« BatJack’s Game | Home | Jumpin’ Juniper, Batman! »
Broken Flowers: Broken Formula
By Corvus | August 22, 2005
Typically when I get done watching a film by Jim Jarmusch, I feel as if I’ve just sat through a tremendous cinematic feast. His directional pacing is quite slow, which gives you plenty of time to absorb all the messages the film is presenting, even if they aren’t immediately apparent. The result is a deep, rich, experience which leaves you satisfied and happy.
Ghost Dog, for example, is a mob movie on the surface. The next layer is about race relations and how true friendship crosses cultural boundaries. The next layer is a message about the impossibility of living by a rigid moral code in a society with no fixed moral compass.
Dead Man, a sprawling, sepia-toned western, becomes commentary on the expansion of Europe, of capitalism, and of religion, across early America. When that layer is peeled back, it becomes an afterlife journey, mythic in structure from the very first frames of film.
Down By Law, on the surface a prison escape movie, deals with cultural differences, friendship, and the desire for family and connection.
This is the pedigree of Jim Jarmusch and it was with great expectation that Ms. Knittiot and I decided to spend the money to see a Broken Flowers Sunday matinee.
I left the theater, two hours later, hungry. Technically, there is nothing wrong with this film. It had Jarmusch’s characteristic slow pacing, his inclusion of realistically complex secondary characters, his understated, laconic, storytelling. What it didn’t have, that I can find, is depth. The central tale of Don Jaun’s loneliness is obvious, up front, and made extraordinarily clear from the outset. From the central character’s name, Don Johnston, to the initial scene Don watching a Don Jaun movie on television, the theme works its way through the surface of the film. It wasn’t until the last few moments of the film that I felt it finally started to breath. The last few shots were the first that I truly felt that tug of, “Oh, here he is, layered and complex as always.”
Typically I leave a Jim Jarmusch film discussing the tone, the themes, the performances. Ms. Knittiot and I left Broken Flowers counting product placements. Not a good sign. If this was Jim Jarmusch’s attempt at a mainstream film, he did a good job, right up until the final moments of film, which seemed to loose much of the audience (keep reading to discover my reactions to those final moments).
Bill Murray does a good job in this movie. Not, I feel, a great job. Where Bill is well able to portray surface emotions well, I don’t feel his performance lent any depth to the character at all. Walking out of the theater, I commented that the role would have been amazing played by someone like Ben Kingsley.
Where the acting truly shines is in the supporting cast. Much has been made of Jeffrey Wright’s performance as Don’s best friend, Winston. Wright protrayed a delightfully expressive contrast to Murray, but I didn’t feel his role to be much more than a plot device. The women from Johnston’s past, however, are incredible. Sharon Stone, Frances Conroy, Jessica Lange, and Tilda Swinton provide amazing snapshot glimpses into the lives of these women with whom we spend very little screen time.
The writing, direction, and performance, converge on the moments when Don visits his old flames, hinting that the pain we believe we may have inflicted on others are results of their choices, their paths, and that we shouldn’t carry the guilt. The sub-text of these scenes screams behind the dialogue, in a very familiar Jim Jarmusch style. Even so, they felt weighed down by the context of the very obvious major themes of Don’s journey. Had the overall framework of the movie concealed such depth, it would have been a treat. Instead, I walked away feeling as if I’d just been fed cinematic bread and water. Whole grain bread, perhaps, and refreshing spring water, but not the fair I’ve come to expect from my favorite director.
For Ms. Knittiot’s reactions to the film, you can check out her review as well.
|
August 22nd, 2005 at 7:23 am
Maybe someday we should violently disagree in our reviews. That might have a tad bit more entertainment value
August 22nd, 2005 at 7:28 am
Or, at the very least, discuss our reviews beforehand and focus on different aspects of the film!
Heh. If you want violent disagreement, I suppose we could post about our impressions of Six Feet Under. *nirg*
August 22nd, 2005 at 8:41 am
I just scored myself a copy of Dead Man this weekend, having never gotten around to seeing it. Just found it a strange coincidence to find it mentioned on your blog this morn. Perhaps what they call synchronicity? Or maybe the old “once you focus on something you start seeing it everywhere.
Have only seen Ghost Dog from that pedigree.
Later.
August 22nd, 2005 at 9:41 am
That is interesting, Mr. Pi. I’ll be curious to hear your impressions of both movies. If you were so inclined, the pa·pa·raz·zi forum of the Attic (registration required) is a good spot to spout your opinion on film among a select group of people with often divergent, but typically intelligent tastes in cinema.
August 22nd, 2005 at 12:48 pm
Dead Man is one of my favorite all-time atmosphere movies. The music was probably some of the most flavorful of all as well. I just loved that movie, and just sat back and enjoyed the post-movie feeling as well.
Alternatively, I simply hated Ghost Dog. I just didn’t get it at all. It felt disjointed and themeless.
I have reviews of both on my movie site, http://www.anaze.us/HomeTheater/ . I’ve slowed down watching movies lately - it comes and it goes.
August 22nd, 2005 at 2:47 pm
Wow. Is it possible you have no soul?
Kidding aside, perhaps you just weren’t in the mood for it when you saw it? Theme-less it certainly is not and the only disjointed elements felt very intentional to me, as all the central character’s choices are at odds with his survival. That’s bound to cause a bit of discomfort in the audience.
August 23rd, 2005 at 8:36 am
Not sure - I’m usually in the mood for a Jaramusch film and was surprised amyself t just how much of a muddle I felt Ghost Dog was. I was particularly annoyed by the mobsters depictions, as they were broad farces of characters and it didn’t seem to me he knew what he wanted from them. And I will agree, the Zen-like philosophy used by the central character is something I find to be nothng more than Eastern mumbo jumbo, so it would grate on me in any case.
Some movies work, some don’t.
August 23rd, 2005 at 8:38 am
Oh, and I had wondered about Broken Flowers. It seemed yet another minimalist movie for Murray, after another *very* low-key movie in Lost in Translation. While I think I enjoyed Lost, there really wasn’t much there in the end, so it wasn’t all that fulfilling.