Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Well, now that I'm on spring break and a have a little bit of time on my hands, I can't think of anything to blog about. Well, I can think of stuff, but I can't get my motivation up.
I'll try a movie review. Okay, maybe not a review, but a stream-of-consciousness rant/babble.
DVM Wannabee's First-Ever Online Movie Rant
Saw
Garden State last week in response to the high recommendations of three, count 'em
three, reliable friends. One said it changed his life. One said the characters were "real" and the ending was great enough to make up for slow moments throughout. Another said Natalie Portman was hilarious.
I wasn't impressed.
Yes, the movie had a very original, pretty look, good music and some funny characters. But I thought Portman, as adorable as she is, took a while to make her character believable (overacting?). The script was okay. The characters were likeable and/or funny--in fact, I know I've run into almost all of them some time in my life. Their situations were just plain odd, but somewhat entertaining.
So why wasn't I that impressed? What really bothered me about the movie?
It wasn't
about much, except a bunch of middle-class white folks' sour luck, lack of ambition, and general angst about life. Not a super original theme. Fine--people like this are real and exist in the real world, but do I really need to watch them talk for two hours?
As for American Suburban Angst, it can be done well.
Holden Caulfied did it first, did it best, and since then, it's been overdone, over and over again.
And as for real characters--these people were real, but very boring to watch, because I didn't
care about their problems.
Braff's character (I don't remember the characters' names) isn't thrilled with his life as a waiter/actor in L.A. He comes home to his New Jersey hometown, for the first time in nine years, to attend his mother's funereal. And, of, course, it's not just about his mother's death, but it's about his unresolved problems with his mother, father, childhood, et cetera. I'll admit, his situation is unique and problematic, but his character just isn't that interesting. (Perhaps because he's been doped up on antidepressants--prescribed by his psychiatrist father--half his life?)
Portman plays a funny, quirky girl Braff meets his first day home. Her character is goofy and charming, but not enought to inspire--only enough to escape self-pity and make her otherwise uninspired life more palatable for herself.
Peter Sarsgaard plays an old high school friend of Braff's, one character in the movie I can come close to admire. Even though his life of digging graves and living with his mom may seem lame to others, he's happy with himself, and thus okay with his life (but maybe this is all due the pot he smokes?). Sarsgaard gives a subtle perfomance, which makes his character more believable and truly funny at those odd moments in the movie. Still, his character is not the feature of the film, and the movie still plays slow for me.
The funniest characters are the peripheral ones--the guy who works at the local hardware store who pushes his pyramid scheme on everyone he meets, the former delinquent-turned-cop, and the moms of Portman's and Sarsgaard's characters, one who smokes pot and sleeps with guys her son's age, the other who hosts a menagerie of pocket pets. I don't know why, but I like these character the best. Maybe because they're weird, or maybe because they remind me of people I see every time I visit my own home town.
The only
admirable character in the movie is Portman's "adopted" brother, who came from Africa to the local college to study criminal justice, and walks around the house dusting for pawprints to learn which pet "peed on the remote." As Portman's character puts it, "Can you believe he used to be one of those kids with the flies on his face?"
But all these mildly entertaining moments were not worth the wait. Yes, I guess I'm just a hard-ass who can't appreciate this kind of surreal, brooding film. But give me real people with real problems, who do more about their situation than ponder and talk and "try" to shed a tear, and you've got my interest. (Oh--and I don't believe for a minute that falling in love with someone in four days can make your life better, if your life and your sense of self was miserable to begin with--this myth is the basis for many a failed marriage.)
I have no interest in these stories of unresolved childhood issues, ennui, and "romantic love" coming in to save the day. Give me an angst film with
hope (and not the kind that's just based on romantic "love"). Why? Because that's reality. Hope is real.
Reality isn't about the world being a grey place because you're bored or unsatisfied with your own life. People with real problems can't afford the luxury of ennui. Real love doesn't happen in four days and offer a quick fix to the dullness of an uninspired life.
Reality means the world goes on spinning no matter how bummed out or bored we get about our own lives. Reality means that there are billions of people out there with problems much more real than ours. Truly
real people find solutions to their problems and/or move on--they have no other choice. Real love requires both people to have a strong spirit and an ability to love themselves.
You want an angst story about real people who seek real solutions to real problems? Watch
The Motorcycle Diaries. Better yet, read the memoirs. If you won't watch that because you have issues with Che Guevara, see
Boyz in the Hood.
You want a more touching, more believable love story about a free spirit inspiring a new lease on life? Watch
Harold and Maude.
Or, if you want to watch two hours (but it felt like three) of a bunch of twenty-somethings pondering their pain and the dullness of their lives, and you appreciate pretty cinematography and totally inplausible yet cliche endings, watch "Garden State."
Sorry, guys.
At least the music was good.
