Broken Flowers (Jim Jarmusch, 2005)

[Alonzo the Armless]

Saw this yesterday and don't see it as sell-out mainstream at all. Unlike movies that the monkeymass flock to, this film celebrates the journey more than the destination. The entire cast is terrific in it. Stone's daughter gets the biggest laugh in the movie. And, like all Jarmusch movies, the soundtrack is great too.

[rs98762001]

Yeah I loved it too. Touching and beautiful. Jarmusch's own quote about Bill Murray's performance above is right on the money in that it's certainly limited, but extremely expressive and subtle within those limitations.

It's funny how the mainstream press in the States are approaching this movie more as a Murray film than as a Jarmusch film. They're claiming that it's "slow" by the standards of most movies, but it seemed to me like a Michael Bay film in comparison to DEAD MAN or STRANGER THAN PARADISE.

[King of Kong]

I think I'll start off by complaining about the ending:


I found the ending of Broken Flowers to be a little unsatisfying. At the end, I noticed people hanging around in the theatre, perhaps thinking there would be something after the credits, but that probably isn't the case. I do not mind open endings - I guess it depends on the film itself. Stranger than Paradise has a similar non-ending, yet I came away from it feeling satisfied, probably because I sympathised more with Willy, Eddie and Eva than Don, and found them more compelling. Maybe it's also because STP didn't pretend to have a plot - the characters were almost completely "unrestrained", whereas BF is driven by Don's search for his son, and one kinda expects a resolution from "quest" narratives - look at Monty Python and the Holy Grail's famous ending (one that has frustrated me for some time - surely the Pythons could've found a more "creative" way to end the movie even with the shrinking budget).

I'm not saying it's a bad movie, but it's probably not one of Jarmusch's best. The acting was good all round, the character of Winston is a suberb comic creation and the Lolita scene was rather amusing. Though, I found the Don Juan film clip at the beginning to be a bit insulting - I had got the joke already, Jim!

[Brian Oblivious]

Though, I found the Don Juan film clip at the beginning to be a bit insulting - I had got the joke already, Jim!

I feel like such a geek; I didn't have that reaction because I was too busy being bugged by the cropping of the academy-ratio film on the widescreen tv.

[leo goldsmith]

I think I'll start off by complaining about the ending.... BF is driven by Don's search for his son, and one kinda expects a resolution from "quest" narratives

This is definitely not a "non-ending", and unsatisfying as you may find it, there is still a resolution here, however frustrating it may be. I'm hesitating to discuss it at length as I imagine most people haven't had the chance to see the film yet (and, a week later, I still haven't fully digested the film, especially the ending), but the film seems to end in a manner consistent with Jarmusch's other films. More of a question than an answer, in other words.

If you're curious to read a range of other opinions, I've slowly been making my way through the symposium on Jarmusch's films over at Reverse Shot and would highly recommend you (all) check it out.

[rs98762001]

I think I'll start off by complaining about the ending:

BF is driven by Don's search for his son, and one kinda expects a resolution from "quest" narratives.

I couldn't disagree more. Throughout the last scene with the boy, I was hoping that Jarmusch would not cave in and give us a conventional resolution.

The identity of the mother and the son was almost a red herring anyway. The film seems more about Murray's character, and what each encounter and episode reveals about his own life, past and present.

[leo goldsmith]

The identity of the mother and the son was almost a red herring anyway.

I also really like Winston's line somewhere towards the end of the film, when he tells Don something like, "Don't worry. We'll find out who the mother is. Every mystery has to have a solution." Yes, but what kind of a solution?

[King of Kong]

I couldn't disagree more. Throughout the last scene with the boy, I was hoping that Jarmusch would not cave in and give us a conventional resolution.

It's not that I necessarily wanted a conventional resolution. I mentioned one of my favourite movies, Stranger Than Paradise, which also ends anticlimactically. But I found that ending more satisfying, maybe because I enjoyed STP - its "story", characters and style - more. What's more, it has heart. I came out of Broken Flowers feeling cold.

[Alonzo the Armless]

The ending was perfect for me. I think the Bill Murray character is a different person than he was at the beginning of the movie. Even though he never found the solution to the mystery, he did learn a lot about himself and what he lost or gained by knowing and breaking up with these women. Will he become a better person at the end with this new knowledge? It's in his hands.

[BWilson]

Did anyone else notice that theres a special "thank you" to Janus Films and the Criterion Collection in the credits?

[King of Kong]

I was scanning through the reviews for Broken Flowers on imdb, and came across one, which explains quite well why the film ultimately left me empty:

It is a beautiful and satisfying thing for the writer to leave something to the audiences' imagination, making them engage their imaginations to complete the story rather than remain passive viewers who are spoon fed answers and entertainment. But this can be taken too far, and I felt that the film left too much to the audience, without providing enough meat to sink our imaginations into.

It's not that I don't like Jarmusch's elliptical storytelling technique - as I have said, I love Stranger Than Paradise, and I do not always expect closure from a feature film (or a novel or short story) - I greatly enjoy filling in the gaps, as it were, but only if the work is sufficiently compelling. So, when it comes to open endings, I felt that STP's worked because I believed that film had a significantly "meatier" narrative than the one in BF.

[King of Kong]

I wouldn't have minded seeing more of Winston - he seemed more of the kind of quirky misfit that Jarmusch excels at creating.

[skuhn8]

just saw this. Yes, late, but things come out in Budapest a little later sometimes. Wow. I loved it. To be honest, this is my second favorite Jarmusch film (second to Dead Man)--I love it far more than STP, far more than Down by Law. I enjoyed the haunting atmosphere, but most of all I loved the whole quest--albeit in search of a red herring IMO, as others have suggested--peeking into the lives of his past love(r)s, a glimpse into those forked paths he had turned away from. How would those lives have been different had he stuck around and eschewed the Don Juan lifestyle. The ending? Redemption. He has found some kind of meaning in the moment, something that may be of importance (the present). He runs after the boy after all. It's no small matter that Delpy's character returns via a pink letter. He has a chance to change his ways and take on a meaningful relationship and perhaps fill the vacuum created by the prospect of having a child after all.

Great film. And yes, loved the Winston and Lolita characters. Heck, even Stone turned out a nice short brief role.

[che-etienne]

I appreciate this theory, except I didn't find the journey itself all that meaty. Somewhat enjoyable, maybe, but I was left wanting more.
creating.

I agree. This year especially, it seems we have a string of movies that follow this mode of filmmaking, however, albeit each with their own distinctive style. I'm speaking particularly of "A History of Violence", "Last Days", and "Broken Flowers". They're all quite spare movies, and I would even go so far as to say that they are too spare. THis year, I've found myself much more satisfied by films such as "Grizzly Man", "The White Diamond", "Shape of the Moon" and "Darwin's Nightmare" - documentaries all, and all of which are I think incredibly spare, but in much more contemplative and inciteful ways. Also, for my example of a narrative film which was more akin to my tastes, I'd say "Junebug" was quite a spare film, but also far more inciteful than the three above. The difference to me between "Broken Flowers" and "Junebug", both of which had fairly inconclusive endings, is that "Junebug" introduced us to a range of characters, all colorful and yet all very real, giving us the time to really get to know them, almost as the main character and outsider, Madeleine (played by Embeth Davitz) too gets to know them. We go beyond merely the surface of these characters, and the film gives each one their own collection of moments with an honest deference. The camera explores the space with beautiful restrain and honesty. For example, my father who saw it with me was careful to note afterwards that at one point a series of still-lifes is presented to the viewer, depicting merely the empty house, as if to say 'this is the place where the action will play out'. Now, I don't mean to say that Jarmusch does not go beyond just the surface with all of Don's old flames, but he definitely only shows us one side while implying and revealing hints of another. These are not two dimensional characters, no, but they don't go far beyond three dimensions either. The imagery too was so locked in its circular pattern that I felt there weren't enough ellipses, or diversions to really offer any more real incite. Even though the house in "Junebug" may be where the majority of action takes place, the film from time to time wanders else where, and each character too is given his or her autonomy. They take the narrative and the mise-en-scene to places tangential to, but otherwise disconnected from the rest of the film's world and characters, like Johnny's work place or the unorthodox artist's bungalow. When Madeleine and George arrive at the house, George lags behind and wanders the basement, before coming up to really greet his family. Ashley is introduced by first just appearing in the space. Johnny is always just sitting at the table reading the paper or eating. The father is always just looking for his screwdriver or thinking to himself idly, and the mother is always about the family business. There is no unity there and the film as circular as it is, bookended by its opening and closing sequences and its music, is still want to wonder and explore with almost wide-eyed timidity. To me, Jarmusch's work is locked into autopilot compared to "Junebug." As much as I enjoyed "Broken Flowers", it left just a hint of something to be desired.

[Andre Jurieu]

... but in much more contemplative and inciteful ways. Also, for my example of a narrative film which was more akin to my tastes, I'd say "Junebug" was quite a spare film, but also far more inciteful than the three above. The difference to me between "Broken Flowers" and "Junebug" ... We go beyond merely the surface of these characters, and the film gives each one their own collection of moments with an honest deference... Now, I don't mean to say that Jarmusch does not go beyond just the surface with all of Don's old flames, but he definitely only shows us one side while implying and revealing hints of another. These are not two dimensional characters, no, but they don't go far beyond three dimensions either...

It's the "implying and revealing hints of another [side]" that make Jarmusch's film so interesting. In essence it's Jarmusch's restraint at not providing the viewer substantial incite into his characters' decisions and motivations that makes the film compelling. Jarmusch "honesty" is that he never allows us to sum-up these characters from a few brief scenes, because it really is impossible to determine our stance on these characters by only witnessing a fraction of their lives. This perfectly captures Don's dilemma of having effected these lives long ago, but not knowing exactly how. It's accomplishment is in situating us in that uncomfortable, vague, indistinct area between what we believe to be two dimensional and three dimensional characters. Jarmusch allows Don to lift the surface, and while that is noble in a sense, he then makes sure we realize that in doing so we still cannot possibly find answers that satisfy us, whether completely or partially.

[che-etienne]

I'm not talking about him giving incite as to motivation and decisions as much as just allowing us to see them be themselves rather than serve a narrative function to Don's character. I liked the ending of the film. Still, this was not to me a very rich film. It is too paired down. I guess we're at that juncture Andre Jurieu where we just disagree again. Still, I'm not trying to say I wanted Jarmusch to give answers. In a way, I wish that the film had just taken it's time more, and if so had devoted less time to some of its off-beat humor, especially in the lolita episode, which though quite drole and interesting at first just got tired out by the end.

[Andre Jurieu]

... as much as just allowing us to see them be themselves rather than serve a narrative function to Don's character...

But in this scenario, Jarmusch is specifically building his film around Don's quest and the importance of each character is built upon their relation/function to Don. Even though each of his former flames serves a narrative function to Don, they are not manipulated or discarded for Don's quest, but instead allow his entrance into their lives and ask that he exit. He also makes certain we understand Don's presence is not required in their lives, and we are left to ponder the endless possibility of their potential relationship.

Jarmusch does spend a significant amount of time and effort in showing us the incongruence between Don and each of his former flames, while also hinting at the attraction between these former couples. What Jarmusch does well is to allow the memory of each woman to linger so we want to know more about them, but - like Don - we can't due to circumstances - they simply don't want us around, since we discarded them in the past (I'd say the casting of each actress is important here). It's that tension of not knowing what these women are like in private and remaining unaware of the details of what has happened to them over time that makes the film unique, since it frustrates Don and the viewer simultaneously by denying us the intimacy we desire.

Of course, in the end the film is also clearly critical of Don's aloof nature and his reluctance to make a significant connection. Jarmusch seems to be saying Don's quest is futile not just because of his past mistakes and his unwillingness to change, but also because time has created an intimidating distance between these people that may be impossible to overcome.

[che-etienne]

Okay. I see your point of view, however, I still find it lacking somehow as a film. It's not that I miss this when I view the film, but that I don't think this is enough. To me, it just wasn't enough to say this is Don, this his problem, because by the end Don's train of thought maybe on the move (as the sound bite suggests), but the circular camera movement and Don's clueless and resigned expression at the finish of the film suggest that he has not gone anywhere since the beginning. Sure, as others on this board and others I've read have said, for Jarmusch, the journey is more important than the perhaps pre-ordained end, but I failed to really see the point or use in examining the journey if change is not at least forced upon Don. I liked the film, but the film limits itself in structuring itself this way. It is fun to examine the film with such limitations and perhaps that is what Jarmusch is getting at - that beyond such limitations (much like the limitation of a film's own frame) we can use our imagination to fill in the gaps, but nonetheless I felt like the themes might've been a little more fully explored. Once again, when I say explored, of cours I do not mean revealed. I was not looking for answers, but perhaps more opinions, conjecture, and suggestion on the part of Jarmusch. Still, perhaps I'm just not used to his style. After seeing both "Dead Man" and "Broken Flowers", I can tell that his circular and elliptical style is very much an indelible part of his work. I just question whether being so wedded to such a style is so healthy for a filmmaker? But.. I have gone too far. I should see the rest of his work before I jump to conclusions. Anyway, I see your viewpoint and am definitely going to take it into consideration on my forthcoming viewings of "Broken Flowers" as well as Jarmusch's other films. Thanks, man.

[King of Kong]

Sure, as others on this board and others I've read have said, for Jarmusch, the journey is more important than the perhaps pre-ordained end, but I failed to really see the point or use in examining the journey if change is not at least forced upon Don. I liked the film, but the film limits itself in structuring itself this way. It is fun to examine the film with such limitations and perhaps that is what Jarmusch is getting at - that beyond such limitations (much like the limitation of a film's own frame) we can use our imagination to fill in the gaps, but nonetheless I felt like the themes might've been a little more fully explored. Once again, when I say explored, of cours I do not mean revealed. I was not looking for answers, but perhaps more opinions, conjecture, and suggestion on the part of Jarmusch.

This is the problem I had. Jarmusch invites us to fill in the blanks, but he doesn't offer enough material to aid us. With other "minimalist" films like, say, Stranger Than Paradise or your average Ozu, the director doesn't spell everything out, yet still provides bits of colour to help the viewer infer the characters' backstory or actions. An example - In STP, I appreciated Jarmusch's ambiguous depiction of Willy and Eddie's relationship with Eva; there was enough banter between the three and instances of body-language to suggest that the guys were attracted to Eva, yet whether this was the case or not was up to the viewer. This is the kind of "colour" I'm talking about. We don't know anything about Don apart from the fact that he's a wealthy computer salesman (who doesnt own a computer) and a supposed cassanova (though unless he was less of a zombie in his youth, I can't picture him being that successful with the ladies), and aside from the odd moments of inspired humour the film seemed lifeless.

To me, Broken Flowers seemed an example of lazy storytelling trying to pass itself off as a contemplative mood piece - I'm probably going to be blasted for suggesting this, but that's the way I feel. The idea behind the film had potential, but I don't think it was quite realised.

[Andre Jurieu]

Sorry to keep harping on this, but hey, it's what I do best.

... because by the end Don's train of thought maybe on the move (as the sound bite suggests), but the circular camera movement and Don's clueless and resigned expression at the finish of the film suggest that he has not gone anywhere since the beginning.

I'd say that's kind of the point. The circular camera movement traps Don, hence implying that even though he may want to change and grow as a person, his lethargic attitude in the past has made it impossible for him to do so. He's essentially paying for his past transgressions and passive frame-of-mind, since his self-imposed confinement has now become an actual barrier the world has forced upon him. He's back where he started even though he thought the "journey" would allow him to develop further. He may now be capable of connection and affection - or at least he thinks he could be - but he isn't allowed to suddenly escape from the disconnected life he spent so much time maintaining.

Sure ... the journey is more important than the perhaps pre-ordained end, but I failed to really see the point or use in examining the journey if change is not at least forced upon Don.

I'd say the point is to understand that sometimes change isn't possible, even if the parties involved are prepared and willing for it to occur. Yes, the journey is important, but it's also sometimes unsuccessful and fruitless even if it is conducted with the best intentions. That's a simple idea, but Jarmusch conveys it wonderfully by allowing Don to approach painfully close to what he believes is his target, and then makes it all crumble away into an unsatisfying heap, because while connection is so simple, our history and natural tendencies make it agonizingly difficult.

Jarmusch invites us to fill in the blanks, but he doesn't offer enough material to aid us. With another "minimalist" films like ... the director doesn't spell everything out, yet still provides bits of colour to help the viewer infer the characters' backstory or actions... We don't know anything about Don apart from the fact that he's a wealthy computer salesman (who doesnt own a computer) and a supposed cassanova (though unless he was less of a zombie in his youth...

I actually thought there was some great moments of "colour" in scenes between Don and his ex-girlfriends. I think a great deal can be inferred from the small details Jarmusch includes. I can't think of any off hand since I haven't viewed the film in a while, but I noticed a few subtle hints about each character's backstory - at least for the women involved.

I can't picture him being that successful with the ladies

I was asking the same thing when I initially viewed the film, but I was surprised by the fact that the girl I saw the film with said she could easily see why women were attracted to Don. I think that's part of what makes Don and his former ladies so intriguing. We don't know exactly what made him attractive to these women, but we see tiny hints of his charm poke through when he interacts with them. He doesn't seem like the kind of man who immediately inspires female attraction, but he has an ease and confidence that is very appealing. It's not like the male charisma that is usually displayed in movies, but it is there in a very subtle way and hints that it might have faded away as he grows older and seemingly less enthusiastic about his situation.

[chaddoli]

I have to say I think you missed the point of the ending. I don't think the circular camera move implies that Don has gone nowhere.

I think his character HAS changed, because what did he do just before that? He CHASED after a "son" that before the journey he didn't care if he had or not. Don actually cares now, and that is an incredible change in his character.

[Andre Jurieu]

I have to say I think you missed the point of the ending. I don't think the circular camera move implies that Don has gone nowhere.

I think his character HAS changed, because what did he do just before that? He CHASED after a "son" that before the journey he didn't care if he had or not. Don actually cares now, and that is an incredible change in his character.

:-s I guess you're talking to me.

I do believe Don has changed and does care more than he had before. I just believe that the circular camera movement implies that even though he has grown, the opportunity to change his circumstances has past him by. It's a question of internal change versus ability to affect your external surroundings. He has gone somewhere, but he still might be trapped after being neglectful of others for so long.

Of course, if you're addressing someone else, then I look like a moron right about now - but, hey, it ain't the first time.

[che-etienne]

Hey, Andre, you and I agree again! It's not that he hasn't changed, but that perhaps this cycle he has caught himself in may never let him out, or that he may never let himself out. When he chases after the boy, we really do see his desperation to wake himself up or be woken up from his current life, but it just may be too late at this point.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

Some guy's suing Jarmusch for ripping off the screenplay for the movie:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living ... n_flowers/

[bkimball]

Interesting. I wonder how this will play out. As a fan of Jarmusch, I would be disheartened at the news of him stealing the script.