Hiromi_X

I can relate, though certainly not to those specific issues.

The dreams still come for me occasionally and I lead a life that is much more detached than I'd like. The detachment - the very thing that allowed me to survive - is hard to shake. But I now have more good moments than bad. I'm still detached from personal relationships, but not as bad as I used to be.

Recovery from any trauma is slow and constant and damned unpleasant, but it's worth it.

Stay strong Hiromi, stay strong.

I know what you mean. I'm finding I tend to want to avoid a lot of contact with people in the early stages of recovery. I'm not sure if the reason is exactly the same or not, but I feel a bit guilty about it, like I "should" be there to help, since I know what it's like to be back there.

But I find sometimes of late I feel almost impatient and unsympathetic/frustrated with them. It may be I'm frustrated that I was in that place for so long (see my post today), and that's fueling it, because the reminder I was like that is too much for me. I don't know. In any case, whatever's fueling it, that's the feeling I had when I saw Control. I vacillated between feeling nothing, shut down and emotionless, to feeling frustrated annoyance with his inability to "just fucking DO something already." Even though I KNOW first-hand how hard it is to progress to that, and how long one can wait around not "fucking doing something" when one is depressed.

It's weird. I don't get why I'm being like this. If anyone should be compassionate, it should be me, but I often can't *feel* it right now, except in *theory.*

What the fuck is that? Could it simply be fatigue?

I don't know, exactly. As I was saying, I wonder if it's partly the pain of remembering how long I cycled in that phase, and how angry at myself I am for having "let myself be there." I remember not liking myself very much during those times, and how "pathetic" i found myself. Maybe my hatred of my perceived helplessness at the time is now radiating outward. Like, pushing it away, "I'm not like THAT, not anymore."

But I wonder also if it's just sort of that I USED to find meaning in these kinds of films and images. They made me feel BETTER about where I was. "Oh, I can relate, the world is so sad and miserable and furcked up, yes, yes, it's true." But I've changed and that doesn't make me feel better anymore. I'm not relating to it on that personal, deep level anymore. Which I guess is a good thing, that I now feel distanced from that. But it's weird to feel distanced from a feeling and a people and a world you once loved to be a part of.

And that leads into wondering if I'm just tired of that world. I find myself wanting to distance myself from people who are even remotely negative lately, or anyone needy. I just want to take care of myself, and meet some healthy, positive people. They've never been my "crowd," so I don't even know where to find them. Instead I keep finding a lot of what I'm used to--cynical, dark people. And that doesn't fit well anymore. In the past I would have just buried myself in their need or commiserated with their misery. I just can't seem to be a part of that anymore. Right now, I feel more like I need to help myself, and part of that feels like by NOT going there. And I think maybe I'm not far enough along yet that I can manage the people who are still lost in the dark and not take it personally. I think maybe eventually I will be able to, but right now I find all I want is something that is NOT that.

By the way, I think part of the failure of that film to perhaps be more touching or sympathetic--or at least understanding--toward Curtis and his condition--is that it was co-produced by Ian Curtis' wife, and was based on a book she wrote about their marriage, so there is, in a way, a very limited perspective on who he was as a human and an artist, because the view is hers only, and it would seem she really knew very little of what was going on with him, other than that she was being rejected. I'm not saying her view isn't as valid as anyone else's, but I think maybe an outside, impartial view of Curtis would have, perhaps, created a more interesting film, less focused on the love triangle and more focused on his development/devolution.

I thought the film was actually pretty sympathetic to Curtis and his situation, but I am looking at it from a very different viewpoint than you, so obviously we are going to identify with different aspects differently.

I probably didn't say that right. I didn't think it was UNsympathetic to him exactly, just that it seemed more sympathetic to the wife's situation than anything else. Even though Curtis was on camera more, all the scenes they showed seemed to be chosen to result in demonstrating how it impacted on the wife and their marriage (rather than any deep investigation of Curtis). The wife was also presented in the film in this way that indicated she'd been a pretty faultless spouse, with her only "crime" being that she wasn't exotic enough (comparative to the other lover)--like their life was fine, and then SUDDENLY, Curtis just pulled the rug out--and I found that weird when I was watching it. Life generally isn't like that; marital problems aren't normally caused by just one person. And I couldn't figure out why it was being portrayed that way.

I didn't know his wife wrote it going in. I came out of the theatre saying to a friend how odd it seemed that it was more about their marriage than about Curtis himself, and found out only after mentioning it to someone that it was based on his wife's memoir and she co-produced it.

So I can't help but feel that if someone other than the wife had been the writer, one might have had a more balanced, well-rounded understanding of the forces at work there that might have contributed to the situation--and more insight into Curtis as an artist, not just a husband. But I *don't* think she portrayed him as entirely unsympathetic--I think she portrayed him as a sad figure who was unfathomable and beyond help, and as someone who couldn't figure out what he wanted and so hurt himself and others as a result. Which is understandable, given her perspective--she wasn't witness to much of his life after a certain point, if the movie is accurate. But I just wonder if she hadn't been the writer if it would have had quite that focus, and if we might not have gotten an even more insightful perspective on the man.

I knew she had written the book it was based on, and the book has been on my wish list for years, so I knew going in. That said, I have vague memories of knowing about Anika (sp?) years ago when I was a hardcore JD-head, like I remember reading her interviews with him, but I didn't know about the love triangle til seeing the film. I have a pretty big library of clippings and stuff, I should get them out.

Given the circumstances, and given the other stuff I wrote in my own blog post about the movie, I was surprised at how sympathetic Ian came across. To me, the portrayal was one of Ian discovering himself and his genius while she just wanted an ordinary Manchester working class family life. Like she didn't want to grow with him, she wanted to hold him back and keep him as the Ian she married, and when he realized he couldn't continue to go in the direction he wanted and still have what he used to think he wanted, while his health disintegrated, he cracked. I was honestly surprised at how dowdy she let herself be portrayed. I saw it and thought "except for the child, how could he *not* leave her?"

These things are always more complicated in real life than on film, and emotionally they are almost too complicated to even express in words, much less boil down to a 120 minute script. A script where the girlfriend had input might have given a more rounded view, sure, but I think ultimately Ian was living his life emotionally compartmentalized, and nobody but he had the overall picture, so every person's version will be called bullshit by every other observer.

Regarding the scene in the bed when he breaks down in tears, I'm not positive I agree with Hiromi's interpretation. There are many hints in the film to the negative side effects of his medication, and as we all know these kinds of drugs can have sexual side effects, especially in men. I'd have to see it again and read the book, but is it possible he was having sexual side effects with his wife and would intentionally go off the meds when on tour so that he could still have sex with Anika (thus the increasing frequency of seizures.)?

To me, the portrayal was one of Ian discovering himself and his genius while she just wanted an ordinary Manchester working class family life. Like she didn't want to grow with him, she wanted to hold him back and keep him as the Ian she married,... [etc., clipped]

That's interesting, that was way more info than I felt was available from viewing it. None of that was ever stated, so it was left open to interpretation. But you knew a lot more about Curtis than I did; maybe you were going on info you already knew. I liked Joy Division enough musically, but was never a rabid fan and beyond listening to the songs, never read much about them or Curtis himself. All I knew about him was that he had committed suicide very young.

I felt like that about the portrayal of his genius/artistic development/musical history in the film, too. I felt it was barely touched upon, other than showing him getting progressively more famous. I walked out feeling that if someone watching the film hadn't already known the significance of the Factory scene and the different characters involved (or hadn't already seen 24 Hour Party People as a supplement), they wouldn't have half understood the artistic impact of Joy Division and its music at that time at all, how pivotal it was at that time, or even who the hell some of these people were who were showing up and getting involved. But as you are someone who already knew all these details going in, you were probably able to fill in a lot of holes that others might have been experiencing.

And re Hiromi's bedroom interpretation vs. Ray's...that's what I mean; so much of the film was left up to guess work as to what was really going on, when certain things could have been made clearer (about the medication, for instance, and his habits with it), and probably were able to have been found out. Perhaps it was deliberate on the filmmaker's part to leave it all guesswork and projection, but I suspect probably not. If she was going by the wife's book only, then she possibly HAD to go with just guesswork and suggestion, since the wife didn't seem to be told much about what was going on the whole time.

I liked Joy Division enough musically, but was never a rabid fan...

Although, there are photos of me at my college graduation wearing a black Joy Division t-shirt, black shorts, and black Chuck Taylor high-tops under my graduation gown. :) My parents were eye-rollingly annoyed.

That's interesting, that was way more info than I felt was available from viewing it. None of that was ever stated, so it was left open to interpretation. But you knew a lot more about Curtis than I did; maybe you were going on info you already knew.

No, nothing like that. I was probably reading my own personal baggage into it.

You're gonna get hosed for saying that, dood.

Well, seriously. The way she was portrayed in the movie, it seemed like she was always ironing or doing dishes or something. It seemed like they went out of their way to portray her as some kind of house frau in order to dramatize the conflict in Ian's life.

What I mean it, it's surprising she's portrayed that way given that it's essentially her version of the story. It's based on her book and she was a consultant on the film.

Yeah, I think Ray has it exactly right when he said, "Ultimately Ian was living his life emotionally compartmentalized, and nobody but he had the overall picture, so every person's version will be called bullshit by every other observer..."

Which is really the point I was trying to make much less succinctly. I was trying to say I think this film presented just one very narrow compartment, which while an acceptable viewpoint, for me didn't feel enough, because I could feel the absence of many other parts of the story. So, because of exactly what Ray said about Curtis, I thought it would have been more revealing/powerful if the filmmaker had gotten stories across the board from all those who knew him and pieced together a broader perspective of the man, since no one really has to date. That, or *make* the fact that he was compartmentalized and different for every single person--and therefore never really capable of reaching out to get the help he needed--the main crux of the film. Show the billion conflicting stories about who he was, and let the audience decide. That's fascinating.

Of course, like Ray said, condensing a life down to 120 minutes is never going to encompass everything. But either of those other two approaches, I think, would have revealed a bit more about Curtis and his issues.

Well, I think you can make great art out of a biography without striving for completeness. Did you ever see the documentary "When We Were Kings", about Muhammed Ali? It told the story of the 1974 Ali/Foreman "Rumble in the Jungle" fight, but within a framework of flashbacks and other material that made it a semi-biography of Ali, at least that facet of his life that was his status as a anti-authoritarian and civil rights leader. It was by no means a complete biography or a multi-faceted view, but in the sense of understanding Ali's importance as something more than just a boxer, it was a fantastic description of that aspect of the person. And it was a brilliant brilliant documentary.

Spike Lee's biography of Malcolm X chose to focus on Malcolm's political life and fights with government authorities, and largely glossed over the spiritual aspect of his growth from street hustler to Nation of Islam black radical to the true Muslim accepting of all races that Malcolm himself described in his autobiography. You could say that Lee's biography was flawed because of this, or you could say it was a great film of the story of the political life of the man.

There are other true-life movies where the viewpoint is skewed for other reasons that I find more objectionable. My prime example is "In The Name of the Father", the story of Gerry Conlon who was falsely accused and imprisoned for the IRA bombing of a pub in Guildford. The film grossly distorted all of the IRA characters, especially the ones in the prison, making them all seem largely violent sociopaths, whereas in reality IRA prisoners believed themselves political prisoners and prisoners of war and generally behaved as such in prison, with leadership hierarchies and self-discipline of the group's behavior to further the mission of The Struggle. And unlike what was portrayed in the film, Gerry was openly accepted by the IRA prisoners as a comrade-in-arms. But releasing a major motion picture in the US and UK that gives a sympathetic portrayal of "terrorists" is a non-starter and so the film portrays the exact opposite of documented historic fact.

If you go into Control expecting a complete balanced biography of Ian, yes, you will be disappointed. If you go knowing that you are getting the story of a tragic love story written from the wife's point of view, you may be less disappointed.

Where my questions come from is that I feel like the movie often portrays the wife in an unflattering light, which is something I didn't really expect since it is largely her version of events. I've read elsewhere that Ian was also fighting with Annik near the end of his life, and his wife knew this, yet (if I remember right) that wasn't portrayed at all in the movie.

Dunno. The film is imperfect, but for this Joy Division fan it was still really powerful, both for the on-screen portrayal and for other more personal reasons, some of which I discussed in my blog post a few weeks back.

Yes, I saw the Ali documentary. I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. I wasn't saying I felt every aspect of the person's life had to be covered, just perhaps more than one viewpoint about the person and the events covered had to be taken into consideration to provide a well-rounded picture of that person, during whatever stage of his life we're talking about.

I think the Ali film did that. It wasn't only, for instance, Foreman's point of view of that event, or Ali's trainer's point of view or whatever. It was obvious the documentarian had researched many points of view and many sources and even showcased those many views and sources.

But then, perhaps comparing those two films isn't fair, as WWWKings was a documentary, and Control wasn't; it was a biography. It's just that normally if a biography-style film is written from only one person's point of view, that limited point of view is explained early in the film (usually using that character as a narrator or something) so viewers are aware, "This is the wife's/brother's/etc. story." Whereas, if it's not based on one view, it's usually given a generic, omniscient presentation, like Walk the Line. Perhaps Control's issue is that it was presented as a comprehensive biography in style, when it wasn't one.

Anyway, I'm not saying Control was a failed film, if one finds the wife's solo perspective satisfying (and the viewer knows it is just a solo perspective). I personally just found it not to be satisfying, because the view she was able to present felt very limited and distanced from her husband's inner life or behavior. So it felt to me like I got a bunch of surface events but nothing deep enough to really understand the guy or what happened to him. But it's a personal response. A number of people I saw the film with loved it, and said it "blew them away," similar to how you felt about it, and they didn't feel any lack at all.