Garden State
I feel like I’ve seen a run of bad films lately. Going to the cinema has become a recipe for disappointment. Garden State is not a bad film — in fact, it’s damn good. But if I’m over-enthusiastic it’s probably because I’ve come from watching Hero and Bridget Jones 2, and was desperate for something interesting.
Garden State‘s strength is in its intriguing characters, which immediately separates it from the two films I mentioned in the previous paragraph. Andrew Largeman has been on Lithium since he was ten years old, and has finally come to the decision that there might not actually be anything wrong with him — sadly, he’s not seen his family for nine years, and this decision comes too late to share with his mother, who dies at the start of the film. Largeman returns from Los Angeles to attend the funeral, and finds contact with both old and new friends begins to reawaken him.
I’ve always wanted to like Natalie Portman, but over the last few years her turns in Star Wars I and II have made this a bit difficult. This film makes it easier again. Portman plays a quirky girl called Sam, who Andrew meets at the neurologist. I’m always a bit leery of American attempts at ‘quirky’ characters, as they so often end up simply stupid.[ftn] There are one or two moments where Sam looks in danger of falling into this trap, but some excellent dialogue and Portman’s acting save her from this.
Largeman’s grave digging/robbing friend Mark is perhaps a shade more interesting, via Peter Sarsgaard’s dangerous performance. There’s an underlying menace to a lot of his scenes, and yet there’s also a strong friendship shown between him and Andrew. I’m not quite sure how he managed this combination, but it goes a long way to making this film intriguing as well as funny. The other strong performance is Ian Holm’s quiet, understated Gideon Largeman. Holm pulls off an impressive American Jewish accent, and manages some dry humour and honest sadness — making a potentially unsympathetic role much more deep.
The film is written by, directed by, and stars Zach Braff of TV’s Scrubs, and he brings a lot of the crazy atmosphere of his show to this film. Of particular note is the near-perfect scene when Sam accompanies Largeman to a friend’s house after they meet. The first half of the film is packed with excellent, quirky jokes that are played with slow but perfect timing. As an actor, Zach does a good job of slowly emerging from his stupor, and achieves an endearing performance despite the strong alienation at the start. He even manages to make a few speeches that should have sounded awful play alright, due to his natural and compelling delivery.
There’s enough good things in the first half of the film to make you fall in love with it — which is lucky for the film, as the last half is occasionally quite painful. Garden State avoids most micro cliches, but runs headlong into a bunch of larger ones. I suppose you can see it coming from the premise, but Andrew’s journey out of his bland existence, and relationship with Sam, start to point you inevitably to two conclusions; either everything’s going to end up really happy, or someone’s going to die.[ftn] And while you’re desperately hoping something more interesting might happen, you lose a bit of faith every time one of the characters makes a long speech about life and death and what have you. Andrew’s first monologue, in the pool, is alright, but from there it’s down, down, down, and you’re almost expecting Aunt May to pop in and explain to everyone why we need heroes.
Ultimately this film is a shade disappointing, but I found it charming enough in the beginning to forgive its later sins. While there’s no denying Natalie Portman cries better than almost any other actor I’ve ever seen, I could have done with less of this — and Ian Holm deserved a more dynamic final scene than the passive one that he ends up with. Garden State may be corny, but it’s also interesting and funny. If you can stand a bit of cheese, you’ll like this movie — and if you don’t, just leave when it starts raining.
Footnotes
- Dharma, for instance. Or any number of comic relief sidekicks in hollywood movies.
- The Jackson Rule of try-hard cinema, so named after its discoverer.
Andy
December 1st, 2004 at 2:18 am
As it’s Zach Braff’s first film, are you willing to forgive his cliched ending?I’ve heard only good things about this film, so it should temper my expectations to know that it isn’t flawless.
Jack
December 1st, 2004 at 6:44 pm
This film sounds like it is a victim of some misclassification. It is essentially a romantic comedy – so being criticising the level of cheese is simlar to critisising an action film for having too many explosions. Same with the ending.
What I find interesting is that had we seen something like Notting Hill or Love Actually we wouldn’t have even blinked at the cheese and the cliches. Yet like you Tom I seemed to have different expectations when I went in. Is that being unfair on the film? Did you feel like it was trying to be (or pretending to be) something else?
I don’t know. It just feels like a vaguely interesting discussion topic.
Tom
December 1st, 2004 at 7:14 pm
I agree to an extent but I think there’s a different kind of cheese in this film. Notting Hill doesn’t have five or so monologues about how the main character is going to fix up his life at the end. It’s solely concerned with being funny and getting the characters together.
This film is about more than that — which is good — but I think it does a bit too much talking and a bit too little showing at the end. But in answer to Andy’s question, I certainly forgive it. I’m sure his next film will be much better.
But there was big cheese, big big “look at me, I’m really deep” cheese. Not so much with the two of them getting together, but with the “abyss” lines and the talking to his dad at the end.