I was fortunate enough to live in Seattle and witness firsthand the grunge movement, so the explosion of a musical scene--as what happened with post-punk in Manchester, U.K. in the 70s--fascinates me, and I've been catching up with all that post-punk music that I missed out on back in the day. I loved Joy Division's dark sound and wondered why they didn't have a larger oeuvre of work. A little research revealed the reason to be lead singer Ian Curtis' suicide on the eve of the band's American tour in 1980. This intrigued me with Curtis and the band, and I thought Joy Division had the makings of a good movie. And it does, but this is not that movie. Having seen it I am amazed at the plethora of great reviews this film has gotten. It is perhaps the most mundane film ever made about rock and roll music! If a person had no knowledge of rock music and was first introduced to it through this film, he would think that it was a product not of rage and angst, but tedium and solitude.
"Control" is unnecessarily filmed in black and white in the hopes of fooling dilettantes into believing it is high art, and given the rave reviews from American critics, it succeeds in its foolery. Director Anton Corbijn has used b&w in previous films with rock subjects only to make the film look artistic because he has no cinematic idiom of his own. Corbijn never makes use of the shadows and light that are the very point for a modern filmmaker to us b&w. Moreover, this film needs to be in color to capture the grit and decline of Manchester in the period. Speaking of which, the film never seems to step foot in any place but a bland suburb. To understand these characters and their motivations we need to see the decline of the industrial titan that was Manchester, but we see only modest homes and verdant lawns. Just what dreadful life were they responding to with their music? The characters in this film live rather decently in what appears to be a bucolic setting. Even when the band makes a trip to London we only see shots of them in their car going to and fro. This is perhaps the most anti-urban film ever made about an urban subject.
Even worse, there is no sense of a musical community, and that is a grave crime given the burst of energy that emanated from Manchester in that period. If this film is to be believed, Joy Division seemed to exist in a vacuum, with inspiration coming only from David Bowie and Sex Pistols records, with no acknowledgment to their peers and contemporaries.
The entire genesis of creativity is given the short shrift as well. We see Curtis write poetry which presumably will become songs. He goes to his room and closes his door to shut himself off from the world, but we never see the world that influenced his need for solitude. Curtis is not portrayed as a tortured soul--which undoubtedly he must have been--but as an easygoing bloke who doesn't even seem to disdain his civil service job. Sam Riley does well enough in his role as Curtis, but never breaks through. You keep waiting for him to show us the magic but he only manages to during the concert scenes. But then, how could any actor achieve that task? All Curtis does in this film is mope.
Samantha Morton, so good in other work, is still good here but she isn't given much to do. The dissolution of her marriage happens fairly easily and without much complaint from her character. Toby Kebbell stands out as the band's manager Rob Gretton. Sadly he breathes the only excitement and energy into this whole enterprise. I would comment on the other band members but I couldn't tell one from the other. Whatever friendship existed between them was not brought to the screen, and the other three band members are as much a backdrop as the sets. This movie would suggest that they were of no consequence, when in fact they went on to form New Order and rise to the prominence for which Joy Division seemed destined.
Even the film's title is a cryptic cop out. Joy Division's breakthrough hit was "She's Out of Control," but unlike "Love Will Tear Us Apart," it didn't reach a seminal status. Is "Control" a reference to Curtis' seizures? His personal life running astray? If so, how is his experience unique enough to give this movie such a definitive one-word title? How is he in any less control of his life than Jim Morrison, Kurt Cobain, or Michael Hutchence were of their own? The title is generic, and one can only guess that the movie was not called "Love Will Tear Us Apart" (which would have been incredibly apt) because of contractual issues.
The biggest surprise about this film is that in spite of all its tepidness, it has received great reviews from the likes of Roger Ebert and Peter Travers of Rolling Stone. "Control" had an 87% approval rating at Rotten Tomatoes! Anton Corbijn has fashioned a movie about rock music that is devoid of any of the energy, zest or verve of the musical form. This film isn't the least bit enlightening about Ian Curtis, Joy Division nor Manchester's post-punk music scene. It is blandly made, employs stock moments from biographical films and only engages the viewer on a few occasions. Corbijn has a history of making movies about great rock subjects (U2, Depeche Mode) and draining every bit of life out the bands and their music. Now he has done the same for Joy Division. Skip right by "Control" and go directly to the documentaries, "Joy Division" or the BBC produced "Factory: From Joy Division to Happy Mondays."
"Control" is unnecessarily filmed in black and white in the hopes of fooling dilettantes into believing it is high art, and given the rave reviews from American critics, it succeeds in its foolery. Director Anton Corbijn has used b&w in previous films with rock subjects only to make the film look artistic because he has no cinematic idiom of his own. Corbijn never makes use of the shadows and light that are the very point for a modern filmmaker to us b&w. Moreover, this film needs to be in color to capture the grit and decline of Manchester in the period. Speaking of which, the film never seems to step foot in any place but a bland suburb. To understand these characters and their motivations we need to see the decline of the industrial titan that was Manchester, but we see only modest homes and verdant lawns. Just what dreadful life were they responding to with their music? The characters in this film live rather decently in what appears to be a bucolic setting. Even when the band makes a trip to London we only see shots of them in their car going to and fro. This is perhaps the most anti-urban film ever made about an urban subject.
Even worse, there is no sense of a musical community, and that is a grave crime given the burst of energy that emanated from Manchester in that period. If this film is to be believed, Joy Division seemed to exist in a vacuum, with inspiration coming only from David Bowie and Sex Pistols records, with no acknowledgment to their peers and contemporaries.
The entire genesis of creativity is given the short shrift as well. We see Curtis write poetry which presumably will become songs. He goes to his room and closes his door to shut himself off from the world, but we never see the world that influenced his need for solitude. Curtis is not portrayed as a tortured soul--which undoubtedly he must have been--but as an easygoing bloke who doesn't even seem to disdain his civil service job. Sam Riley does well enough in his role as Curtis, but never breaks through. You keep waiting for him to show us the magic but he only manages to during the concert scenes. But then, how could any actor achieve that task? All Curtis does in this film is mope.
Samantha Morton, so good in other work, is still good here but she isn't given much to do. The dissolution of her marriage happens fairly easily and without much complaint from her character. Toby Kebbell stands out as the band's manager Rob Gretton. Sadly he breathes the only excitement and energy into this whole enterprise. I would comment on the other band members but I couldn't tell one from the other. Whatever friendship existed between them was not brought to the screen, and the other three band members are as much a backdrop as the sets. This movie would suggest that they were of no consequence, when in fact they went on to form New Order and rise to the prominence for which Joy Division seemed destined.
Even the film's title is a cryptic cop out. Joy Division's breakthrough hit was "She's Out of Control," but unlike "Love Will Tear Us Apart," it didn't reach a seminal status. Is "Control" a reference to Curtis' seizures? His personal life running astray? If so, how is his experience unique enough to give this movie such a definitive one-word title? How is he in any less control of his life than Jim Morrison, Kurt Cobain, or Michael Hutchence were of their own? The title is generic, and one can only guess that the movie was not called "Love Will Tear Us Apart" (which would have been incredibly apt) because of contractual issues.
The biggest surprise about this film is that in spite of all its tepidness, it has received great reviews from the likes of Roger Ebert and Peter Travers of Rolling Stone. "Control" had an 87% approval rating at Rotten Tomatoes! Anton Corbijn has fashioned a movie about rock music that is devoid of any of the energy, zest or verve of the musical form. This film isn't the least bit enlightening about Ian Curtis, Joy Division nor Manchester's post-punk music scene. It is blandly made, employs stock moments from biographical films and only engages the viewer on a few occasions. Corbijn has a history of making movies about great rock subjects (U2, Depeche Mode) and draining every bit of life out the bands and their music. Now he has done the same for Joy Division. Skip right by "Control" and go directly to the documentaries, "Joy Division" or the BBC produced "Factory: From Joy Division to Happy Mondays."