:26:37Z")
I haven’t seen it yet, but the story is that these are shorts Jarmusch filmed over the course of 20 years. In other words, the older shorts were refilmed. And just so everyone’s on the same page here, we’re talking about _Coffee and Cigarettes_. ---
**Author:** ![foxymoron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d26b3c/32.png) [@foxymoron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foxymoron)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2004, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hooray-new-jim-jarmusch-structure-spoilers-in-op-no-plot-spoilers-in-op/248788/4 "2004-06-05T15:26:45Z")
According to the website ( [http://www.coffeeandcigarettesmovie.com/](http://www.coffeeandcigarettesmovie.com/) --sorry, I don’t know how to make a clever link), what turned out to be the first segment of **Coffee and Cigarettes** was filmed for Saturday Night Live in 1986. I’ve never seen a Jarmusch movie in a theatre, so I’m excited to get the chance with this one (assuming it will be released in Omaha)! ---
**Author:** ![Lisa-go-Blind](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7c8e57/32.png) [@Lisa-go-Blind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lisa-go-Blind)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2004, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hooray-new-jim-jarmusch-structure-spoilers-in-op-no-plot-spoilers-in-op/248788/5 "2004-06-05T15:28:00Z")
> [@Lisa-go-Blind](#): > > I haven’t seen it yet, but the story is that these are shorts Jarmusch filmed over the course of 20 years. In other words, the older shorts were refilmed. > > And just so everyone’s on the same page here, we’re talking about _Coffee and Cigarettes_. Er, make that “the older shorts were NOT refilmed.” :smack: ---
**Author:** ![pepperlandgirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f17d59/32.png) [@pepperlandgirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pepperlandgirl)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2004, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hooray-new-jim-jarmusch-structure-spoilers-in-op-no-plot-spoilers-in-op/248788/6 "2004-06-05T20:59:18Z")
I saw my first Jim Jarmusch film last weekend. **Dead Man**. I don’t know if I should watch it for a 3rd time (or more) to sort it out, or what… ---
**Author:** ![bienville](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@bienville](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bienville)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2004, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hooray-new-jim-jarmusch-structure-spoilers-in-op-no-plot-spoilers-in-op/248788/7 "2004-06-06T06:46:18Z")
> [@pepperlandgirl](#): > > I saw my first Jim Jarmusch film last weekend. **Dead Man**. > > I don’t know if I should watch it for a 3rd time (or more) to sort it out, or what… Wow, saw it a week ago and have still only seen it twice??? My second viewing of Dead Man was the same day as my first viewing and that was when it was in the Theatres! By the time it was available for home viewing? Forgetaboutit! I can count how many times (ditto Down By Law). I fully intend to see Coffee and Cigarettes in the Theatre at least another one or two times. I’ll definitely buy the DVD. Jim Jarmusch! Hooray! ---
**Author:** ![bienville](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@bienville](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bienville)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2004, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hooray-new-jim-jarmusch-structure-spoilers-in-op-no-plot-spoilers-in-op/248788/8 "2004-06-06T06:48:16Z")
> [@bienville](#): > > I can count how many times Should, of course, be: I _ **can’t** _ count how many times :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2004, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hooray-new-jim-jarmusch-structure-spoilers-in-op-no-plot-spoilers-in-op/248788/9 "2004-06-06T14:30:06Z")
> [@](#): > > I saw my first Jim Jarmusch film last weekend. **Dead Man**. > > I don’t know if I should watch it for a 3rd time (or more) to sort it out, or what… Jarmusch films tend to have a rather leisurely pace. He puts emphasis on imagery, rather than quick editing. His films are really beautifully shot! Take _Dead Man_ for example. Another director would have shot it in colour, and would have put in a lot more “action”. But Jarmusch doesn’t do that. Aside from B&W film being cheaper, the film just wouldn’t have “worked” if it had been shot in colour. Instead of pushing the audience through the story, the audience is carried along on the journey like Johnny Depp was carried through it. And I like his subtle comedy. **pepperlandgirl** : If you need something “sorted out”, I’m sure anyone in this thread can help you sort it. ---
**Author:** ![pepperlandgirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f17d59/32.png) [@pepperlandgirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pepperlandgirl)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2004, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hooray-new-jim-jarmusch-structure-spoilers-in-op-no-plot-spoilers-in-op/248788/10 "2004-06-07T22:08:11Z")
> [@Johnny L.A.](#): > > Jarmusch films tend to have a rather leisurely pace. He puts emphasis on imagery, rather than quick editing. His films are really beautifully shot! Take _Dead Man_ for example. Another director would have shot it in colour, and would have put in a lot more “action”. But Jarmusch doesn’t do that. Aside from B&W film being cheaper, the film just wouldn’t have “worked” if it had been shot in colour. Instead of pushing the audience through the story, the audience is carried along on the journey like Johnny Depp was carried through it. And I like his subtle comedy. > > **pepperlandgirl** : If you need something “sorted out”, I’m sure anyone in this thread can help you sort it. Well, I enjoyed the flick quite a bit. I thought it was funny, and interesting, and essentially my cup o’tea…but at the same time, I feel like there’s something just out of reach, or off, or something. Like, I get that the journey is what matters (I mean, it’s a motif I know intimately…) but I’m not entirely sure what the point of Blake’s journey _was_. I felt like Blake was baffled and I was baffled too. I’m not sure if I was supposed to be baffled and that was the point, or if I’m just missing something. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2004, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hooray-new-jim-jarmusch-structure-spoilers-in-op-no-plot-spoilers-in-op/248788/11 "2004-06-08T13:48:29Z")
> [@](#): > > but I’m not entirely sure what the point of Blake’s journey _was_. I felt like Blake was baffled and I was baffled too. It’s generally accepted that in good films the main character undergoes a transformation. In _Dead Man_ Blake starts out as a callow youth. He’s an accountant, which any Monty Python fan can tell you isperhaps the most boring profession imaginable. In short, Blake is boring. He’s totally unprepared for life in Machine. In his world, things are orderly. In Machine things are chaotic. The mild mannered bookkeeper finds himself in a totally alien situation where he kills a man and is mortally wounded himself. Through his journey he turns from a meek accountant into a reluctant killer into someone who doesn’t seem to give a damn. He goes from being a boring person into an interesting one that everyone knows about. There’s nothing he can do to change his situation, so he just goes with it. I feel I’m missing something in my explanation. The film works on a visceral level for me, and it’s difficult to translate into text on a message board without immediate verbal discourse. Let me try some more… One one level, the film is a tragedy. The hero, thorugh no fault of his own, is thrust into an impossible situation. It’s also a comedy. The English-educated Indian, the disfunctional outlaw “family” complete with a “daughter”/“wife”, the talkative hitman, the killer cannibal… Funny stuff, as you pointed out. It’s about coming to terms with one’s own mortality. It’s a depiction of how silly life really is. In many ways, it’s like a poem. A visual poem. There’s not much dialog. As with poetry, it’s open to interpretation. And as with some poetry, its “deeper meanings” (_Depper_ meanings?) can change depending on the viewer’s mood. I think that the viewer needs to just surrender himself to the lyric, and allow himself to be carried along.