Not "this year's" anything really
I finally saw Garden State, four months after I missed it at the Seattle International Film Festival, and probably a month and a half after its semi-wide release.
The result was something like the emotional upswell experienced by Zach Braff look-a-like and Garden State protagonist Andrew Largeman. He stops taking his pills. He usually takes lots of them. The pills he takes are prescribed to cure problems with his brain. He says they make him numb.
Amid the grass-roots, indie-fan love-fest this movie has enjoyed, numb is exactly what I was going for. Read no reviews, watch no trailers, wait it out, see the movie when it comes was my mantra. It was a hard pill, for the deluge was near-complete--I could brook no shelter. I was beset on all sides by surging, phantasmogoric buzz. Somehow I kept it at bay.
Sitting in the theatre was like surfacing from immersion in that sea.
Half-drowned and shivering, the movie unfolded itself with quirky characters and ham-fisted dialogue. Things happened that made me laugh. Things happened that made me groan. Things happened that made my capacity for suspension of disbelief nearly overheat from stress. Throughout, In the back of my mind was the one quote that had somehow evaded my filter and slipped in my buzz cortex. It now plagued me. Garden State is "this year's Lost in Translation."
It's not that at all actually. The poignancy of Lost in Translation was in its silent moments. It was the shared glances, ,the longing, the uncertainty on the faces of its characters that fueled the emotional payload that connected Sofia Coppola's dissertation on loneliness with audiences. Braff's face twitches so much you don't know what emotion he's going for--he might be trying for all of them at once, I really can't tell. Natalie Portman's character has epilepsy, which she plays like a severe case of ADHD. Tears flow and you're unsure where they've just come from.
The movie is funny. But the laughs are a completely unconnected series of kitschy sight gags and drug references. It sometimes feels as though the plot exists to suspend these things in a logical order. That's a shame.
A friend and I once had a conversation about Lost in Translation. He didn't like it because he said it offered up a problem without having the courage to put forth a solution. He's a smart guy and that's an excellent point. Coppola's movie was, though, complete and coherent.
Garden State is coherent certainly, but far from emotionally complete. It offers solutions to the existential, drug-addled dementia of its characters. The solutions though, are hackneyed and tired. It's a new gloss on the love conquers all motif. In forwarding that cause, the sometimes snappy, inventive dialogue becomes laughable, the plot sputters, the actors don't seem to know what to do with themselves.
It's a fun movie, but also kind of an unfortunate one.
4 Comments:
This year's Lost in Translation isn't really a fair comparison. Sure, both movies traffic in the same vaguely existenstial despair that seemingly all intelligent young people struggle with, but the methods of study and revelation of this angst are so different that it's not even unfair to compare the two movies, it's just stupid.
If I had heard Garden State discussed vis-à-vis The Graduate, I might have been more happy with the comparison. In fact, I did, and it was Roger Ebert who said it (the last two paragraphs of his review:
"Garden State" inspires obvious comparisons with "The Graduate," not least in the similarity of the two heroes; both Benjamin and Andrew are passive, puzzled and quizzical in the face of incoming exhortations. The presence of Simon and Garfunkel on the sound- track must not be entirely coincidental. But "The Graduate" is a critique of the world Benjamin finds himself in, and "Garden State" is the world's critique of Andrew. All of the people he meets are urging him, in one way or another, to wake up and smell the coffee. All except for his father, whose anger is so deep, he prefers his son medicated into a kind of walking sleep. Ian Holm plays the role with perfect pitch, making small emotional adjustments instead of big dramatic moves.
This is not a perfect movie; it meanders and ambles and makes puzzling detours. But it's smart and unconventional, with a good eye for the perfect detail, as when Andrew arrives at work in Los Angeles and notices that the spigot from a gas pump, ripped from its hose when he drove away from a gas station, is still stuck in his gas tank. Something like that tells you a lot about a person's state of mind.Garden State might not be as good as The Graduate (I don't know, I haven't seen The Graduate), but at least it makes some amount of sense to compare the two.
I, personally, didn't sense too much 'ambling,' in Garden State, but I'll be the first to agree that some of the scenes (esp. the cuts between them) seem forced, or, at least, a touch jarring. Also, some scenes are very well fleshed out with rich and interesting dialogue (for example, the scene in the pool), but others seem almost to be added in as an afterthought.
The problems with the film are legion, but they're itsy-bitsy little problems, in my opinion. I think that Garden State was a magnificent first effort from Braff -- both in terms of writing and directing -- and that subsequent films have a hope of being much better.
In particular, I was incredibly encouraged by the imagery and camerawork. To see how excellently Braff has woven together these two elements, look no further than the teaser trailer. It is the best trailer I have ever seen, and probably ever will see. Period. The trailer gives a very accurate feel for the tone and look of the movie with no dialogue, in just over a minute. The conventional trailer -- which contains dialogue -- is good too, but it is less powerful.
Another strong element of the movie is the soundtrack. There are some great tracks -- if you don't buy the soundtrack after seeing this movie, I'll come over to your house and kick you in the nuts. It's that good. -- and most are used to excellent effect (for example, The Only Living Boy In New York by Paul Simon). Some don't transition very smoothly, though, and wind up being a little too noticeable.
Overall, I'd say that I definitely enjoyed the film, and would recommend it to to almost anyone under thirty, and even lots of people outside that group. There are problems with the movie, but most of them are minor and I think that Garden State's good winds up far outweighing it's bad.
--Mike Sheffler
... turning to the 3-D map, we see an unmistakable cone of ignorance
I liked this movie a lot, but every point you make is totally valid.
What strikes me is that young Zach Braff seems to be the opposite of young Michael Chabon. Braff's scrips sounds good on the surface, but look deeper and the story falls apart. But I confess I didn't look too deeply into it because I was too distracted by the visual splendor of the film. One critic (Ebert, I think) made the observation that Braff makes up for any weaknesses in the script/plot by "directing the bejesus out of it". And that he does. And that is bravery of a sort too - to have the courage to make your movie appear much grander than it is. I think personally I would rather be Braff, with the ability to see and compose these amazing visuals, than Chabon with his strong characters and plots.
By the way, I hadn't heard the Lost in Translation comparison. It sounds like something someone who hadn't seen either film would say. The quote I do remember (Newsweek, I believe) was "Braff has a genuine filmmaker's eye", and that is absoutely true. If you want to see his directon in a nutshell, check out the original preview for the movie (it's on Mike's website). Not only is it probably the best prieview ever made, I think it's better than the film itself.
--Aleah
Good point Aleah, the directing was very good, and inspired at times.
He made good use of slow-motion at really odd times. Something I've never really seen before.
Yeah, I thought that the slow-mo back and forth shot between Braff and Sarsgaard was cool, and is a sign-post that sets up the Wizard of Oz journey in the third act. I won't spoil it for people who haven't seen the movie, but I don't see how everyone seems to be caught off-guard by Sarsgaard's gift at the end of the movie. Cool slo-mo, cool scene, cool act.
--Mike Sheffler
... turning to the 3-D map, we see an unmistakable cone of ignorance
Post a Comment
<< Home