So, among other things, I watched not one but 2 movies this weekend. The first, despite a complete lack of feedback from my readers, was A Nightmare on Elm Street. This was quite a lot of fun, and the one brief comment I'll offer is that while Nightmare is based on really a pretty clever concept, I will never ceased to be amazed by the metaphysics of these particular films. For instance, the solution to the problem occurs to our sleep-deprived yet still lucid heroine in this flash of insight: If Freddy can hurt me in the dream world, then all I have to do is grab him in my dream and wake myself up, bringing him back into our world, at which point my boyfriend can pummle him to death with a Louisville Slugger. No one, of course, has any conversation about the major philosophical and logistical problems surrounding this situation; it's just taken for granted. I wonder if there are "Freddites" out there who develop websites dedicated to explaining the holes in the Nightmare series. They would have a lot of work to do.
The second and more provocative film I watched (in my typical belated fashion) was Garden State. Briefly, I very much enjoyed the film and believe it has some lasting artistic value. There were definite lacks (for instance, the relationship between father and son could have been more fully explored) and the film had no qualms on ending on a pseudo-hollywood note, which really wasn't that bad. That being said, the film's biggest shortcoming is that it has set itself up (probably unintentionally) to be a period piece. Its indy-cred soundtrack and perscription drug-shrouded protagonist, at least to me, screams the coming-of THIS age; that is, we will watch this film in the future (its characters are too strong for us not to) but we will be watching our past, the same way we watch a film like Reality Bites. I don't, however, think that we will watch something like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind in such a way.
But this raises all kinds of interesting questions about the historicity/lack of historicity of film which I cannot answer or deal with now, since I have to leave. I'd like to hear what other people have to say about this film.
Posted by pjaussen at January 31, 2005 10:59 AM"Garden State" is grounded in its generation for reasons beyond its soudtrack; it was, among other things, one of the first movies to diagnose the aimless, uncommitted lives of this generation's twentysomethings -- many of whom share a sense of unlimited potential, lack of concrete purpose, and emotional disconnect bordering on obsessive nostalgia ("The old Ryan Adams was better," etc.). I blame the liberal arts. :)
That said, I found the movie almost insufferably pleased with itself. The entire story is dedicated to the proposition that your loneliness can be solved by gratifying your own emotions, by concentrating on your own needs. Such a pretty film, but such an insulting lack of curiousity: "Dude," I wanted to scream at Braff, "aren't you at least a tiny bit interested in what the old man has to say? Or your gravedigger buddy? Or anybody besides you?"
Maybe the whole enterprise just hit me the wrong way. I welcome any defenders of "State" to show me the generosity of vision I'm missing.
Posted by: mesh at February 2, 2005 03:37 PMI don't really consider it to have much of a "vision," and I think "pretty" is probably the best adjective you can offer (in a sort of condescending way). I've only seen the film once, so maybe I'm missing it; but I didn't leave with the impression that anyone's lonliness is *solved.* In fact, and maybe I'm giving it too much credit, it seems to me that we can watch this movie as a representation of the problems of self-indulgence. Everyone in the film, with the exception perhaps of the tugboat people, is a freaking martyr. And look where they are (both at the beginning and end of the film).
Anyway, I wonder how far moralizing will take us in our criticism. Good to hear from you, mesh. Play a hand of poker for me.