Reviews

Garden State is one of those gentle, introspective films that rarely get made, and when they do rarely work. It is (as studio execs turning down the script apparently told Braff) "execution dependent". As is evidenced by the fact that two of those same studios are now bringing the film to theaters, the execution works.

It's not a film for everyone. It has no desire to meet audience expectations in the old-school "if you see a gun hanging on the wall in the first act, it better have been fired before the final curtain" rule of theatre. Don't expect Scrubs-style one liners. (If I had to compare this film to a TV series it would be Six Feet Under.) It is in no way a straight-ahead comedy. Its most powerful moments are often silent, shared understanding between characters.

If you're willing to settle in for the long haul it is very rewarding, despite its flaws (it's a first time film, it's gonna have 'em). It put me in mind of Tom Gilroy's indie film of a few years ago, Spring Forward. Though I have to say Garden State felt more consistent than I remember that film being.

The acting is great. Peter Sarsgaard is particularly impressive.

I would have liked to have seen more of Ian Holm as the father, though I qualify this by saying I think the movie is truer as it is. I felt the need for some information and set up that the film never found an opportunity to provide vis a vis Large's father's intentions and desires for his family. When they are revealed they are, while not unbelievable, a surprise (not a dramatic revelation, either, just something the audience didn't know). But the movie is committed to being from Large's point of view, which I can't fault, and as a result we don't get as far into the hearts and minds of other characters, especially one Large is avoiding!

Garden State is definitely what the studios call summer counter-programming, but I hope people in those cities it gets released in will take a break from Spiderman 2 and the rest of the blockbusters, and check it out.

****SPOILER****

A word about the ending - I liked the ending. I believed it, although I didn't feel the need for it to be quite so dramatic. I would have been happy if he'd made his decision on the steps.

Listening to friends and other people talk about it there were some common themes. Some wondered why Sam (Natalie Portman) couldn't just go with Large (i.e. why the female character didn't give up her home, job and ambitions to be with the male character. Might be some unconscious sexism, but audiences are also used to secondary characters giving up their dreams to support protagonists, so I give 'em the benefit of the doubt.) As with other conventions Garden State doesn't care, and I applaud it for that. I'd have been disappointed if Large had invited Sam out to Tinseltown and she had said yes.

Others wanted him to stay on the plane. I argue that the whole point of the third act (and despite Braff and other's comments to the contrary I think the film does fall rather neatly into three acts: act two begins with meeting Sam/the doctor's office, and ends with the scream from the Ark) is that Large has found his way out of his rut. He's not avoiding his life anymore.

Others were uncomfortable with the unfinished quality of the ending. As in real life, the characters are not done growing. Their story arcs have not resulted in some perfect understanding that we are to believe will govern their actions for the rest of their lives. We could easily come back and visit Large in a few years and have another movie, just as messy, just as complicated.

In the spirit of Decline of the American Empire/The Barbarian Invasions, I kind of hope we do.