[A kind of movie review, in preparation for one of my—many—possible future careers..]
Control, UK 2007

One doesn’t usually think of things like “pacing” in the context of a three to four minute music video—it’s a sprint and not a marathon, as they say. A rush of motifs, visual puns, locale and costume changes, often for no obvious reason whatsoever, and then it’s over. We don’t bat an eyelash when Duran Duran are lounging on a beach in Phuket one moment and standing atop Machu Picchu the next; nor is our (dis)belief ever challenged when a legion of corpses rise from the grave to join Michael Jackson in a choreographed dance routine, or a blind theater student produces a strikingly life-like bust of Lionel Richie, etc. We simply aren’t conditioned that way. When scenes are simply strung one after another—with no apparent trajectory or velocity, rhyme or reason—in a music video, we barely notice it. The same cannot be said about a full-length narrative film, however, and this same arbitrariness plagues Control, the debut feature from music video auteur Anton Corbijn.
The perils involved in making biopics about dead rock stars (in this case, Joy Division’s Ian Curtis) are too numerous to list here, but it should be said that we encounter virtually none of them in Control. This is not to the director’s credit, though; rather it is only because he never overcomes the initial difficulties of telling a story—of any sort—that he doesn’t even approach the problems of telling a rock star’s life story on film. Early on in the picture, my date remarked “It’s a good thing this movie’s in black-and-white, because otherwise it would be really mediocre.” This statement proved to be a remarkably astute one over the course of the film, as it became ever clearer that underneath all the shimmering monochromatic brilliance and pitch-perfect cinematography, Control is an afterschool special yearning to spread its wings.
There is a mind-numbingly literal, by-the-numbers quality that permeates the entire film. In the first five minutes, we see a teenaged Ian (played by the oddly DiCaprio-esque Sam Riley) alone in his room, smoking and listening to Bowie’s “Drive-In Saturday”. A series of quick cuts—to J.G. Ballard books on the shelf, Iggy Pop LPs next to the turntable, and Lou Reed posters on the wall—tell us all we need to know, apparently, about our protagonist. By the inclusion of these scant details we are to understand that he is a “disaffected youth”, “artistic”, “cerebral”, etc. In another scene, we see Ian and the future members of the band in the crowd at a Sex Pistols show, staring dumbstruck at the “spectacle” taking place onstage (and entirely off-camera, it should be noted.)
This, we are led to believe, is a monumental turning point, as in the very next shot it is already mutually understood that they are forming a band of their own. Why? Because thirty years of Greil Marcus, Rolling Stone best-of lists, and VH1 specials say so, that’s why—but the film itself never approaches such questions, relying instead on this inane sort of cultural shorthand. In lieu of major developments, artistic breakthroughs, etc. we are given merely the rote signifiers of same. Whether this is due to the director’s relative inexperience or something more sinister—a distinctly information-age cynicism, perhaps, in which all narrative developments and characterization are rendered in a sort of “hypertext”, and seemingly minor details are important in that they are “linked”, as it were, to some body of pop cultural knowledge?—is hard to say, but nonetheless this sort of intellectual and narrative laziness is unacceptable.
That said, there really is nothing in this film that one can’t get from spending five minutes on Wikipedia—there is nothing added to or taken away from the existing Joy Division mystique. The screenplay for Control is, I am told, adapted from the memoir Touching From A Distance, written by Curtis’ widow, Deborah. But you wouldn’t know it from watching the film, as her character (played by the typically excellent Samantha Morton) is entirely absent for long stretches of the movie. It might have been a more successful film if it had adhered to the source material, and told the story from her perspective. Instead, it is told from Ian’s “perspective”—that is, the perspective of someone who by all accounts was a fairly detached, opaque individual, whose side of the story consists entirely of a few dozen songs he left behind—but cribbed song lyrics recited in first-person voice-over do not a “perspective” make. All the events, the people, the places and details are there; what’s lacking is an actual interpretation of it all.
Filming biographies of dead rock stars is, understandably, a tricky business—one is always running the risk of either infuriating the hardcore fans or alienating the neophytes—and the walking of this tightrope is so daunting that a director often forgets to make a watchable, functional narrative, let alone a unique artistic statement. (Oliver Stone gets closer to this in The Doors than he gets credit for, but that is neither here nor there.) In tackling such a project, Anton Corbijn had a couple of ways to go about it: either portray the rise and fall of a seminal rock group using a deteriorating marriage as a backdrop, or portray a deteriorating marriage using the rise and fall of a seminal rock group as a backdrop. Corbijn tries to give us a little of both and, naturally, accomplishes neither.
But there is another way he might’ve gone about it, one that, I feel, would’ve played to his strengths, taken full advantage of the black-and-white film stock, and made a more compelling film overall; that is, to make it more like a music video. If Control is, at root, an attempt to convey the feelings of bleakness and isolation that Ian Curtis expressed in his lyrics (and ultimately led to his suicide) then it is a categorical failure. In the film, Ian accomplishes everything he sets out to accomplish, has everyone around him bending over backwards to cater to his needs, and sleeps with gorgeous Belgian journalists—the “bleakness” and “isolation” are nowhere to be found, and we’re left wondering what all the fuss is about. But what if Corbijn had decided he was going to make a film that was true to Joy Division in the “spirit” and not so much the “letter”? If he eschewed factual, biographical “truths” in favor of figurative, emotional “truths”? I don’t know about you, but if Control had fewer scenes of Ian Curtis with visibly tortured expressions on his face, and more scenes with him, say, carrying a giant egg up a flight of wrought-iron stairs, or wearing a cape and plastic crown carrying a folding chair through the streets of Manchester trying to find some semblance of peace, or up on the cross as clockwork ravens gingerly peck away at him… well, it might’ve been a more interesting film at the very least.
There may be a good film to be mined from this material yet, but unfortunately Corbijn doesn’t give it to us. In his determination to toe the line—to neither offend longtime fans or alienate potential ones—we get a film that tries to be a lot of things: a biography, a monument to a certain cultural “moment”, a love story, a tragedy—but succeeds at none of it. Perhaps for his next project, if we were to get a lot more Corbijn, and a little less Control…


For the love of God, send aid! And by aid I don’t mean sacks of flour and powdered milk and medicines of dubious origin—no, I speak of human beings with love in their hearts, sturdy constitutions, and a sense of purpose and the magnitude of the situation here. While economic aid is indeed necessary, I fear it is useless without the right people to carry it out. It is only by a combination of these, of economic and LIVE AID, that we can rescue these unfortunate souls from the brink of extinction. But time is of the essence, Madam Prime Minister, as I can feel the mouth of Hades growing wider everyday.





