Reel Thoughts

Under discussion:

Garden State  (2004)

This film happened to be the film that I decided to test features of the Netflix site with, including the mechanisms involved in reorganizing one's queue.  Garden State was, through no fault of its own, kind of far down on the list, which I was rather appalled at.  So, then I started tinkering with reordering and the like, and, long story short (too late), through no relationship to the previous film, Garden State was the next film in my slow but steady movie consumption of late.

I have been wanting to watch this film for a while too.  I am not an avid follower of Scrubs, but I do like Zach Braff quite a bit, whether on that show or in other projects.  I also think Natalie Portman is an excellent actress given whatever material she is handed (including those Star Wars prequels, but let's not mention them anymore here).  I didn't know much about the premise of the film; it was these two actors and also Ian Holm (Bilbo!) that drew me to this one.

Mr. Braff plays Andrew Largeman, a struggling actor in LA living in a relative state of anti-depressant induced numbness, who goes home to New Jersey for his mother's funeral.  There, he must face his psychiatrist father (Holm), who prescribed the astonishing plethora of pills to begin with, so he opts to stop using them for the trip.  While navigating the paths of his hometown and past amidst the fog of reduced pill intake and the cloud of grief for his mother, and the cause of her paralysis (an accident more or less involving him), Largeman or "Large" meets Samantha (Portman), a girl who could not be more different from him.  It is this difference that seems to refresh Largeman and show him the possibility of a future without pills and the baggage of childhood trauma, a future filled with at least some positive change and forward momentum.

Before I write my reviews in general - but after I've rated and tagged the film - I like to scan the different reviews that precede mine, either written by other Spout users or experts or by the All Movie Guide.  I do this for a couple of reasons.  First: I sometimes refresh myself of details because I usually sit on the movie for a day or two when considering how I feel about it, unless the reaction is immediate and intense.  Second: I like to think that I'm exposing myself to all possible viewpoints as a yardstick by which to measure my initial reaction.  My opinion of a film almost never changes through this exercise, but I do find it interesting and relevant to consider how others might view certain parts of a film or the film as a whole as compared to my opinion, to see if I am being fair and honest in my own reaction.

I offer this explanation because the All Movie Guide reviewer suggested that Garden State is "a little too strident in its efforts to reach for cinematic relevance, but it's also ultimately a moving comedy drama that skillfully renders a generation's grudging acceptance of its own thwarted yearnings and subsequent frustration."  Personally, I think this reviewer is both inaccurate and a slight bit on the pretentious and altogether hoity-toity side of the reviewer spectrum.  I loved this movie.  It is not perfect, but I never felt that it was "trying too hard" to be relevant, nor did I think it spoke for my generation (which is X) or the generation following (Y).  I also did not see Garden State as any sort of echo or inspired-by retelling of the Graduate.  In essence, I feel the All Movie Guide reviewer got it wrong.

I think the film said something, not so much about thwarted yearnings and any resulting frustration of a generation as much as about the possibility of turning one's life around when the going seems roughest.  Everyone has bad days, but I also think everyone has bad patches in life that seem to stretch on for longer, sometimes years.  These bad patches often produce a malaise, even apathy, toward everything around a person until something or someone enters one's life and changes the rut, and even if the change is initially negative, the fact that change is happening, that the momentum is shifting, is enough to snap the bad streak.  It is this quality or event that I think was explored with maturity and care by Mr. Braff in this film.  As such, I think the film is relevant, perhaps without trying, because of the universal message it portrays rather than the characterizations and situations that seem generationally specific.  As Zach Braff's first venture into filmmaking, I also thought it was impressive if not wholly respectable, and if there is any "strident" quality to the filmmaking, I would venture to offer that it is the earnestness of a new filmmaker rather than a forced aspiration toward social and cultural relevance.

The biggest reaction I had was that despite the very unusual circumstances in which Largeman found himself, both in the event of his mother's death and his homecoming as well as his life story and background, the characters' reactions were real and believable.  The performances were real.  The suspension of disbelief was complete.  Every actor gave a good performance, especially Zach, Natalie, and Peter Saarsgard, who played Largeman's best friend, and I related to facets of each of the characters.  In many ways, they represented a broad range of emotional archetypes that could be found in any one person as far as the way one individual can react to a situation, be it grief or loneliness or apathy or anything like it.

Like I said, Garden State isn't perfect.  Why oh why was Method Man even given a bit part in this flick?  To give it hip hop credibility?  I found him annoying, even if it was little more than a cameo in the larger emotional scavenger hunt that rounded out the film.  Also, it would have been nice to know what drove Largeman to acting in the first place, since it was mentioned in an inside-joking manner by everyone he met.  In addition, the character Largeman, himself, never reached any kind of searing emotional epiphany, per se, but that's not necessarily a flaw in my eyes as much as it is strange.  I don't care how doped up he may have been, if my mother died, I would be inconsolable, especially if I were somehow freakishly involved in the advent of her paralysis.  Furthermore, I understand why the characters engaged in so much recreational drug use, but the constant return to it felt a bit extraneous in my eyes.  Especially since there's a reviewer out there drawing generational stereotypes from the situations he sees in the movie.

The soundtrack was pretty awesome and rather perfect for the piece.  All in all, I related to this film, which had a good story and a good message.  It also provided me, the viewer, with a broad emotional experience.  I laughed.  I cried.  I cringed.  I puzzled.  In fact, if it weren't for the presence of Method Man and the overt recreational drug use, I might have gone so far as to give this a 10.  So much for that, however.  I think I have to give it a 9 for perfectly entertaining if not perfect.  I also think this film passes the test.  I really enjoyed it and would enjoy it again if given the chance.  I am really hoping Zach Braff writes and directs another movie.  He's got potential, that one.

Under discussion:

Rushmore  (1998)

Rushmore was next up in the magic Netflix queue, no doubt inspired by all of the quirky movies I seem attracted to and have seen recently or want to see.  I was glad to add it.  I have wanted to see this movie for a long time.  I hear nothing but raves about it, and, believe it or not, I had not seen a Wes Anderson flick prior to picking this one up.  Hey, I'm trying, ok?  I want to make myself worthy of being called a "Spout expert" to all of the 13 people who believe it to be true (suckers....JK!!).

But seriously.  Having now taken the plunge, I don't know where I sit with regard to this movie.  I can't say I really loved it.  I can't say that it had me rolling on the floor in fits of laughter.  I can say that I loved its thumb-its-nose take on the traditional teen flick (but I still added it to the Forever Young list), but I can't say that this was a masterpiece, at least not in my reckoning.  I have read some of the reviews, and now I feel like I have missed some sort of revelation that I was supposed to receive from watching this movie but somehow failed to achieve.  Thoughts?

Jason Schwartzman plays Max, a prodigy of sorts and sophomore at Rushmore Academy, who risks expulsion due to his almost obsessive love of extracurricular activities.  I mean, he really likes clubs and activities, and his time is spent almost exclusively on these pursuits.  That is, until one day, when in the library, he locates a book with an inspiring quote and tracks down the source: Miss Cross (Olivia Williams), Rushmore's first grade teacher.  Max's obsession shifts to pursuit of her affections.  In the meantime, Max has befriended an eccentric millionaire/tycoon and Rushmore parent, Mr. Blume (the fabulous Bill Murray) after he gives an offbeat, anti-establishment speech at start of term.  This kindred spirit takes to Max and his lofty ideas, until, through mutual enjoyment of Max's inspired school production of Serpico, he encounters Miss Cross.  A bizarre love triangle forms, and Max and Mr. Blume engage in all-out war.  Not before Max finally gets expelled after trying to build an aquarium on Rushmore's baseball diamond in dedication to Miss Cross.  He is then forced to attend the local public school, as he clings to the offerings of Rushmore Academy and the hope of one day attaining the requited love of Miss Cross, all while ignoring the genuine affections for him displayed by a public school classmate.

This movie was incredibly witty, but not laugh-out-loud funny.  It was almost satirical in its way.   I thought Bill Murray was fabulous; I mean, he really has mastered the art of subtlety, and this film predates Lost in Translation.  The best scene in my opinion was when Mr. Blume first engages in battle with Max, visits the public school, and deliberately runs over his bicycle.  That was one of the only scenes that had me rolling with laughter because it seemed so quintessentially Bill Murray and his comedic style, yet it fit perfectly within the odd framework of this film.

Jason Schwartzman was also pretty fantastic.  I liked how he maintained a faintly disturbing pathos of obsession while also seeming sweet and misunderstood.  It was as if he broached the line of creepy without really crossing it, and that lent itself well to the eccentricity of the character.

The entire film was very original and fresh, even for 2007.  In fact, I found myself drawing comparisons and parallels to Napoleon Dynamite;  now I see where some of the inspiration for that film can be drawn (and, for the record, Rushmore did it better).

I still can't cry "masterpiece!" though.  Perhaps, and just perhaps, it's because I find that Max, a potentially relatable character whose coming of age, a difficult trail off the beaten path of regular maturity, and his journey could also have been unsuccessful, even tragic, though his myopia was meant to be the heart of comedy here.  Perhaps, it's because I have met Max (or a slimmer, less fictionalized version of his otherwise made-for-film character) with similar tendencies, an individual who has taken darker roads in life and has not ultimately learned his lesson.  Or, perhaps, it's because I was expecting more moments that made me genuinely laugh rather than leave me bemusedly engaged.  Another reviewer hit it on the head more articulately and succinctly: there was a strain of melancholy, and it was this melancholy that had me troubled.  The film was so absurd, the melancholy seemed out of place, even as commentary.  I don't even know if I'm making sense, but there you have it.

And maybe I'm not making sense.  I still think the film is very good despite this minor flaw.  Since the flaw may solely be mine, I'll give it an 8.5 (between minor flaws/very good and perfectly entertaining).  I might want to watch it again in the future and see if I like it better, but until if and when that occurs, it does not pass my test.  That does not mean I will not give Wes's other films a try...my queue is chock full of them, and I'm ready for the experience.  I guess I'm just wondering why I didn't think this was a better film, as others seem to think.  I may never have the answer.