 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
69.61.169.149
In Reply to: Re: Broken Flowers, petals amiss... posted by musetap on January 19, 2006 at 11:28:20:
Perhaps with so many films providing so many answers, after all, most American film caters to teenage boys, their biggest demographic, that when a film comes along that assumes the viewer has some ability to intuit what came before, the viewer is left wanting.Murray played a man who made a fair amount of money within the computer industry. He now no longer needs to work. He is a man, similar those that many of have crossed paths with, who lacks motivation, or creativity. Now that his work is over, he has nothing to occupy his time, developed no interests beyond his work, and cannot think of anything to do with his life, except sit around, listen to music, and drink wine. This lack of motivation caused his live in girlfriend to leave. That is his life story, which is explained throughout the film. Jarmusch requires some participation from the viewer.
Enter this potential child. His neighbor, on the other hand, while seemingly less educated, less wealthy, less "cultured" is much more motivated, and happy, and prompts Murray to begin a journey that, in so far as the film is concerned, provides nothing more than for Murray do something beyond sitting at home.
Murray's character is one of complacency. Frankly, Murray acting like anything other than a zombie would not have been appropriate, because that is what the character demanded. Tom Cruise is not a character actor. He generally acts the same in most films. He is a lead actor. I am not picking on Tom Cruise. Jimmy Stewart generally played the same type of character as well. Murray has developed into a damn fine character actor, which will act depending upon the needs of the character.
Murray's performance, while similar to his role in Lost in Translation, has different nuances. In Translation, he plays a character who goes through the motions of life, and which bring him no joy until he meets a girl who brings a turn off the straight and narrow to his life. In Broken Flowers he plays a character who no longer bothers to go through the motions of life. In Translation, he displayed some of his smarmy attitude, albeit very understated. His character clearly changed after meeting Scarlett, and did so with subtly. On the other hand, in Flowers, he displayed none of that spark.
Patrick, see what you started?
Follow Ups:
I feel really sorry.
John Wayne.
it was ironically friendly...
And we had this already before...
The real force is to be able to say sorry...
...
"Perhaps with so many films providing so many answers, after all, most American film caters to teenage boys, their biggest demographic, that when a film comes along that assumes the viewer has some ability to intuit what came before, the viewer is left wanting."Thanks. And thanks for explaining the film to me- I'da of never figured it out otherwise.Subleties such as you describe- much like Jarmash's "pink" are often lost upon me. As far as participating in film/s, it wasn't my lack thereof or fail to "intuit" that leads me to believe that Murry's character wasn't properly developed. It was the fail to properly develope Murry's character. I'm NOT blaming Murry...
I still think Murry wasn't the right choice. He's been trying to break "form" since he made "Beneath The Volcano" and slowly, succeeding. I like Murry- agree he's a good character actor. Just don't think he was the right guy for the job...
Comparing BP to LIT is probably a poor choice on my part as the character in BP has much more in common with Jack Nicholson's Schimdt, re:complacency/zombie/"wake-up" call/search. They just got there in different ways.And had different reactions. BTW: That's also another "road movie"...Trash Tom Cruise all you want, he couldn't act his way out of a paper bag uless it required him to be angry or nuts.In either case he'd be method acting.
And, after your insights into Broken Petals (intuit, right!) I still think it mediocre and dissapointing.I expect more and better from Jarmush, even if he did make "Year of the Horse". If "Broken Flowers" is poetry it's Rod McCuen and not Lawrence Ferlighetti.
But, who knows? Maybe I'll appreciate it more on a 2nd viewing down the line.
*** Q:Why's the chicken cross the road?
***A: Fats Waller: They don't, they all stay on my side now...***
Martin Donovan?I thoroughly enjoy the work of Jim Jarmush, just for the fact that he tells stories with interesting characters. This reminds me of another favorie of mine, Hal Hartley, who also uses low affect characters to tell his off beat, and to many, what appear as banal stories.
In the case of BF, we see yet another story of mid- life crisis. When you suddenly realize that you have lived most of your life and you actually have less time in front of you than behind you.
What has been accomplished? What happened to your dreams and expectations?
Is this ALL THERE IS?
This guy lived the sweet free high life of the financially successful bachelor, complete with an endless string of temporary sexual trysts that allowed him some pleasure and passion, but never caused him to develop any real intimate relationships.Then it occurs to him that he actually has nothing. Not really.
The insane idea that he may have a son awakens something in him that drives him to discover that one thing he lacks... The last scenes are knockout, IMO. So much of human emotion in so few moments.
I thought the film was a good slice of life that all of us confront in one way or another, and the contrasting liveliness and color of the support characters only proves that we can make a B&W film in technicolor. :)
Later
D
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
