Wes Anderson

[Mr Sausage]

I won't make an outright numbered list since I haven't seen either Fox or Darjeeling, but my reaction to Wes' work runs from liking it quite a bit (Moonrise, Tenenbaums), to generally enjoying it (Life Aquatic, Bottle Rocket), to disliking it a lot (Rushmore). Actually, I think I just did end up ranking them. Oh well.

[FakeBonanza]

1. Rushmore
2. The Royal Tenenbaums
3. The Darjeeling Limited
4. Fantastic Mr. Fox
5. Bottle Rocket
6. The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou
7. Moonrise Kingdom

It seems odd to me that for so long Anderson was criticized for having a sort of precious aesthetic. Then he went on to release The Darjeeling Limited, his least precious film, which also turned out to be one of his least regarded films. Of course, Moonrise Kingdom received near unanimous acclaim, yet it is so incredibly precious that it verges on self-parody. The last act (or so) of the latter film is downright ridiculous. I'll admit that I have not watched Moonrise Kingdom since it's theatrical run, and will need to revisit it, but as it stands, this is the only Anderson film that I do not have any affection for.

To defend Darjeeling for a moment, I find that Anderson matured significantly with that film. It may partially be a result of the film's settings, but I find it to feature some his most assured direction (to that point, at the very least). For my money, "Luftwaffe Automotive" is the greatest single scene he's ever directed. I also happen to be a big fan of Brody's performance.

[mfunk9786]

I won't make an outright numbered list since I haven't seen either Fox or Darjeeling, but my reaction to Wes' work runs from liking it quite a bit (Moonrise, Tenenbaums), to generally enjoying it (Life Aquatic, Bottle Rocket), to disliking it a lot (Rushmore). Actually, I think I just did end up ranking them. Oh well.

Alright, I'll bite (pun intended): Why the strong Rushmore dislike?

[Mr Sausage]

I found the characters, Max especially, off-putting and unlikeable, enough to make my viewing unpleasant. I remember doing a lot of cringing and feeling disturbed. I saw it a long time ago, tho', but I disliked it enough not to want to revisit it.

[matrixschmatrix]

I think the whole arc of the movie is that one finds Max unlikable to the point of being nigh-unbearable at first, and then gradually gives more insight into him and more contexts for his actions until you're pretty much entirely on board with him by the end of the film. That's how it plays for me, anyway- which is kind of remarkable, since I dislike him as much as ever for the first half the sixth or seventh time I watch it.

[Mr Sausage]

I have no trouble believing that that's true. But the context did nothing to put me on his side. I don't even remembering liking any of the other characters, with the exception of the female teacher, tho' I'm not even sure about that. The movie just didn't click with me.

[Jeff]

Matt Zoller Seitz is doing a series of neat little "video essays" on each of the films. He's posting one each day this week, and they're designed to serve as companion pieces to the book. Here are the first two on Bottle Rocket and Rushmore.

Just to set the record straight, the correct order is:

1. Moonrise Kingdom
2. The Royal Tenenbaums
3. Rushmore
4. Fantastic Mr. Fox
5. The Life Aquatic
6. Bottle Rocket
7. The Darjeeling Limited.

There, now that's settled. Moonrise Kingdom's lead grows by leaps and bounds with each viewing (in the double digits for me now). I think it's an absolute masterpiece -- my favorite film about childhood.

[zedz]

. . . to me Moonrise Kingdom is so clearly his best film (and is indeed a masterpiece worthy of so many earlier uneven attempts at reconciling style with filmic needs to finally get it all so right), and it's barely invoked, which is frankly beyond comprehension for me.

Not another point of commonality! This is tearing our branding to shreds, domino.

[Lowry_Sam]

The movie just didn't click with me.

This describes every Wes Anderson film for me. I just don't understand the appeal of the crop of contemporary American film makers that for whatever reason (most likely good publicity machines) generate so much press (Anderson, Apatow, Coppola, Dunham, ....). All the films I've seen always strike me the same.....yet another in an unending stream of "quirky" product from someone priviledged, white, well-connected, and who's narcissism has clouded any iota of creativity that might be lurking beneath. I'm always left feeling completely empty afterwards, wondering why I thought this next one would be any different.

[Bando]

1. The Royal Tenenbaums
2. Moonrise Kingdom
3. Life Aquatic
4. The Darjeeling Limited (w/ Hotel Chevalier)
5. Rushmore
6. Fantastic Mr. Fox
7. Bottle Rocket

[Bando]

The movie just didn't click with me.

This describes every Wes Anderson film for me. I just don't understand the appeal of the crop of contemporary American film makers that for whatever reason (most likely good publicity machines) generate so much press (Anderson, Apatow, Coppola, Dunham, ....). All the films I've seen always strike me the same.....yet another in an unending stream of "quirky" product from someone priviledged, white, well-connected, and who's narcissism has clouded any iota of creativity that might be lurking beneath. I'm always left feeling completely empty afterwards, wondering why I thought this next one would be any different.

I get the criticism that Wes Anderson pretty much does the same thing every time, but I guess that's why I like it. He builds worlds onscreen that I can't help but want to be in, with characters I find engaging, fun, and unique. His films are meticulous, ordered, and beautiful without being unduly heavy. But at the same time, the consistency and stylistic tropes are what makes Anderson so polarizing.

Also, if we're going to start judging directors now on the "white privilege," "well-connected," "narcissism" angles... If that's such a problem, if it's an obstacle to enjoying a piece of creative work, it's a wonder people started watching films to begin with. Or listening to music, for that matter.

[domino harvey]

The idea that Wes Anderson is only popular due to publicity agents is hilarious. The four names you single out couldn't be more different in terms of the films they create, however it appears that the fibrous line here is simply their whiteness, in which case A+

[Lowry_Sam]

The idea that Wes Anderson is only popular due to publicity agents is hilarious. The four names you single out couldn't be more different in terms of the films they create, however it appears that the fibrous line here is simply their whiteness, in which case A+

I didn't state that he's only popular because of publicity or that all those cited necessarily produce the same product, just that there's a crop of (fairly) young American film makers who do get a considerable amount of press & who's output I don't find to be compelling in any way.

While all of those directors might not have identical product, they do all get interviewed by Terry Gross on NPR's Fresh Air (usually for the full hour & sometimes in more than one show) for absolutely everything they do. (I believe same could probably be said for Colbert & Stewart & perhaps some other yack shows too). Perhaps it's because of Terry Gross has a rather pedestrian taste in film, but I'm inclined to believe that it's due to the films' publicity machines success in getting the directors (and many of the stars) on the program. Occassionally I'll see one of these films (usually on an airplane) & am underwhelmed each & every time. For me it's just not just that the film isn't any good, it's that I don't find that the director really has anything interesting to say (either in the film or in the interview) & each subsequent interview seems like an extension of the navel-gazing from the last. The bottom line is that I never get the sense that the director has a true artistic vision, but rather they are fulfilling yet another obligation (contractual or to fulfill their own sense of artistic self-import). And so, I'm left perusing old clips of directors from the past on Youtube ( Woody Allen debating William F Buckley jr., Scorsese on Italian film, any John Waters interview...) to remember when directors did seem to have an artistic vision that was inspired by more than just their own personal experience. Perhaps it's because it's easier than ever to make a film & all the cool kids went to film school, and as a result there's just so much more hip & quirky product out there (particularly by well-off white Americans, all competing with each other for being the hippest & quirkiest)....but I'm not finding much in (American) indie film ("Precious" wasn an exception) that strikes me as rewarding viewing in the past decade.

[Bando]

Ah, the Terry Gross Theorem of Creative Integrity. Got it.

[matrixschmatrix]

Haha, yes, it is a shame all the filmmakers today are people like Wes Anderson who went to film school and not people like Martin Scorsese, who didn't

(Incidentally, as I recall, Bottle Rocket got distributed in part because Scorsese himself got behind it)

[Brian C]

Does anyone find Lowry_Sam's arguments coherent? Anderson and Apatow are alike because they're both interviewed on NPR? Woody Allen's and Scorsese's films aren't inspired primarily by their own experiences? John Waters, of all people, is a throwback to when directors weren't quirkily self-absorbed? Huh?

Anyway, I have to agree with Dom about Moonrise Kingdom. I'd put Anderson on a Mt. Rushmore of American filmmakers and I still think it's his best film, which I've seen several times so far and is one of my absolute personal favorites. For all the talk about how specific and controlling Anderson is, I think that the film (among its other many virtues) has such wonderful moments for so many actors. I think his generosity with actors is so often overlooked, but he depends so much on his actors to bring his characters to life. I mean, Tilda Swinton is a completely different type of performer than Bruce Willis, who is completely different than Edward Norton, who is completely different from Bill Murray, and so on down the line.

Yet Anderson doesn't ask these actors to tone down their own unique styles, and actually emphasizes the differing qualities of each performer. Swinton is playing a character that isn't a stock "Tilda Swinton character", if there is such a thing, yet Social Services is a character that I feel like only Swinton might have played the way she does. He takes the well-known persona of Bruce Willis and emphasizes aspects of it (he's a cop, after all!) while casting against type in other ways, and it's a role that Willis makes his unique own. And of course he and Murray seem to have a inexhaustible supply of novel Murray characters to give us.

Yet despite the wide range of performance styles, Anderson is always able to melt the result into a complete and cohesive universe nonetheless. To me that's a remarkable achievement, to balance so many different disparate notes into a single, recognizable entity. I just can't think of another director who can do such a thing - typically sprawling, eclectic casts of big-name actors like this are disastrous, or at the very least don't come together into such a uniquely distinct single entity. Moonrise Kingdom is his most successful film in this regard in my mind, but it's been a trademark of Anderson's ever since he managed to put James Caan and Owen Wilson into a movie together and come out of it looking OK. Sure, Bottle Rocket is a little rough around the edges, but still.

And so, in the spirit of the thread (small, and more or less uniform, gaps in between each movie):

1. Moonrise Kingdom
2. Rushmore
3. The Royal Tenenbaums
4. The Fantastic Mr. Fox
5. The Darjeeling Limited
6. The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou
7. Bottle Rocket

(Life Aquatic's ranking is largely provisional, based on the hazy memories of seeing it only a single time upon its original release. I used to own the Criterion DVD but somehow never got around to watching it.)

[Jeff]

It sounds like Lowry_Sam hasn't actually even seen much of the work he's decrying outside of "occasionally... on an airplane," so his criticisms of that incredibly disparate group of filmmakers are kind of tough to engage in. Also, I heard Terry Gross interview him once on Fresh Air, and it didn't sound like he had much of a critical point of view -- just the usual tropes about "rich, hip, white people."

[FerdinandGriffon]

1. The Royal Tenenbaums
2. The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou
3. Rushmore
4. Moonrise Kingdom
5. Bottle Rocket
6. Fantastic Mr. Fox
7. The Darjeeling Limited

Count me among those perplexed by the lack of support for The Life Aquatic. I find it his most open, generous, and breathable film, while also his most ambitious in terms of both scale and detail of invention. He's never had a better cast, the score is his and Mothersbaugh's most eclectic and interesting, and the main location is as unforgettable, in its own way, as Lewis' boarding house or Godard's factory. It was the last film he made before he descended into saccharine self-parody with Darjeeling Limited and the hamster cages of Fox and Moonrise Kingdom. In the latter he at least showed some interest in breaking with formula, but in my feeling with only partial success.

Then again, I've been saying for a while that he should quit vaguely present day family dramas for a while and make a real period film or a sci-fi thriller, and it looks like Hotel might be just the ticket. I'd love to love one of his films again.

[Michael Kerpan]

It was the last film he made before he descended into saccharine self-parody with Darjeeling Limited and the hamster cages of Fox and Moonrise Kingdom.

Moonruise Kingdom. Hamster cage. ????

[FerdinandGriffon]

Moonruise Kingdom. Hamster cage. ????

I was desperately trying to avoid the dollhouse comparison, which I find inexact and ungenerous. Hamster cage may be inexact too, but it does convey some of the problems I had with Moonrise Kingdom. The island in the film is a totally closed off world, with a set number of tracks and avenues the characters have access to. I find their movement within it unengaging and unreal, that watching it gives the same kind of meaningless, floating sensation as watching an animal scurrying through a clear plastic tube suspended in mid air. There is never any possibility for the characters of engagement with a universe outside of Anderson's (a possibility he preserves in his pre-Darjeeling films). And the fantasy world itself, though immaculate, is simply less interesting than his previous attempts at the same; it's more banal, more sanitized, its nostalgia is more vague, it seems to confine characters rather than act as an extension of them.

[Michael Kerpan]

FG -- I couldn't disagree more. First of all, our hero is very much connected with the outside world, which continues to threaten harm to him up until the final resolution. And as the characters, it must be a matter of taste -- I found them sufficiently credible and quite endearing, much more so than those in the other WA films I've seen,

[domino harvey]

Moonrise Kingdom is one of those movies where I can be sure that I wouldn't enjoy the company of anyone who didn't connect to the film. The above "criticism" only underlines that suspicion! So much joy and warmth coupled with a realization of cinematic possibilities produced one of the grandest portrayals of what childhood feels like, and to curmudgeonly dismiss it as insular and affectated is missing the point in a rather depressing manner

[FerdinandGriffon]

Moonrise Kingdom is one of those movies where I can be sure that I wouldn't enjoy the company of anyone who didn't connect to the film. The above "criticism" only underlines that suspicion!

What's the correct term for a reverse ad-hominen attack? I'm not sure what my brief remarks about Anderson's films have to say about me that sits so badly with you Domino, but I'd never dare to tell someone that I disliked them personally just because they might say something I considered flip or stupid about a single film I liked.

[swo17]

Moonrise Kingdom is one of those movies where I can be sure that I wouldn't enjoy the company of anyone who didn't connect to the film.

The weird thing is that most of the people I know in real life (whose company I generally enjoy) didn't like the film at all. So it's always surprised me a little how nearly universally well received it is here. (Just going off of the dynamic consensus lists, it's tied with Melancholia for the most popular film of the decade.)

[LQ]

Moonrise Kingdom is one of those movies where I can be sure that I wouldn't enjoy the company of anyone who didn't connect to the film.

This. Occasionally a film appears that acts as a perfect litmus test for compatibility, and when Moonrise Kingdom came out I hauled nearly everyone with whom I share a deep or even a pleasantly passing relationship to go see it, and it was universally enjoyed by all. It's only on this forum that I've ever heard of people disliking the movie.

I respect mfunk's criticisms of it being a little too stuffed with actors, some of the supporting characters do come off as underdeveloped, but I'm completely absorbed in the kids so that didn't bother me. Moonrise Kingdom captures what it felt like to be an adolescent on the cusp of young adulthood in very real ways, more so than any other film I've seen, and I'm eternally grateful for its existence as I view it almost like a beautiful ouija board to use as a conduit to that part of my life (which sounds depressing as I write it out!).

My list, FWIW:

1. Moonrise Kingdom
2. Rushmore
3. Fantastic Mr Fox
4. The Royal Tenenbaums
5. The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou
6. The Darjeeling Limited

(canyonesque gap)

7.Bottle Rocket