Review of Mystery Train (1989) by Adam S — 18 Jun 2010

Twelve hours after supposing I might never get around to watching this one, I watch it anyway.

Why is it that Jarmusch can't escape writing stereotype characters? He has an interesting method of filmmaking, but part of that method, in every movie he has ever made, is to let the camera linger in between plot points; the purpose of that is not lost on the audience -- it is to let us consider what we've seen, to make the passing of time feel more realistic, like we're experiencing it with the characters, to marinade in the moments with these characters -- so why then waste a trick like that on stupid, unrelatable characters?

Let's back up a minute. "Mystery Train" is told in thirds. The first third builds good potential for the remaining pieces -- the characters are interesting, the photography is excellent, the plot dawdles but leaves a trail of breadcrumbs for a bigger plot to follow. And it's all downhill from there. Part two contains one interesting glimmer of something with the story the creepy guy shares with the Italian woman, but overall the segment accomplishes very little. Then there is the third, which, sadly, is outright stupid, and only underscores the fact that having the three segments overlap in setting is a script gimmick to make the pieces congruent. By the way, I have great appreciation for this kind of gimmick; filmmakers are right to use tools like this to solidify points in the context of a 1.5-hour script. It's just as smart a trick as repetition of images or phrases, another highly useful technique the director employed here. But the gimmick is not supposed to be the meat-and-potatoes. It's supposed to be the salt. Jim Jarmusch, get out your note pad.