In Broken Flowers Bill Murray reprises the role of Bob from Lost in Translation.
Whereas in Sophia Coppola’s film we have a wistfully irreverent film that explores the alienation of Bob to his life through the feeling alienation a westerner experiences in Japan, Broken Flowers is an indie film that tries to be twice as clever and half as fun.
The symbolism, the sets, the quiet silent moments and the utterly unsatsifying ending all create this feeling of alienation in the audience. This peculiar sense of why the f**k am I watching this movie? And can someone please the gun…
spoilers below…
The movie begins in Don’s sterile home. His girlfriend abandons him. His aloneness is contrasted with the vibrant life in his neighbors house. A house that has 5 children, a wife and celebrations of life. In case we miss the comparison, his girlfriend asks: Don’t you want to be like Winston, your neighbor?
Stuck in this lonely space, an ex sends him a letter announcing a child that may or may not be looking for him. With nothing better to do, he goes on a roadtrip to visit the four girlfriends he had some twenty years ago. The first is a blue collar widow of a NASCAR driver. The second a sterile frigid woman who once was a hippie. The third a pet therapist who is now a lesbian. The fourth quintessential white trash that will not speak to him. The fifth is dead.
When he arrives back home he notices a young man that appears to be following him. He approaches the young man and we think for a moment that boy must be the son. However, when confronted with this comment, the young man reacts violently and runs away. Don is thus left alone and confused and wondering what exactly the point of his life really was.
In case we miss that point the camera pans around him and we realize he is standing staring at a four way intersection in some random neighborhood.
There is a cult of indie worship in this world. I am fan of good movies. This movie was too clever and not fun.
Pass.
March 28th, 2006
There is a movie that will explore the transformation of America by the Kinsey report. In this movie, we will understand how information can destroy myth and legend. How fact can liberate the human soul.
This is not that movie.
The movie begins in Indiana, where a young man is taking the sexual history of Kinsey. As he asks Kinsey detailed personal questions, we learn about the test, and about the personal sexual history of Kinsey.
And that’s what the movie is about. The test and how it was used to create the two seminal works on male and female sexuality and Kinsey’s rather interesting sexual life.
Kinsey’s sex life is intended to act as a proxy for America’s sex life. He starts out ignorant and fearful about sex. As he learns more he becomes more comfortable and happier. In the beginning he is reading a manual on how to avoid masturbating. In the middle we watch him have sex with a man, and then allow his wife to have sex with the same man. At the end of the film he is lecturing his graduate students about the dangers of mixing free sex with emotional entaglements.
The film stars great comedic actors: John Lithgow, Tim Curry and Oliver Platt. And it’s a shame that they play the roles of the great villians in American sexual life. A shame because although very funny they trivialize how villianous the Church, the scientific establishment, and money were. The Church used sex to control the people. The scientific establishment was unwilling to investigate the topic to avoid controversy. The establishment did not want to pretend that they were doing it and wanted to appear as good Christians. As a result thousands suffered because of their lack of nerves.
The film is funny. In some ways it’s the 40 Year Old Virgin all over again. Of course when you talk about sex, it’s going to be funny. The sexual histories that are collected and shared are absurdly funny. Kinsey’s in particular has ridiculously funny moments. For example, his wife, played by Laura Lienney, is at the doctor’s office and is asked to show us how big Kinsey’s penis was. Well it turns out that Kinsey had a 12″. But watching the whole sequence of the doctor showing the ruler, the husband squirming and then the wife squirming and then doctor’s eye bugging out is too funny.
The problem with humor in this film, is that there is a serious topic burried in all of the sex jokes. That America was repressed and as a result people were hurt. During the filme we are reminded that this is not just good clean fun but serious business. Unfortunately those moments of seriousness clash so violently with the humour that those serious side jaunts seem out of place.
The one sad truth about this film, is that in the absence of decent sexual education people will hurt themselves. With various religious groups encouraging abstinence and discouraging information in the face of plague, the tragedy of the 50’s seems to be repeating itself. This film would be a success if one of those morons and their leader that think that sex-ed is the problem were to understand that ignorance is the problem. In the profoundly ignorant 50’s people were doing it all of the time!
March 28th, 2006
