Son Flowers

Jim Jarmusch's latest feature, Broken Flowers, begins much in the same way as 1981's Stripes -- with Bill Murray's girlfriend dumping him. This time, however, it's Julie Delpy walking out the door, and not for his lack of ambition, but rather his lack of commitment. Murray plays Don Johnston (with a 't'), a reluctant, improbable Don Juan who seems to be content sitting on his sofa listening to music (be it Fauré or Marvin Gay) or watching television -- it's hard to tell for sure, as his stoic nature reveals not even the tiniest hint of emotion. He's an independently wealthy committed bachelor whose only social interaction is with his Ethiopian friend Winston (the phenomenal Jeffrey Wright), who lives next door with his wife and kids. The arrival of an anonymous typewritten letter on pink stationary sets the plot in motion, as Don learns that one of his former flames gave birth to his son twenty years ago. Winston, who fancies himself a bit of a gumshoe, is determined to figure out which one of them wrote the note, and persuades Don to visit all of them, searching for clues in the process. Thus Don ventures forth on the proverbial journey that takes him outward across America so that he may look inward at his soul -- the kind of plot that is highly combustible in the wrong hands. But not to worry -- Jarmusch knows all too well what he's doing. To begin with, he chose four wonderful actresses to play the roles of four very distinct and unique women -- there's not a shred of commonality between any of them, other than their trysts with this latter day lothario. Sharon Stone plays Laura, the NASCAR wife with the teenage temptress daughter (aptly named Lolita). Frances Conroy is Dora, the former radical turned sterile zombie wife to über-salesman Christopher McDonald. Jessica Lange's Carmen gave up her prestigious law career in order to become an animal communicator, while Penny (an unrecognizable Tilda Swinton) is the poorest of poor white trash. Don's visits go from awkward to downright disastrous, and with each successive ex he becomes bolder in his line of questioning -- there is evidence in each household such that any one of them could be the author of the mysterious letter, and Don's patience (and interest) is waning. Part of the film's success (beyond the performances, which are all stellar) is the way in which Jarmusch tells the story. The ham-fisted symbolism and heavy use of cliché is intentional, and he succeeds in subverting them to the point where they genuinely regain meaning. It's pretty ballsy to have a scene of Don visiting the grave of an ex-girlfriend, and then to have it start raining -- and to do this unironically. It is precisely on this point that Jarmusch fans will be split -- the wry, sardonic wit of his early films is absent here, and some will find this new approach little more than a commercial sell-out. Yet as Aaron H pointed out on Friday, the accessibility of Broken Flowers (when compared to Dead Man, or even Ghost Dog for that matter) does not equate it with commercial pabulum. The mainstream folk that ventured into indie waters for Lost in Translation will no doubt be let down by this stripped down, quiet work which doesn't resolve itself in the way they are used to. Comparisons to films like Sideways or About Schmidt are reductive at best. To call this "just another white guy with a mid-life crisis" movie is to miss Jarmusch's point exactly. What Dead Man did for the Western, and Ghost Dog for the....well, inner-city Samurai assassin film, Broken Flowers does for the ur-romantic dramedy. Bill Murray gives the strongest performance of his career, and Filmbrain strongly disagrees with those that claim he is playing the same sad-clown character that carried him through a trio of Wes Anderson films, Lost in Translation and even Jarmusch's own Coffee and Cigarettes. Yes, the Bill Murray trademark deadpan is evident throughout, but what's missing is the sarcastic nature, the sly one-liners, and the sense of privilege found in Herman Blume, Bob Harris, or Steve Zissou. Murray evokes a real sense of pathos, yet without a trace of sentimentality, and there's a complexity to Don that was non-existent in the aforementioned characters. Don internalizes things to the point where we wonder if he's able to feel anything at all, and it's only in a moment of brief flirtation with a young florist that we get a sense of how this stone of a man could ever have been such a cocksman. His character is very much like the men in several of Hong Sang-soo's films, and though there's a greater distance between Jarmusch and his characters (Hong is often both autobiographical and self-critical), the similarities, especially in their approach towards women and the past, is striking. Jarmusch created the role exclusively for Murray, and it's his most subtle, nuanced, and reserved role to date. Broken Flowers is chock full of the type of scenes that Filmbrain loves best -- awkward, uncomfortable conversations between former lovers that ring too true, complete with pregnant pauses, extended silences, and furtive glances -- and he admits that his reaction to the film is perhaps a bit more subjective than usual. Even so, this is unmistakably Jarmusch -- the idiosyncracies, the deliberate pacing, even the eclectic soundtrack will all feel very familiar to fans of the director's earlier works. Jarmusch may be courting a wider audience, but unlike peer Gus Van Sant, he hasn't gone all mushy and created a Good Will Hunting. The misleading trailer tries to sell it as just another Bill Murray comedy, but don't be fooled -- while there are indeed humorous moments, Broken Flowers is a dramatic character study more akin to Ghost Dog than to Ghostbusters. Quite possibly one of the best films of 2005. Broken Flowers opens on August 5 nationwide. The MPAA has rated it R for, amongst other things, "MAJOR DRUG USE", which must mean ten seconds of somebody smoking a joint, for that's all Filmbrain can remember.

Comments

[la_depressionada]

i saw the trailer during my unhappy excursion to Last Days. The actresses seem superb. And speaking of Gus Van Sant, I've always pretty much loathed him (although parts of Drugstore Cowboy were amusing owing to Matt Dillon's behavioral resemblance to no. 1. his mother hid her purse anytime he came over), however now I am on a full force rampage of hatred against GvS.

Last Days took 55 minutes of precious life from me (minutes which i do not have to spare) and did some permanent damage to some the dearest parts of my brain. It was a trauma and a torture to sit through that much. NSFPC (not safe for the politically correct): I have known other gays guys like this. Listen: NOT EVERY GOOD LOOKING GUY IS GAY NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU WANT THEM TO BE. I fucking hate the skewed view through the gayifying lens (and don't get me wrong, i love honest gay, lesbian, transgendered cinema). I hate the wishful thinking shit he does.

[Filmbrain]

Why only 55 minutes? Could you not sit through it to the end?

[la depressionda]

yup couldn't stand it. well you know me: not nearly sensitive or cultured enough for such an elegiac masterpiece.

after i read the reviews in the times and the voice all i could think was, so now nuance (re: the mystery of life and creativity and other IMPORTANT STUFF) = one of those big hammers jerry was always taking to tom's head.

[Steve]

With respect to LAST DAYS, what "gayifying lens" are you talking about? The scene where 2 of Blake's male hanger-ons sleep together? For a film about a guy who flirted with bisexuality and androgyny (albeit mostly as a rebellious image), that seems perfectly appropriate.

I liked ELEPHANT a great deal and LAST DAYS much less, but I'm bemused by the way they polarize people. Is van Sant turning into the American Lars von Trier?

[la depessionada]

incredibily insightful lvt comparision, although perhaps somewhat unkind to von trier.

re: gayifying (did i spell that right?). no, i love seeing 2 guys make out and yes, re: bisexuality and androgeny. it's more ineffable than that.

in every gvs movie since the beginning (and i don't claim to have seen every one), i experience this yearning by the filmmaker to restructure the world based upon a particularly kind of gay male paradigm. now, i'm not thrilled with the heterosexual paradigm, but as i said before, i have experienced this with very dogmatic (and mostly male but sometimes female) gay and lesbian (usually brilliant) filmakers artists and intellectuals.

it attempts to assert a kind of purity of emotion? morality? sexuality? the conduit of which is often very good looking young guys or outlaw women or some other highly valued gay archetype. it's irritating. it's wishful thinking.

i hope this is helpful. it is not, i must reiterate, homophobia, more like disingenuousnessophobia, in this particular case utilizing male homosexuality. believe me it happens in other instances, my diatribe on the whimsical female paradigm (as typified by that audrey tatou montmaking movie which has become a kind of subcategory of female indie filmmaking) would 3x as long. it's the wishful thinking as opposed to authenticity experience that bothers me.

i prefer the grittier 70s paradigm, although of course, historical problems are inherent there.

forgive any ex temp errors.

[la depressionada]

monmartre.

[Steve]

I see what you mean about van Sant wanting to restructure the world around male beauty and gay desire, but this is no different from what hundreds of heterosexual male filmmakers have done with beautiful women. Or what Claire Denis does with beautiful men and her heterosexual female desire in BEAU TRAVAIL. (In general, van Sant is a pretty politically incorrect gay filmmaker, from Keanu Reeves' line in MY OWN PRIVATE IDAHO that men can't love each other to the kiss between the killers in ELEPHANT.) For all its flaws, LAST DAYS may be the first van Sant film where his characters' beauty doesn't put them in the right. He had more compassion even for the killers in ELEPHANT than for the pathetic parasites who hang around Blake in LAST DAYS.

[Chuck]

I liked Broken Flowers quite a bit, generally for the reasons you describe--Jarmusch presents conversations as well as any currently-working filmmaker I know. The awkward pauses and miscommunications between characters work very well here for a character reinterpreting and revisiing his past (and by doing so, unintentionally forcing his lovers to do the same). I, too, shared your appreciation of the scene with the florist.

Regarding the "major drug use:" Maybe tobacco is now classified as a major drug in the sanitized world of the MPAA? Like you, I only remember the joint.

[Alex]

I'm of the opinion that Jarmusch's trip is hallucigen-induced. I believe the advisory board realized this and gave it that 'drug use' rating.

[Faux Hulot]

Saw Jarmusch speak last week at a screening in upstate NY, and if I didn't enjoy it enough already, what really blew my mind was Jarmusch's assertion that the screenplay was written in "two and a half weeks." Whatever he's on, I want some.