(Warning, spoiler information included)
"Garden State" was an attempt at a coming of age story that takes place in New Jersey that ends up being a movie about home. Why anyone would want to call New Jersey home is beyond me, but that might have been part of the point.
"Garden State" was an ok movie. It wasn't terrible, but it wasn't anything to brag about either. There were a few moments throughout the course of the movie when I was wondering why some of the actors (the lead in particular) weren't being directed. Then I saw the credits: Written, directed, and starring Zach Braff. This is a massive no-no! This means that for as ok "Garden State" was, it could have been three times better. It is bad enough when someone either directs what they've written or stars in what they've directed. But all three are unforgivable (can we say control freak?!) There is a reason that the only person ever to direct himself to a best acting Oscar was Sir Laurence Olivier! The adage is correct and especially in film: two heads, or in this case three, are better than one!
I believe that Zach wanted "Garden State" to be a movie about forgiveness, drugs, choices, and friendship, it really only succeeded in being a movie about "home." "Garden State" makes to statements about home: The home you have is good or bad based on your state of mind; and you can choose the home you will have in the future.
Largeman (Braff) is forced to return home after 9 years when he hears of his mother's death.
All throughout the movie, we are invited into other peoples' homes: The sterile white apartment. The druggy who gets high with his mom and eats breakfast with a knight. The "traditional" home which is outwardly perfect, but has major relational issues. The multi-racial home littered with hampster tubes. The home at the bottom of the quarry in an old boat. The massive home with all that anyone could want, except furniture. But the entire time, the one thing that made one place feel more like home than another was the frame of mind people were in. And when Largeman (Braff) forgives his father, his house becomes a home as well.
The two statements on home are linked when the man who lives in the boat expresses his feelings that as long as he wakes with his wife and his new daughter, it doesn't matter where he lives, it's home. Largeman realizes this when he admits to Sam (Natalie Portman) that when he's with her, he feels like he's home. And he chooses to make his potencial future home to include her.
The Queen of Hearts mentioned that this movie seemed to be about Largeman forgiving himself for what happened to his mother, but instead of telling the whole story, we pick it up after he's done so and he just wants to declare it to the world. I think she has a very valid point!
On a side note, I wonder if the actor playing Mark was trying to channel John Malchovich or if it was purely unintentional.
The color themes were good, but I noticed them, which lowers them a notch. The writing was believable at times, hopelessly unredeemable at others. The acting needed direction. Overall, I give "Garden State" 2.5 out of 5 stars.
By hey, that's just my opinion.
5 comments:
Actually, I really enjoyed Garden State. I found the characters to be very believeable ... and I thought Portman did a great job acting. Heather and I always enjoy Braff, so I liked his performance as well. I don't know ... it felt real to me. And I think it resonates with people; the hopelessness, the futility, the meaninglessness of it all. You just get frustrated because it's like they don't really have anything to live for, y'know? And for most people our age, that's the truth they confront when they lie awake in the middle of the night alone with their thoughts. All this stuff is going on and it's pointless. They're alone even when they're surrounded. I think when Christians watch the movie, we miss out on some of that understanding because if we're clicking with God, then that futility just isn't the same issue for us.
good point on christians missing out on futility...although one could say that christians should be most in touch with a futile state of affairs because is that not our situation without the hope of Christ?
a movie about NJ? Delaware always gets the shaft. where's the movie about DE? It IS a state, you know.
and while I haven't seen it, I am sure that Natalie did an excellent job. The senator from Naboo has the floor!
We should know about futility because we've lived it ... but the reality is, we understand the state we are in the most - it is what is most real to us and the rest fades over time.
There are times when I think I know a pain ... but the reality is, I know about it ... I know longer feel it and so it's reality to me has shifted. What I mean is, while we may understand that there is a futility without Christ, over time we lose the idea of what that actually feels like. Knowing it is different than living it.
If that makes sense.
it does make sense. the experiential reality of the present is certainly different (i.e. more intense or really "real") than what we have experienced in the past. Memories fade over time, that is our nature.
I would balance that by saying we should always (or at least try) to remember the sorry state we came from, because it makes the present (and future) hope in Christ that much more vivid and real. Paul, I think in Romans, was certainly torn up by his former life as he struggled to deal with God's grace that was meted out to him.
perhaps it is not so much solely wallowing in past sins...rather i think christians ought to be humbly conscious of who they are, (which includes past AND present AND future) in the presence of a holy God.
i would say a christian can also be afflicted with seasons of hopelessness, depression and frustration and even lie awake at night too. it doesn't change the blessed hope in Christ's faithfulness towards us, but his gift doesn't grant us a free pass through life, otherwise we would be having this conversation walking on streets of gold already.
now i'm not sure if THAT made sense, either, but you have given me something to think about. thank you.
I know this blog post was from almost a year ago, but I have to say that the actor playing Mark, whom if I remember correctly is Peter Sarsgaard, happened to play John Malkovich's son in The Man in the Iron Mask. Funny eh?
Sarsgaard was in a film I highly recommend, Shattered Glass. See it!
And I loved Garden State. Nice and angsty.
Post a Comment