I’m seceding from Facebook and taking control of where I direct my attention.

Should I think of something interesting to say, I’ll say it here.  Should I find something interesting that someone else wrote, I’ll post a link to it here.  Should I become inebriated and start writing poetry, I’ll post it here.

At least until I sober up and delete it.

Speaking of poetry.

The wife and I rented the movie Paterson recently.  I’m a big fan of Jim Jarmusch, but this movie went way over my head.  It’s a love letter to the poetry of William Carlos Williams.  I’m not a fan of William Carlos Williams.

I can’t think of a single thing that depends on a red wheel barrow glazed with rain water beside the white chickens.

I actually own a red wheel barrow and today it’s glazed with snow, but unless I needed to spread mulch RIGHT NOW, nothing depends on it.

And frankly even if I did and my wheel barrow was broken, I’d just borrow my neighbor’s wheel barrow.  He’s a mensch.

Although seriously have you ever tried to break a wheel barrow?  I’m not sure that’s even possible.

And don’t get me started on the chickens.

Anyway back to the movie.

It stars Adam Driver who . . . honestly . . . I don’t think is a very good actor.  And Golshifteh Farahani . . . who . . . honestly . . . on the evidence of this film, I don’t think is very good either.  He’s a not very good poet who writes ponderous not very good poems.  She’s a not very good artist whose art consists of daubbing circles on everything in their house.  Everything.  She also aspires to be a musician and . . . uh . . . she should have stuck with the circles.

In fairness, there’s a bulldog named Marvin in this film and Marvin is very, very good.

So, what was Jim Jarmusch thinking?  He seems to admire New York School poetry and studied under Kenneth Koch, et al.  Or perhaps Jarmusch feels like he should admire New York School poetry.  The actual poem “Paterson” by William Carlos Williams goes on for five volumes.  When interviewed by Film Comment Jarmusch said this:

JJ: . . . frankly, I don’t understand a lot of [‘Paterson’].

FC: What do you mean you don’t understand?

JJ: I don’t quite connect with it.  It’s a bit to abstract or maybe philosophical for me somehow . . .

Maybe I’m making too much of a stray comment from Jarmusch, but that comment sums up exactly how I feel about this red wheel barrow business.  And really this whole film.

Should you decide to watch this film, my advice is watch it as a sly satire.  Jarmusch has finally figured out that his old poetry professors were peddling red wheel barrows loaded with bull—- and he’s having his revenge.

Jarmusch’s film might be a commentary on imposter syndrome (the persistent fear among high achievers that they are actually imposters and that everyone is secretly laughing at them).  In this case, Jarmusch’s joke is to pair an actor who can’t act with an actress who can’t act either, have them play a poet who can’t write and an artist/musician who can’t make art or music, hand them a lifeless script that is an homage to/satire of a famous poet whose magnum opus was an lifeless opaque mess that no one understands.

And then show them all up by inserting a dog who has the one truly creative idea in the whole movie.

Works for me.