Andrew “Large” Largeman (Zach Braff) is
an out-of-work actor living in Los Angeles and paying the bills as a waiter at
a Vietnamese restaurant. He gets a phone call from his father (Ian Holm)
telling that his mother has died. He heads back home to New Jersey where he hooks
up with old friends, including Mark (Peter Sarsgaard), a gravedigger whose mom (Jean Smart) and her boyfriend Tim (a pre-The
Big Bang Theory Jim Parsons) can speak fluent Klingon.
Large is disaffected and emotionally
removed from the rest of the world thanks to a steady diet of mood suppressing
pills prescribed by his psychiatrist father. In some respects, he resembles the
equally disaffected Harold in Hal Ashby’s Harold
and Maude (1971). Large aimlessly wanders through life with no real
purpose. Even when he hooks up with Mark and his friends, Large doesn’t really
connect with them. He is the outside observer who watches everything. Of
course, taking Ecstasy at their party probably didn’t help, either. Generally
speaking, Large is shell-shocked by life, but this begins to change when he
stops taking his medication and meets Samantha (Natalie Portman), an eccentric
girl who is his complete opposite. While he is detached, she’s empathetic. He
doesn’t talk much and she can’t stop talking. He is passive and she is very
much pro-active — the Maude to his Harold, if you will.
It is the odd, personal little touches,
like the sinks in the airport bathroom that go on as Large passes by each one
of them, that are quirky and establish right from the get-go that this film is
going to be something different. For example, when Large goes into a doctor’s
office, he notices a wall absolutely covered with diplomas and degrees. So much
so that there is one hanging from the ceiling. It is this example that also
demonstrates Braff’s tendency to create moments that are a little too precious,
like when he inserts a shot of Large’s shirt pattern blending into the
wallpaper behind him for no discernible reason except that it’s supposed to
visually illustrate his fucked-up mind state or something like that. However,
they are thankfully few and far between and I’m willing to chalk this up to
first-time directorial inexperience and an over-enthusiastic tendency to show
off a little bit. As a first-time director, Braff wears his influences on his
sleeve (see The Graduate), but he
isn’t simply sampling them a la Quentin Tarantino. He’s integrating them into a
personal story. Braff also sneaks in references to some of his previous work
with a cameo by Michael Weston who appeared with him in the little-seen indie, Getting to Know You (1999).
With Garden State, Natalie Portman temporarily escaped from Star Wars hell to capitalize on the
promise she showed in films like Beautiful
Girls (1996) and Where the Heart Is
(2000). She is completely engaging as the neurotic and chatty Sam. She seems to
be channeling Diane Keaton circa Annie
Hall (1977) or a young version of Ruth Gordon’s life-affirming Maude in Harold and Maude with her performance,
displaying excellent comedic timing. Portman has such a radiant presence on
camera and the film really comes alive whenever she’s on-screen. With Garden State, Portman also entered the
Manic Pixie Dream Girl Hall of Fame. Upon closer inspection, Sam is a rather
superficial character loaded with adorable, quirky affectations, but whose sole
purpose is to help Large get out of existential funk and embrace life. That
being said, Portman does her job really well. For all of Sam’s colorful
affectations (she’s an epileptic compulsive liar), Portman is able to convey a
vulnerability that is endearing.
What really saves Garden State from being too precious is the presence of Peter
Sarsgaard who delivers another wonderfully low-key performance as Large’s
laidback friend Mark. He makes his character’s quirks (like Mark’s investment
in Desert Storm trading cards that he plans to sell one day for a lot of money)
believable and grounds the film with his realistic portrayal of a guy stuck in
a small-town, but who is self-aware of this fact and made peace with it. Sarsgaard
brings an effortless charisma that is always interesting to watch. One moment,
Mark is all easy going and then on a dime he insults his mother’s boyfriend in
a casually cruel way. Mark shows these little glimpses of self-awareness
throughout the film and they culminate in a fantastic throwaway line near the
end of the movie that speaks volumes about his character.
Zach Braff, known mostly for his work
on the goofy sitcom, Scrubs, shows
his versatility and ambitious talents with Garden
State (he also wrote it). Despite wearing many hats as it were, he still
manages to deliver a layered performance that is thoughtful and heartfelt with
a definite arc that reaches a satisfying conclusion by film’s end. Let’s face it;
your enjoyment of this film will largely depend on your tolerance of Braff. He
tones down his sitcom shtick to play a very different character. Large is internalized
and emotionally numb from his medication that has him sleepwalking his way
through life. Braff has excellent chemistry with Portman and together they make
a believable couple, each with their own unique ailments, drawn to one another
because they are both adrift in life.
While working as a waiter at the
upscale restaurant Le Colonial in Beverly Hills and trying to make it as an
actor, Zach Braff was depressed because his career had stalled. He was on the
verge of moving back to New Jersey and wrote the screenplay for Garden State in 2000. For years, he had kept
detailed notebooks consisting of stories he overheard from friends, personal
experiences and local newspaper clippings. When it came to write the script, he
integrated many of them into it. The film was originally called Large’s Ark because Braff always liked
the story of Noah’s Ark and the notion of rescuing things that you really like
and starting over, which he envisioned the film’s protagonist doing. He ended
up changing the title to the more accessible Garden State when he realized that no one would get the original
title’s meaning.
Initially, he couldn’t find anyone
interesting in backing the project because the script didn’t conform to the
traditional three-act structure. Braff finally got Jersey Films interested and
from there he was able to go after the actors he wanted. He showed them the
short films he had made in order to prove that he knew what he was doing. After
meeting with the actors one-on-one they all agreed to do it. For the role of
Sam, Braff had always wanted to cast someone like Natalie Portman and he
finally wrote her a letter. She read it, they met for lunch and she agreed to
do it. To break the ice, Braff and Peter Sarsgaard came to Portman’s university
where they hung out and bonded. Portman remembers, “That’s a great way to start
out because it breaks down all barriers and we kept that sort of mood on set.”
To prepare for the film, Braff had her watch Harold and Maude and told her that he wanted Sam to be “a
21-year-old Ruth Gordon.”
Even with the cast in place, Braff
found it hard to get financing because Garden
State was a character-driven film and he was inexperienced director. All of
the studios turned him down. When giving potential financiers the script, Braff
also included a CD of music, populated by the likes of The Shins, Coldplay and
Nick Drake that he envisioned as its soundtrack. When it came time to actually
get permission to use this music, he found that each band wanted a lot of
money. However, he wrote impassioned letters and approached each one with the
scene where their music would be used. This technique paid off and Braff got
them all to reduce their fees. Finally, Gary Gilbert, an independent financier who
had made a fortune in the home-mortgage market, stepped up and agreed to
provide the film’s budget, but only if Braff could get it down to $2.5 million.
He was able to do this and ended up shooting Garden State around northern New Jersey over 25 days during the
summer of 2003. The film had its world premiere at the Sundance Film Festival
where Braff sold Garden State to Fox
Searchlight and Miramax for a $5 million distribution deal.
Garden State received mostly positive reviews from
mainstream critics. Roger Ebert gave it three out of four stars and wrote,
“This is not a perfect movie; it meanders and ambles and makes puzzling
detours. But it’s smart and unconventional, with a good eye for the perfect
detail.” The Los Angeles Times’ Kevin
Thomas wrote, “Once again Portman is a beguiling
charmer, and the multifaceted Sarsgaard very nearly steals the movie. Garden State's lack of pretense makes it
all the more rewarding.” USA Today
gave the film three out of four stars and Claudia Puig wrote, “Like The Graduate, Garden State is by turns knowing and innocent,
humorous and humanistic.” In his review for The
New York Observer, Andrew Sarris wrote, “The happy ending is somewhat
conventional in comparison to all the unusual experiences that have preceded
it. Still, there’s no way any viewer could fail to be depressed if Andrew and
Sam didn’t make it as a for-keeps couple.”
The Washington Post’s Desson Thomson called
the film, “an edgy quasi-comedy, it's very funny in places, touching in
others. There is a little unevenness. But for a directorial debut, it's
amazingly assured.” However,
in his review for The New York Times,
Stephen Holden wrote, “But a scrupulous avoidance
of any solemnity makes Garden State a
bit too light for its own good. Its method of skipping from one incident to
another feels scatterbrained, and promising characters are left behind in the
rush.”
Garden
State was initially given a limited release, but word-of-mouth,
thanks in large part to Braff blogging anecdotes of making the film and
interacting with people who left comments, helped expand its release. Fans
traveled long distances for a chance to see it in a theater while many saw it
more than once – a very unusual phenomenon in this day and age of short
attention spans and expensive ticket prices. The people who loved the film
really loved it and those who hated it, really hated it. Case in point: an
article that surfaced on Slate two
years after the film was released that not only attacked it, but Braff as well,
calling him, “Hollywood’s ambassador to the nation’s cool kids—the guy who
interprets youth culture for film execs and then repackages it for popular
consumption.” The article instantly dates itself with sneering references to
Braff’s popularity on MySpace and Garden
State resembling an “overlong iPod ad with less adventuresome music
choices.” The only thing that is useful about this “think piece” is that it
provides a pop cultural snapshot of the Braff backlash that had reached its
zenith.
Garden
State is a film bursting with ideas, keen observations on life
and memorable images, like when Large wakes up after a night of taking Ecstasy
to see Tim in the next room getting milk for some cereal in a full-suit of
knight’s armor, that make most other films look inert by comparison. The film
takes us to unexpected places, like a family that lives in a boat located deep
within a cavernous quarry mired in litigation. With Garden State, Braff tapped into a generation raised on the Internet
and iPods and whose recreational drug of choice are prescription pills. He
struck a chord with fellow twentysomethings who saw things in the film that
they could relate to, that spoke to them on a personal level, which is rare for
any film to be able to do, much less one made by a first-time director.
Unfortunately, Braff has been unable to direct another film with several
projects announced, but nothing made so far. His film career stalled after Garden State with a couple of romantic
comedies that were poorly received. Hopefully, he’ll get another shot to make
another personal film.
SOURCES
Blackwelder, Rob. “Braff in the Saddle.” SPLICEDwire.
July 1, 2004.
Bunn, Austin. “Melancholy Baby.” New York magazine.
Hiatt, Brian. “Five Reasons Garden State Will Be A Sleeper Hit.” Entertainment Weekly.
July 27, 2004.
Howard, Caroline. “Zach Braff.” People. July 28,
2004.
Levin, Josh. “Why I Hate Zach Braff.” Slate.
September 22, 2006.
Lite, Jordan. “Garden
Club.” New York Daily News. August 25, 2004.
“Q&A with Natalie Portman.” Phase 9.
“Q&A with Zach Braff.” Phase 9.
Stein, Joel. “Zach Braff Has A Big Laugh.” Time. July
18, 2004.
I remember seeing Garden State a couple of times at the theater, I loved that soundtrack, and the story, which has it's touching moments and feels genuine, kind of like a bunch of people who don't know what to do with their lives in this crazy world. Loved that scene where they go visit that family living down in that canyon. They were a humble family, with lots of love in the midst of the cold storm, loved the symbolisms there.
ReplyDeleteI'm a big fan of this film. When I first saw it, I thought that it was good...but it grew on me more and more over time. I was never a fan of SCRUBS, and so this was my first exposure to Braff in any form that I could appreciate. A lot of people like to hate on it, I know. They think it is pretentious, but Braff wasn't shooting for a mainstream comedy, he was shooting for art comedy of sorts. And no attempt at art, successful or otherwise, is without its pretensions.
ReplyDeleteI remember some backlash against the soundtrack as well, calling it hipster bullshit, and stating that Graff was selling the movie to kids based solely on the soundtrack. I don't believe that's necessarily true. He's a young guy, and he populated the soundtrack with songs that were important to him, and placed them in ways that added to the scenes they were in and made you rethink them. I don't see that as any different than what Tarantino does. Braff just did it with (mostly) new bands and new music, and although those songs haven't yet faced the test of time, a collection of more classic music wouldn't have seemed genuine. GARDEN STATE is very much a movie of its time, and the soundtrack had to reflect that.
My favorite aspect of the film is the relationship between Large and Sam. At the start of the film, Large is so heavily medicated that he is numb, unable to feel anything. Sam, on the other hand, is so manic that she feels everything to a dangerous extreme. He is medicated, but probably shouldn't be. She isn't medicated, but probably should be. They exist on completely opposite sides of the emotional spectrum, and as they get to know each other, they balance each other out, meeting somewhere in the middle.
Great write-up as usual, my friend.
--J/Metro
J.D., good or bad, the story behind the movie is fascinating. Too bad they don't give Oscars for perseverance.
ReplyDeleteMaurice
Geek Twins (Lamb #1444)
Francisco Gonzalez:
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments. I agree! The touching moments in the film do feel genuine and you really do get involved with these characters.
Jonny Metro:
Good to see another fan of this film. For awhile, it was not cool to like this film. A real backlash came up against it but I think it has aged very well. I agree with you that Braff wasn't trying to make some zeitgeist movie and sell a bunch of soundtrack albums. He picked all the music because it meant something personal to him as did the film, much like you said. And you're right, it was no different than what Tarantino does and the world kisses his ass.
I also like the relationship between Sam and Large. It definitely is the strongest aspect of the film and the most well developed. It certainly helps that Braff and Portman had create chemistry on-screen. Their characters shouldn't work together but they do. They both are damaged people of sorts and I think that is part of what draws them to each other.
As always great comments, my friend.
Maurice Mitchell:
ReplyDeleteWelcome and thanks! Yeah, it is too bad that the film didn't get more awards. I do believe it won top honors at that year's Indie Spirit Awards.