1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

I don't get Wes Anderson

Discussion in 'Anything goes' started by Simon_Cowbell, Mar 27, 2008.

  1. Bubbler

    Bubbler Well-Known Member

    I get why some don't like Life Aquatic. I do like it, but only because it's such a ridiculous premise.

    But that's the flaw in a Wes Anderson movie, it takes a ridiculous premise to give the detachment in his characters some context. I never expected more out of Life Aquatic than a droll comedy, and that's what I got.

    But everything Anderson does is droll, and it doesn't always work.
     
  2. alleyallen

    alleyallen Guest

    I gave it a shot on more than one occasion. I just don't get why it's such a hit with many people. Wasn't funny, wasn't ironic, wasn't anything except a bunch of whiny characters that made me think it was a Woody Allen knockoff.
     
  3. SigR

    SigR Member

    I agree that Darjeeling felt like a reaction to Life Aquatic. Wes wanted to keep his offbeat characters and humor, and to stay artsy so that he didn't risk venturing into box-office flopdom llike Life Aquatic, where he was trying to be both artistic and mainstream.

    As for what Life Aquatic meant, I'd look at it from two perspectives. First, it was a disaster at the box office. It was heavily advertised, it had a top-notch cast, and it still flopped. I believe that hurts a director, even one as acclaimed as Wes. I believe that failure leads him to make a movie like Darjeeling which seemed little more than a "I'm still an artist, at least" cry. And it didn't even come off as all that artful to me. It honestly felt like a disaster, and I was very disappointed. I'm sure I'll grow to like it as I have with all his films, but I see it as being at the bottom of my list.

    Now, as for what Life Aquatic "meant" meant... yeah, maybe Zissou was Anderson. He'd had his glory, and so it's faded and he must try to inspire himself into the genius that once was his. I don't mind that. It's humble and self-deprecating and makes for a better life story. But I don't think that's what it meant. That's a theme that runs through each of his movies. It's a universal truth he's found in people, that we all see ourselves in relation to that one great point in our life, and that we struggle endlessly to get back to it.

    Unlike many directors (PT Anderson comes to mind, who I like for his filmmaking, but definitely not his ideas), Wes starts his movies with characters in chaos and brings them together. The catchy little ditty I use is that Wes casts light where others cast shadow. At the end of Life Aquatic, we are treated to what I think is the most beautiful climax of a movie I've ever seen. These deep distinct characters, often at odds with each other dealing with the various human emotions that tear people apart, get in a submarine together and remember what they'd been there to do all along. And while you really have to buy into the movie to not barf at the otherwise potentially pretentious encounter with the Jaguar Shark, Sigur Ros blaring in the background, if you *do* buy into it, it's incredibly touching. Is it realism? hell no. Is it romanticism? It's overflowing with it. It's suggesting that this is what ought to be, instead of stopping like most movies do at "this is what is". That we ought to be able to go and confront our demons with the friends we've chosen. That you still have something important in you to say or show, even if you really think your glory has faded.

    I believe Life Aquatic is the key to Anderson's career too, and not in a good way. It's my favorite movie in the world, but it was not successful with the world. I think Wes proved to himself (probably wrongly) that he can't write or direct for the mainstream. The Life Aquatic was his attempt at it, and he got it brilliantly right. But most people are comfortable with movies that deal with the real world, not the world that is parallel and marginally distinct from this one. I think it is the key to his career because I fear that he's going to stick to making movies like Darjeeling from now on, hopelessly aimed at the "Wes" demographic. And after a while it is going to get old.
     
  4. Buck

    Buck Well-Known Member

    I'm a fan.
    'Life Aquatic' was his weakest. 'Djarleeng' was a little better, but not much.
    'Rushmore' and 'Royal Tennebaums' are master works.
    'Bottle Rocket' is very good.
    He's a great shot-maker. His lighting and color are always interesting.
    The problem I have with the last two movies is they feel a little stale. He seems to have locked into a sensibility and aesthetic that have rendered him self-derivative.
     
  5. PCLoadLetter

    PCLoadLetter Well-Known Member

    I'm also a fan. "Rushmore" and "Life Aquatic" are on the short list of my favorite films.

    Hated "Royal Tenenbaums", though, and wasn't wild about "Bottle Rocket." I need to try that one again.

    "Darjeeling" is number one in my Netflix queue. I should have it by the weekend.
     
  6. alleyallen

    alleyallen Guest

    So let me ask, in all honesty....what's so great about TRT? Seriously? What makes it such a good movie for those of you gushing about it?
     
  7. Inky_Wretch

    Inky_Wretch Well-Known Member

    Anderson is doing Marley & Me? I just don't see that pairing.
     
  8. SigR

    SigR Member

    I didn't like TRT until the 4th or 5th viewing. I thought it was too dark at first, but, I found that there is an incredible amount of optimism in it. People change. That's a great thing about Wes's movies: the character's change for the better. No, that's not reality that all characters change for the better, but why should a movie look to imitate reality? I think art should leave you inspired, looking upward or into your soul. Compare a Wes movie with one I saw recently: No country for Old Men. Not one character developed in that movie. Not one bit of light was shed anywhere. It was still good filmmaking and I'm always up for a Coen Bros movie, but did it possess any of the correct ideas on life or how people ought to live it? No. It was nihilism. It was saying that you have no choices in life, that you are going to get what's coming to you. Wes gives his characters those choices to make, and in the end, most of the time, they make good ones. It's inspiring and makes me want to live a better life.

    I'm now to the point that I could run TRT on a continuous loop and not really get tired of it. Sort of sitting next to a waterfall or something. The music, the humor, the dimensions of it. It's just magical once it all falls into place.
     
  9. westcoastvol

    westcoastvol Active Member

    For me, it's one man's struggle to reclaim what he remembers as happiness of his family unit. The good ole days. Trouble is, it's revisionist history in his mind, as the family was miserable to begin with.

    The kids were isolated overachievers in their youth. Prodigies aren't prodigies any more, and that's tough for them to deal with; some of that's his fault. They're all trying to move on past roadblocks in their lives, even the mom. And in the midst of that, here comes Royal. His heart's in the right place- finally, but his timing couldn't be any worse.

    Lumping an entire house full of dysfunctional family members together for the first time in many years...great premise. I really enjoyed it.
     
  10. westcoastvol

    westcoastvol Active Member

    He isn't.

    But Owen Wilson and Jennifer Aniston starring in it?!? Sounds full of fail to me.
     
  11. Inky_Wretch

    Inky_Wretch Well-Known Member

    Got it. Reading is fundamental. Sorry.

    (I just hope the movie sets are as cold as the Friends sets were.)
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page