15-16 puzzle wrote: I don't go to the movies to feel validated by seeing a more beautified version of my own life on the big screen (snip) Which characters needed to "suck it up" and "get over themselves", and why?
I don't think anyone does, and if that's what you honestly thought I inferred, I didn't express my point clearly.
My point is that for us to care about a narrative piece of fiction, we need to either a) identify on some level with the characters, b) find the characters to be so compelling that we care about what's happening to them, or c) get sucked in by an intriguing plot.*
Watching Garden State, I assume Braff's intention was to follow path A. Something like Royal Tannenbaums would be a path B film, whereas Patriot Games would be a path C film. But I think Braff intended the audience to identify with Largeman. And I think a few years ago, he would have succeeded in my case -- I would have seen myself up there on the screen. That's the crux of what I was attempting to express. As a romantic (as in romanticism) film, life and the world life plays itself out in are portrayed in a more expressive, beautified, and idealized fashion.
This is what I meant by beautiful. Not that Zach's got the looks-drop on me.
15-16 puzzle wrote:Which characters needed to "suck it up" and "get over themselves", and why?
I was referring to Zach. And by the end of the movie, I think he does -- at least in a sense. However, watching the non-process he went through to achieve this state of knowing was not particularly entertaining for me. In fact, I would characterize it as somewhat annoying. Hence my discontent with the film.
Zach wants to be an artist, but has to suffer through a job where he gets (we presume) regularly humiliated. But come on, Zach. You're not dumb. You can get a decent fucking job where people don't make fun of your clothes while harping on you to get them bread as your manager tells you you're worthless.
It should take Zach maybe a month before he says "fuck, I gotta get outta here." But we're given the impression he's stuck in this empty life (see: his interior decorating).
Poor Zach! He's so alienated that he's reduced to inaction. I find that crushingly lame. It's like, whoah, Zack, take stock of your surroundings and do something, dude.
So Zach is suffering from a tremendous case of alienation and vague psychological malaise in his 20s. The meaning of life is elusive for Zach, who's had a life of privilage but suffered from an emotional disconnection from his parents, and some weird guilt-related issues.
Most people have been there, right? But most people get over it, which is why Zach bothers me.
But Zach's been heavily medicated, you say.
Yeah, on drugs perscribed by his
Dad, who lives on the other side of teh country and who Zach hasn't seen in what, seven years? Zach wants to go off his meds. This is probably good for Zach. But the fact that Zach hadn't seen the guy who wrote out the perscription in seven years and just kept popping the pills the whole time makes the situatin (and in turn Zach himself) fucking lame. Again.
Or, to condence the argument, Zach's got to suck it up and get over himself. Not the best choice of words, I realize.
mkilly wrote:that's funny, because JB gave it an A-, and Zach Braff hisself is 29 years old.
The film was reccomended to us by my gf's friend, who's like, 32, telling us how much she related to the film. (And admittedly, the process of wondering how and why she related to the film served to harden my own reaction.) My reaction was like, sheesh, if I can't relate to this any more at my age, how could someone five years older?! But obviously she did, as did many people -- it was a popular film.
I know this because it's on sale at Target, with a sign that says "Best Seller" over it.
* You can come up with others, like d) expressionistic mood piece, or e) visual effects wank off, but A-C covers most movies. A film that at its core is an E film generally makes a passing attempt at encorporating C and B (in a subplot) elements.
