criterionforum.org

Official Site (not much there yet)

Very favorable Variety review

Photos

I was hoping it would be shot in black and white; I'm glad to hear that it was.

Ag, not another over-hyped pop biopic

I'm really looking forward to seeing this.

Every shot looks great. Nice compositions, beautiful lighting. Still, it somehow drags. My second or third favorite out of 16 or so films I've seen at Cannes so far.

Being released at Film Forum in New York this fall.

Wait... do people like this?
because the last I heard, Biopics suck.
am I to think that this film, a biopic, will be good?

last i heard, any movie playing at Film Forum is being 'dumped'

It's a far better film than I expected. Looks great, excellent performances, generally dodges the stations-of-the-cross trap of such biopics (though gets closer to that towards the end). And pretty balanced and non-hagiographic.

zedz wrote:It's a far better film than I expected. Looks great, excellent performances, generally dodges the stations-of-the-cross trap of such biopics (though gets closer to that towards the end). And pretty balanced and non-hagiographic.

I'd generally agree with this - in fact, Corbijn arguably takes completely the opposite tack to any kind of glorification of Curtis, and even the obviously symbolic final shot is fairly matter-of-fact. Arguably a failing of the film is that there is not the faintest hint of an explanation of how four pretty nondescript individuals managed to produce such extraordinary music - you're just expected to take it for granted.

I'm also guessing that Corbijn is assuming (probably correctly) that most of his audience will have seen 24 Hour Party People, so scenes that were highlighted there (for instance, the band's relationship with Martin Hannett) barely register in Control - Andy Serkis's Hannett was the comic highlight of Winterbottom's film, but here the mantle has passed to Toby Kebbell's Rob Gretton, who single-handedly rescues Control from the gloompit it might otherwise have been.

But I really do urge people to grab this on the big screen while you can - the black-and-white Scope photography will be immeasurably diminished on DVD.

Sort of off-topic, but are those new (VERY expensive) Joy Division reissues worth double-dipping on? Is the remastering that much better? Anyone get them?

MichaelB wrote:But I really do urge people to grab this on the big screen while you can - the black-and-white Scope photography will be immeasurably diminished on DVD.

Thanks for the advise, Michael. I am sure the film looks great, and I really look forward to seeing it (on the big screen). Unfortunate that Denmark will not see this film until next year, and no opening date is even set for Sweden yet (as far as I know).

At least if you go to see this movie, and you think it's terrible, and you hate the actors, it won't be so hard to sit through knowing he kills himself in the end.

Besides, their Peter Hook doesn't look half bad.

denti alligator wrote:Sort of off-topic, but are those new (VERY expensive) Joy Division reissues worth double-dipping on? Is the remastering that much better? Anyone get them?

where were they re-released? I have the boxed set (and the BBC recordings and the Warsaw bootleg in order to fill the holes from the boxed set) but I had no idea they had re-realeased the JD stuff.

miless wrote:

denti alligator wrote:Sort of off-topic, but are those new (VERY expensive) Joy Division reissues worth double-dipping on? Is the remastering that much better? Anyone get them?

where were they re-released?

I have the box set, too, and I think these individual releases are just the same remasters from that set plus a bunch of previously unreleased live tracks to get people who already bought the box to buy the individual discs too. Live performance never seemed JD's strength to me, so I'm not interested at all.

Matt wrote:Live performance never seemed JD's strength to me, so I'm not interested at all.

Interestingly, the film suggests otherwise - the performances are overwhelmingly live (and usually performed by the actors rather than overdubbed), and the albums and other non-live recordings are barely mentioned. If you didn't know otherwise, you could watch the film and emerged convinced that Joy Division were fundamentally a live band that only occasionally dabbled in studio recordings.

In fact, the use of the studio recording of 'Love Will Tear Us Apart' is by general consent the weakest part of the film - a trite accompaniment to Curtis's own marriage breakup that's arguably based on a misreading of the lyrics.

Matt wrote:

miless wrote:

denti alligator wrote:Sort of off-topic, but are those new (VERY expensive) Joy Division reissues worth double-dipping on? Is the remastering that much better? Anyone get them?

where were they re-released?

I have the box set, too, and I think these individual releases are just the same remasters from that set plus a bunch of previously unreleased live tracks to get people who already bought the box to buy the individual discs too. Live performance never seemed JD's strength to me, so I'm not interested at all.

So does the box collect the singles? Curious that those aren't on the individual releases.

denti alligator wrote:So does the box collect the singles? Curious that those aren't on the individual releases.

It does.

MichaelB wrote:

Matt wrote:Live performance never seemed JD's strength to me, so I'm not interested at all.

Interestingly, the film suggests otherwise - the performances are overwhelmingly live (and usually performed by the actors rather than overdubbed), and the albums and other non-live recordings are barely mentioned. If you didn't know otherwise, you could watch the film and emerged convinced that Joy Division were fundamentally a live band that only occasionally dabbled in studio recordings.

It may be that Corbijn felt that a) JD in the studio had already been covered adequately in 24 Hour Party People and that b) live performance is more visually and dramatically interesting. He's probably right on both counts. But now that I think about it, what I really want is a Martin Hannett biopic.

It's good rather than great. Pretty unengaging but maybe that's the point. I'm unsure you learn as much about Curtis as you might, and as the screenplay is based on the biography by Deborah Curtis, we learn very little about his relationship with Annik, which is a crucial oversight I feel. The live performances are easily the highlight of the film, but it's not quite the masterpiece some critics have suggested, in my opinion. And this is from a Joy Division fan who wants the film to be great.

Hmmm, this one must have come in under my radar. Never a Joy Division fan myself so I'm not sure I would be able to stay interested. I am however a big fan of Corbijn's photography, particularly his extensive portfolio of Tom Waits portraits. They're exquisite. I wonder if that's enough to make me sit through the whole film…

LeeB.Sims wrote:Hmmm, this one must have come in under my radar. Never a Joy Division fan myself so I'm not sure I would be able to stay interested. I am however a big fan of Corbijn's photography, particularly his extensive portfolio of Tom Waits portraits. They're exquisite. I wonder if that's enough to make me sit through the whole film…

Well, the photography is overwhelmingly the reason to see the film, so I'm guessing the answer's yes. And it's largely the hardcore Joy Division fans who seem to be objecting to it - the film's more about Ian Curtis (or, more specifically, his wife's image of him) than about the band per se.

The latest Film Forum podcast is a Q&A session with Sam Riley.

thirtyframesasecond wrote:It's good rather than great. Pretty unengaging but maybe that's the point. I'm unsure you learn as much about Curtis as you might, and as the screenplay is based on the biography by Deborah Curtis, we learn very little about his relationship with Annik, which is a crucial oversight I feel. The live performances are easily the highlight of the film, but it's not quite the masterpiece some critics have suggested, in my opinion. And this is from a Joy Division fan who wants the film to be great.

I agree with this summation. I'm reminded of why biopics generally fail when they attempt to present some objective truth about their subjects based on the subjective impressions of people that knew them: the inner lives of others, even that one person we are closer to than anyone else, remain mysteries to us. Control's Ian Curtis (Sam Riley) is composed of the recollections of his widow, Deborah Curtis, who shares co-writing credit and served as the film's executive producer. Like Hari in Solyaris who is incomplete because she's only a manifestation of Kris Kelvin's impressions of her, there appears to be nothing more to Ian than what Deborah believes to be the truth about him.

While Ian remains incomplete, Annik Honoré (Alexandra Maria Lara) is reduced to a cipher. We know nothing about her, and she appears to know nothing about Ian. Months into their relationship she implores him to open up by telling her his favorite film and color. That this conversation is the most intimate that they have beyond a clichéd marrying-young-is-a-mistake confession within hours of meeting, demonstrates how completely the deck is stacked against empathy for Annik and by consequence against understanding Ian's interest in Annik. The conclusion Control would have us draw is that Ian's tryst with Annik was the product of little more than base sexual desire muddled with repulsion at the banality of life with Housefrau Debbie (Samantha Morton) and baby. This does a disservice to Ian, Annik and, ultimately, Deborah.