In the movie Paterson, the titular character doesn't appear to me to change in any way during the movie. At the end of the film I was left thinking, "Well that was mildly interesting. What was the point of that?" Then I remembered the movie Adaptation.

In the movie Adaptation, Nicholas Cage plays a screenwriter (or 2) who at one point attends a screenwriting seminar. During the seminar, he tells the presenter that he wants to write a movie where the main character doesn't change. The presenter basically tells him, nobody wants to see that movie - there's no point in writing such a screenplay.

Did Jim Jaramuch make that movie in Paterson? If not, how did Paterson change or grow? Even more than just whether he decided to make copies of his new poems, did he change in any way at all?


From IndieWire's review:

Overall, however, “Paterson” belongs to its director, who excels at capturing the serenity of daily existence and what it means to find deeper meaning in passing moments.


But “Paterson” has too much clarity of mind to fall into a similar category. The story builds to an accidental circumstance that, on the surface, might not seem like a big deal — but in the context of Paterson’s tiny universe, resonates with tragic connotations. The brilliantly cryptic finale explores what it means to work back from personal setbacks to find a new source of inspiration. It’s an apt statement from Jarmusch, a filmmaker who continues to surprise and innovate while remaining true to his singular voice, and who here seems to have delivered its purest manifestation.

  • Cryptic I can agree with. Brilliant, I'm not so sure. I have to say, as an audience member, that didn't come through to me at all. Perhaps I'm just not smart enough to get it. But thanks for the insight! – user1118321 Jul 27 '17 at 14:27

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .