 |
 |
|
I
Saw in Louisiana...
Nicolas Rapold on Down by Law
The teenaged cousin
of a French friend said he loved Down by Law
because it was thoroughly American, alive with
freedom and movement. France was closed, he said;
the U.S. and Jarmusch, wide open. Greener-grass
suspicions aside, the comment refreshed for me
this good old view of America, one usually yoked
to the very slam-bang action and bustling small-town
communities avoided by the director. One common
way of describing this free feel of his films
(so common that it’s almost a surprise to hear
Jarmusch himself voice it on the Criterion release)
is that they show the moments that stretch between
dramatic events instead of the events themselves—a
vast complementary firmament. In Down by Law,
it seems appropriate that the symmetrical frame-ups
of Jack (John Lurie) and Zack (Tom Waits), the
most explicitly executed parts of the plot (literally
plots, set in motion by hoods as crooked as a
dog’s hind leg), fail for them with such finality
in this drifting world.
Yet their resulting imprisonment in turn begets a new freedom through their escape, and it’s this sort of interplay between structure and openness that makes the drift of Down by Law so beguiling. The plot follows an almost theatrical three-part structure, from the framing to the jail time to the bayou escape. The first part is itself a study in symmetry, as long before sharing a cell Jack and Zack are shackled by the details of their downfall: a woman in their bed opens her eyes, a melodramatic spat, a crook’s wound-up pitch, and the fall before the law.
But then they sink to the ground zero of the prison cell, bringing only what makes them themselves. Two cools: Zack a nostalgic vision of the musician hipster (for once the word has meaning) but with hang-ups, and Jack a pimp on the rise (is there any other kind?). Each comes from a life punctuated by performance, Zack deejaying and Jack hustling, both talking their walks. Yet ESL superstar Roberto (Roberto Benigni) will upstage them both, a wanderer who seems to talk himself into being, with a magpie’s collection of slang and a head full of Frost and Whitman, and American movies.
|
    |
|
The two Americans
he encounters might be background players coming
straight out of those movies, but Jarmusch’s long
takes elevate them to main characters and transform
their static dead ends through the texture of
a summer night’s secret small hours. In getting
framed they zip down the fatal-easy-money drain
of a film noir, without the slow burn. Things
just seem to happen to them, and they’re headed
for the same place, but they react distinctly
to the possibility of success, in Jarmusch’s recurring
pattern of passive characters and circumstance.
When the hoods make their offers (“I’m serious
as cancer!”), Jack throws out a bluster that it
looks like he’s been waiting to practice, gesturing
smooth ultimatums with his hands. Later, when
he’s pitching services to the girl in the room,
Jarmusch crops the frame so that he looks as if
he is auditioning to someone offscreen left, his
breakthrough performance till the cops crash through
the door. Zack, who has some self-awareness, recognizes
his weakness to his crook’s temptation. He turns
away, curling his shoulders to shelter against
an exposed wall, but like every mark can’t resist
thinking both that he’s owed something and that
he’s getting one over the other guy. So the two
are eaten up by the New Orleans night, which seemed
to seek them out even in the daytime through an
opening that scanned the city right to left and
back again.
In the prison cell Jarmusch’s film folds into
itself and, avoiding the cinematic expectation
to plot escape, enters a realm of pure language,
a poetic melting pot. Roberto’s tongue muddles
his Z’s and J’s, so Jack and Zack, their fates
identical, are now also collapsed into one person.
To use Luc Sante’s word in his Criterion essay,
the Italian clown uses not just his notebook but
the English language itself as a prop, a tool
for his earnest desire to connect that renders
the meaning itself irrelevant. Short next to Lurie,
who wraps himself in a blanket like a prizefighter,
Benigni delivers his still-forming lines with
the drawl of a toddler working through a difficult
word in telling what he did in school. For their
parts, Zack voices some alternatives to empiricism
(“These walls are not here”), while Jack, with
unexpected dry humor, resists Roberto’s linguistic
fantasy (“In this case you are looking at the
window,” of the drawing on the cell wall). And
when it comes to the conjugation of ice cream
into potential cellblock revolution, it is, as
a friend observed, “like Dada for pimps.”
|
 |
|
In rosier illustration
of the “melting pot” cynically described earlier
as bringing the scum to the top, the immigrant’s
momentum is what sets the boys in action. His
vision remains robust and open (if unknown), especially
alongside the punctured dreams of his companions:
Jack’s hustle interruptus in the girl’s room,
whirling around mid-cool to see the vice squad;
and Zack’s import-car cruise, murmuring “hey baby”
to the hookers, a perfect night up to and including
razzing the rookie in the bust itself, until the
body is found.
They lapse naturally into these old personas,
as if continued unbroken, when the three separate
in the black forest. Jack and Zack track off at
different vectors on walks in the bush composed
of fragments from a street face-off and a deejay
set. Left alone, Roberto does anything to avoid
the genuine terror of when he was abandoned at
the riverbank (Jack: “Mark Twain’ll come by and
pick you up in a steamboat”). Unlike most Jarmusch
characters, accustomed to wandering through the
desolate locales inherited from the pre-colonized
NYC streets of Permanent Vacation, Roberto
stands panicked in the frame mumbling Italian
until Zack hustles him safely off stage. So when
he later sits by the rabbit on a spit, he talks
himself and company into being, story-telling
about his mother and three sisters (who, in the
continued linguistic subtlety of his drunken accent,
merge as one beloved mass: “Brun’Albertin’Anna”).
It is a brave act of will, more effusive of his
self in this brief monologue than Jack-Zack all
film, and (he would like this) an emergence of
Whitman into the film. (His beloved Frost of course
appears in the final shot.) When his friends return—their
divergent paths taking them to the same place—they
stand heavy in the shadows like zombies until
revived by Roberto, who may as well be writing
the script by now. It is a short trip to his dreaming
an Italian-owned fry shack (“Luigi’s Tintop”)
on a bayou back road and realizing its existence,
and to finding romance, in Benigni’s actual wife
conjured into movie land.
Jack and Zack stand outside, looking through
the window, their own plots postponed until they
improvise their own journey, as they must. It
might be more Australian than American to end
with two convicts starting new lives, but then
it took an Italian to give them company, and their
freedom. |
|