Broken Flowers (2005)

[hengcs]

hey,
i have just watched it ...
i am now typing the review ...

do tune back ...
ha ha ha
;)

[hengcs]

Broken Flowers (2005)

Director: Jim Jarmusch
Cast: Bill Murray, Jeffrey Wright, Sharon Stone, Frances Conroy, Jessica Lange, Tilda Swinton, Julie Delpy


At the Cannes Film Festival 2005, it garnered the Grand Prix
see
http://www.festival-cannes.fr/index.php?langue=6002
see also
http://www.festival-cannes.fr/films/...d_film=4278008

The official website is here ...
see
http://brokenflowersmovie.com/


Well, I guess many of you would know the gist of the film by now. It revolves around Don, a bachelor, who received a mysterious letter informing him that he had a son. He then went in search of the probable sender …


What is good …
-- Wow, definitely the soundtrack. I especially like the first song “There is an end!”
;)
-- I like the way the film ends … but will everyone else? … Hmmm … maybe not …
* anyway, I am not going to spoil it for you *
Ironically, the film is about the present … not the past (despite his trip to the past) … but will the audience be “inspired” to live in the present?! … hmmm … maybe not …
-- In the film, the male protagonist would come across several young male (whom he thought could have been his son) … those scenes are good and thought provoking …
;)
-- The performance of the 4 supporting actresses. Despite their very little screen time, they manage to imprint their images in you … interestingly, these women do seem realistic (i.e., you can identify with them as such characters do exist) … but put together, all the past women ended up pretty weird and rather caricature … I wonder if it is for the comical effect?! after all, it is supposed to be a comedy …
-- Ok, I agree that Bill Murray does carry his role with his minimalist approach … but like many actors who might fall into the trap of being typecast (i.e., always given a very similar role and look … he is so like his role in “Lost In Translation”) … can we see him in a very different role?!


What may be problematic …
-- Definitely the pacing, the film is rather slow and not too engaging (esp. with the minimalist approach) … also, it does not become too sentimental or emotional … hmmm, I really wonder if mainstream audience will “connect” with the film …
-- Instead of calling it a comedy, I would rather call it a bittersweet film … DO NOT expect hearty laughs … honestly, I do not hear the audience breaking into much laughter …
* wow … on a weekday afternoon, I can’t believe there is near to 100 people in the theater … I guess it is the first screening in Bay Area, and only in 1 theater … that probably explains it … *
-- Some things are too contrived …
e.g., the naming of Don for Don Juan, and he watched “The Private Life of Don Juan" on TV, and there were some lines about him being Don Juan, etc
e.g., Lolita for Lolita


Conclusion:
Ok ok ok … I know a lot of critics are going to give it rave reviews … BUT forgive me, I guess I set my expectations much too high … such that I feel that it is a good film BUT NOT as high as many critics … oops … it reminds me of my opinion about “Lost In Translation” again … frankly, I think it is slow and not too humorous for mainstream audience …

[Chris Knipp]

JIM JARMUSCH: BROKEN FLOWERS

New again and still himself

Review by Chris Knipp

* * *P O S S I B L E * * * S P O I L E R S * * * *

Jim Jarmusch's Broken Flowers, his deadpan-meets-deadpan adoption of the newly serious minimalist Bill Murray, is certainly one of the American auteur films of the year.

Jarmusch is more conventional than usual in Broken Flowers in its focus on life, love, and loneliness and its use of name actors. Murray's character is named Don Johnston, and the movie jokes around with the similarity of the name to the Miami Vice glamour boy's, a reference that's poitnant since Johnston is, or has been, a Don Juan. Still a bachelor, he's rich from computers. Depressed when Sherrie, his latest girlfriend (Julie Delpy), leaves him, he receives a typed letter on pink paper telling him he has a nineteen-year-old son who's gone traveling and probably aims to look for him. Winston (Jeffrey Wright), Don's Ethiopian neighbor with a beautiful wife, three jobs, and five nice young kids, is an amateur detective, and he persuades Don to write down the names of the women who might have written him the letter. Then he sets up an itinerary, complete with plane and car reservations and MapQuest directions to the ladies' present addresses.

Unwillingly, the still-depressed Don takes several claustrophobic, deadpan Jarmush plane flights and, "a stalker in a [rented] Taurus," visits four women, Laura, Dora, Carmen, and Penny, played respectively by Sharon Stone, Frances Conroy, Jessica Lange, and Tilda Swinton, following Winston's instructions to take them pink flowers, look for pink things, and ask them if they have a typewriter or a son. (The focus on pink indicates that the director, who hitherto seemed most at home in black and whilte, has adopted a more delicate and complex use of color than previously.)

It's all really just a shaggy dog story: it goes nowhere, though several possible sons appear, and each of the visits is specific and droll.

Since Murray's reluctant character's typical gesture is to stare into space, perhaps moving his eyes or lips slightly, Jarmusch accordingly has adopted much longer static takes, and the action drags a bit, by previous Jarmusch film standards. Broken Flowers is a new departure, and feels like mature work. Some of the sardonic hipness has been dropped in favor of quiet resignation, but the movie's still heavy with Jarmusch style and wit. The director's just as feisty and observant as he was in Stranger Than Paradise, but for the time being he's found an ironic alter ego in the hilariously neutral Bill Murray. Like all Jarmusch's movies, this one is sliced into discrete segments, conveniently delineated by the visits to the four women, which become the main episodes, book-ended by opening and closing passages in which Winston appears. As in Stranger Than Paradise, a new character turns up toward the end, only to disappear. This time he leaves no windfall.

You could see Broken Flowers as a jaded reversal of the classic Tom Jones search for the lost father. Instead of ending in a happy reunion and discovered identity, this time the son (Mark Webber), who's probably not, runs away when Don alludes to his fatherhood. But he doesn't say he's the young man's father. He says, "You probably think I'm your father," and the youth appears to think he's mad.

Broken Flowers is about jadedness, ultimately expressed in a feeling that past and future are equally irrelevant, but Jarmusch isn't too bored to provide funny observed behavior rich in contemporary artifact. As always in this director, the action is borderline absurd, but it's more specific and believable than ever, with an outsider's awareness of specifically American absurdities. Since that was equally true of novelist Vladimir Nabokov, one of our best writers and keenest delineators of American kitsch (he naturally preferred the Russian word, poshlost), it's not surprising that Sharon Stone's daughter -- a voluptuous and giggling young charmer who eagerly exhibits her body to Don -- is named Lolita.

Another brand of pervasive American kitsch is the jolly capitalist, and this is where Frances Conroy as shy Dora comes in as one of a husband-and-wife team of real estate agents specializing in prefab mansions. Best and most absurd of all is the girlfriend whose dead dog, Winston (more play with names), turned her from the law to a profitable practice as an "animal communicator." Jessica Lange and Chloë Sevigny are terrific as communicator and receptionist/secretary, who turn out to have a very special relationship.

Jarmusch's early movies were a string of deadpan hilarious zingers. He kept up the pace through the Eighties when he was America's prince of cinematic hipness. He took a few side trips, notably his haunting (but always absurd and hilarious) masterpiece, Dead Man, which was Johnny Depp's most recessive and also his greatest role; the Neil Young tribute Year of the Horse; and Ghost Dog:The Way of the Samurai.

Broken Flowers confirms Jarmusch's ability to grow while remaining pristinely sui generis. Don Johnston might seem his most sympathetic portrait except that we know so little about the man that he winds up being more neutral than sympathetic. But that's the point. Don Juan or not, in the end Murray's a male everyman, bumbling with women, out of touch with his past, miserable and unmotivated and essentially confused yet soldiering on, curiously self-possessed -- ultimately alone. (Broken Flowers won the grand prize at Cannes this year. This is at once a tribute to a very fine screenplay and directing job, and recognition of twenty-five years of outstanding and consistently original work.)

Posted on Chris Knipp website.

[Johann]

I kowtow to you CK.
I now feel like I've seen the movie.

I went to see Batman again with my roomie, and we saw the poster for Broken Flowers in the lobby. Post haste I asked the staff if I could have it. As they took my name and number my roommate said "don't you want that one?", pointing to another different poster of the same film, a darker one. "That one has too much pink in it for a man's wall".

So I am also struck with Jarmusch using pink as a dominant color.
If any man could use pink powerfully my guess is it's Jim.

[Chris Knipp]

Don't let this keep you from seeing the movie, Johann -- it's great. And by the way the theater in SF was packed last night and people were laughing, plenty, though not uproariously. The focusing on color and a delicate one at that does I think definitely show he's opening up his camera to more variety, and finally not uneasy with color as he may have been, since some of his best stuff is in black and whilte. It's possible to be an artist and not be a colorist -- he's definitely growing, but remaining Jim Jarmusch. I honor him for that. Only a few directors manage it.

[hengcs]

Hey Chris,
I thought the ending was very good, but you gave it away ...
;PPP

Some people (who have not watched the film) did ask me if he managed to locate his son ...

[wpqx]

Yeah Chris I think a "spoiler alert" would be wise for your review.

Now I have to disagree with Chris and Hegncs about the pacing. This film flew by for me, much more than any previous Jarmusch film. In fact I thought it was too short, went by way to fast. I would have loved an extra half hour of the film, it was that damn good to me.

Now some of it may seem predictable, the fact that four women could be the mother, I knew that we wouldn't have a film if woman number one was the mother, or two, etc. So basically Jarmusch had the option of offering the mother as the fourth person, or none at all. I hate that the conventions of story telling force this to be the case, but these other characters make the film worthwhile. This isn't so much a "can Don find his son", as much as it's a "look what happened to these people" story.

Don's relationship with his various exes seems to digress as the film goes on. The first one is extremely friendly, and has a daughter who takes after her mother quite noticably. Then you have the insanely boring married couple. This is a feat, to make boring funny. Many a laugh was heard as Don forked four carrots at once, such a simple touch, but effective. For once Murray's deadpan expression fit absolutely perfect, he was looking bored for a reason. Then there was the "busy" Dr. who couldn't give Don a dinner, a drink, or even a walk. And the last one ended with a punch in the face, so what seemed like a potentially fun trip, slowly spiralled downward.

I had to laugh at the line about a "stalker in a Taurus", because I happen to drive a Taurus myself. Granted everyone else in the theater found it pretty damn funny too. The film's humor bears many similarities to Sideways. It is an adult film about relationships, and of course a road trip. It remains to be seen if critics are going to laud this film as much at the end of the year, but so far it's been getting rather positive reviews.

Now for the question that's been bugging me all day, when did Jim Jarmusch become a director for senior citizens? I was the only person in a theater of about 80 people under the age of forty. And when I say old people were the audience, I mean old. There were senile old folks who couldn't find the screen (yes the big thing in front that the movie was playing on), having problems with hearing aids, wandering around aimlessly looking for a seat, walkers, canes, and all the rest. I began to wonder what brought this crowd out. Jarmusch was supposed to be a hip director, I expected a much younger crowd. I also never new Bill Murray to be a favorite of the grandparents, so I wondered what it was. My best guess could be that Roger Ebert (trusted critic to many Chicago citizens) gave it 4 stars. His word is as good as gold for many of these people, and that could have explained why they went to see this film. I had to laugh before the show at another old man wandering into the wrong theater several times looking for Bergman's new movie which he called "Caravan". I shouldn't laugh too hard though because I will probably be that old someday.

Anyways I thought the film was fantastic, and I might have to watch Dead Man again, but as of now, this is my favorite Jarmusch film, exceeded any expecations I had for it. Good film to see for my 22nd birthday.

[Chris Knipp]

wpqx,

I'm glad to see you excited about a movie, which you don't often seem to be. I have to laugh at what you say about old people. And where I saw it was different though. I sat next to a young teenager, and there were mostly under-40 people with a few older ones including me. Look at it this way: when Jarmusch got started in the early Eighties, the 40-somethings that liked his stuff were pretty hip, and maybe those are the 60-somethings staggering around in your auditorium now.

The fact that the movie was slow for me might partly, but only partly, be due to my feelings and circumstances of viewoing at the time the other day. I know I would enjoy seeing it again. I think it's miles away from Sideways, because it's so phatic and deadpan, and because it's Jarmusch, man! Just because you see a hip movie about somebody driving around in a car seeing people....

I have been told about spoilers, and I will try to edit out that part which you aren't the first person to warn me I should have kept quiet about. I'm sorry.

I hope you understand that what I wrote was an appreciation. I like this movie a lot.

Do see Dead Man again. It's a work of genius.

[hengcs]

Originally posted by wpqx
... Now I have to disagree with Chris and Hegncs about the pacing. This film flew by for me, much more than any previous Jarmusch film. ...

Well, I am treating my friend to a film tomorrow, and my friend wants to watch Broken Flowers ... so let me see if my opinions change ... ha ha ha ...

Well, I guess I am comparing this film to other films, not necessarily specific to Jarmusch ... so, it does not move very fast ...

DISCLAIMER: The following should NOT be taken as a criticism, but some personal very humble opinions and speculations ...

As for other "indie" films that are mentioned in this thread,

-- I like "Sideways" but I "disagree" with many critics that it was the "best" film of 2004 ... maybe because I am not an american?! and I told my friends it wouldnt be a success overseas (did it?) ... nonetheless, I agree that it had a very good script ...
(when I mention I am not an american, I mean ... maybe americans know the cast so well and see a "breakthrough" of performance and maybe they love comedy more ...)

-- I only find "Lost In Translation" average ... why? because I like "In The Mood of Love" much better ... and I thought the former is too "similar" to the latter, but the former doesn't move as fast and it tends to stereotype (or make fun of) some Japanese culture ... Likewise, I suspect Americans know Bill Murray very well (at least much better than the rest of the world) and see a breakthrough in his performance ...

-- Likewise, for "Broken Flowers", I wonder if Americans actually like it because of Bill Murray?! or can connect with the "familiarity" of the 4 households (i.e., at least in US) ... I personally enjoy the 4 households but find them too caricature ...

[hengcs]

Originally posted by wpqx
Yeah Chris I think a "spoiler alert" would be wise for your review.

... Now some of it may seem predictable, the fact that four women could be the mother, I knew that we wouldn't have a film if woman number one was the mother, or two, etc. So basically Jarmusch had the option of offering the mother as the fourth person, or none at all. ...

Hmmm ...
I do not think the structure is a limiting factor ...

if I were to film this, I would give it a "twist" that it could be any of the four or none, and he "bypassed" them without detection ...
-- after all, he was not very acute or caring ...
-- moreover, the woman might think he was undeserving of being a father, and had changed her mind NOT to tell him ...
-- or maybe, the woman faced a dilemma of telling and not telling, but ultimately chose not to, for fear of the son leaving her ...
-- etc etc etc

But in the end, I will still let him NOT know
... but drop some hints to the audience
... HA HA HA

[wpqx]

Well perhaps some day you can do a remake, and like Burger King, have it your way.

Just want to repeat that I thought this film was fantastic.

[Chris Knipp]

I love this film myself too, and don't think it needs to be tweaked or remade.

hengcs--

Jarmusch has always been very much admired abroad, perhaps more in Europe than the Far East though. In the Far East, isn't it likely that the subtleties of American social behavior may elude people? Whereas in Europe there is a fascination with them.

I agree with you completely on Sideways, and on Lost in Translation. The condescending treatment of Japanese culture was something that eluded American viewers. It did not elude Japanese friends of mine, who were not impressed. However, for me it might be worthwhile to watch this movie again sometime, because at the time I was turned off by the fact that the audience had decided it was a masterpiece before the opening credits rolled.

I don't think you "get" Broken Flowers completely if you are looking to find out who the mother is. It's a shaggy dog story, i.e., a joke (or jokey story) whose outcome has nothing to do with the expectations initially aroused. The key to the story is the story. There's nothing to be found out. Whatever Don Johnston did in the past, he only has now. And he's alone. Those portraits of women are hilarious and spot-on, but they have nothing to do with him now, not even the one who goes to bed with him and has a daughter who seems to want to too.

wpqx--

I would still argue that the pace of Broken Flowers is less snappy than Jarmusch's earlier movies. That's not a fault, just a fact. Or a maybe fact. My guess is that in Stranger Than Paradise, Down by Law, etc. not to mention Coffee and Cigarettes, which has to be considered an important central work for Jarmush fans (even though I didn't like it that much the first time I saw it, and I haven't seen it a second time -- yet), ----- the sequences are shorter, and so cut off quicker.

[hengcs]

Hey,
I have just returned from my 2nd viewing with my friend (not an American) ...
;)
Unfortunately, my friend also agreed that the pace was slow ... although we both felt that the film was good ...

What I like ... but did not mention last time ...
-- Consistent with the theme of present and past, there were 3 scenes (or 4?!) that filmed the road ahead (i.e., the future) but the camera on the side/rear mirror (i.e., the past) ...
-- I also like the soundtrack, apart from the main song ...

What I did not like ... but did not mention last time ...
-- I think this scene was very contrived (apart from all the "names") ... His friend was surfing the web about solving mysteries, and then Don appeared with a mystery ... ok, we know his neighbor enjoy solving mysteries, but it is too laud ...
* naughty grin *

Conclusion: (after 2nd watch)
-- I still think it is good BUT not a masterpiece ...
(which reminds me of what critics seem to like about Sideways and Lost In Translation)


PS: Are some jokes too localized?
e.g., the joke about "stalking in a Tauras" ... care to explain further?!
e.g., seeing the plate of carrots, rice and meat neatly arranged?!

[Chris Knipp]

I feel like a stalker in a Taurus.

He's tracking down women -- he's a stalker. He feels like an idiot; he isn't getting anywhere; the Taurus is unworthy of him -- he's a wealthy man -- so it mocks him and his situation that he's in a Taurus. This line appeals to just about everybody and it sticks in your mind. Something about the image, and the repeated vowel sound, aw, aw, staw-her, taw-rus.

The plate with the food neatly arranged in quadratic shapes indicates the tightness of the people, the bloodlessness of their life, its sterility. This scene reminded me very much of the dining room scenes in American Beauty, and was to me an indication that Jarmusch was edging a bit more toward the mainstream with this sequence.

[hengcs]

Hey ... thnks ...

(1) So, I explained to my friend about the porche and taurus correctly (i.e., about being "cheapskate", my exact words) ... However, I did not think about the vowels though ... anyway, I just chuckled when he mentioned "why not get me a porche ..." but not really because of "I'm a stalker in a taurus" ...

(2) As for the plate scene, neither my friend nor I find it very funny ... the paintings were funnier though ... ha ha ha ... maybe because our country is too famous/notorious for being too neat/clean?! ... ha ha ha