Rating: 18/20 (Jen: 17/20)
Plot: A bunch of people fight over a painting after the death of an old woman.
Here's the exact moment all of you feared the second you saw the title of this movie in the "Coming Soon..." part of my blog. You thought, "Oh, boy. We all know what's going to happen here. Shane, a Wes Anderson fanboy, saw this movie in the theater, and now he's going to gush and give it a rating that is way too high." It was a solid prediction on your part, but let's face the facts, Nostradamus. This was a pretty easy one. There are few filmmakers this idiosyncratic. If you like one thing he's done, you're likely to like nearly everything. In my case, it is everything, and I'm not ashamed to say that. Anderson's vibe is one that people don't even bother to duplicate although there will likely be Anderson-esque touches in movies for years and years. Here, Anderson is at the peak of his powers, getting Hollywood stars--including a bunch of his usuals--to take on very small roles, including a few things that can barely even be called cameos (I swear that I spotted George Clooney in this for about .8 seconds) and look and act absolutely ridiculous, something they're willing to do because they know they'll be part of something really great. Ralph Fiennes is new to Anderson's quirky hyper-stylized fantasy world, and he's a perfect fit along with young co-star Tony Revolori. Good comedic rapport between those two. Willem Dafoe plays my favorite character, maybe, if you'll excuse the hyperbole, ever. He plays one of those dark comedic characters that will make you laugh just thinking about him. Adrien Brody, Mathieu Amalric, Jeff Goldblum, Edward Norton, Harvey Keitel. Harvey Keitel! The guy's barely recognizable and plays such a cool character. Schwartzman, Murray, and Wilson--three Anderson fixtures--are barely in there at all. Tilda Swinton (also unrecognizable), F. Murray Abraham (old), Tom Wilkinson, Jude Law, shane-movies hero Bob Balaban. It's almost too much, and there's absolutely no way a storyteller can adequately characterize this many characters and make you care for any of them. Arguably, the two main characters--third if you count Zero's birthmarked love interest played by somebody named Saoirse Ronan, a name I can't even pronounce--aren't even that well defined, but that's fine because this isn't a movie about characters. This is a movie about a time that has long passed at right around the time it starts to die away. It's not a place that can possibly be real even though it's got some of the same colors and shadings. It's a free-styling romp through the same kind of fairy tale land that the characters in Moonrise Kingdom or The Fantastic Mr. Fox inhabit, everything's nuanced, movements and speech patterns so prepared. You laugh at things you're not supposed to laugh at, cringe with delight, and most important just feel so good about everything that you're seeing and hearing. There are so many shots in this that are just so perfect, that typical Anderson attention to detail added to childlike art backdrops and cheapo-special effects. You get fingers and decapitation, James Bond-like ski/sled chases, Asian pornography, a flying kitty, monks, the goofiest shoot-out you'll ever see (seriously, look for a Clooney), the funniest prison break ever. Oh, nevermind. I can't say anymore because it's the surprises that will make this so much fun for you. It takes a little bit of time with a stumbling frame story to get going, but once it does, it's a hoot, guaranteed to please fans of any other Wes Anderson movie. It's almost like the collection of characters, like the silly painting at the center of this conflict, is just an excuse for Anderson to put his vision on the screen. It's the best kind of ridiculous, and I can't wait to see it again and again.
as a HUGE harold and maude fan i should think the idea of a remake would make the world end, literally blow up, but i think a remake done by wes anderson could be interesting. he would be the man to do it. sorry for the aside. please proceed.
ReplyDeleteNo. As much as I love Anderson and Harold and Maude, I just don't think I would like this idea at all. I'd watch it and rate it too high though. But Jason Schwartzman is too old to play Harold and Bill Murray would be too silly as Maude.
ReplyDeletebill murray would be the preacher. DUH!
ReplyDeletebud cort would be the therapist.
Ok, we'll both pitch our casting ideas to Wes and see which he likes better...
ReplyDeleteForgot that Cort would have to be somebody in the remake. Kind of forgot that he was in a Wes Anderson movie.
My god. These movies are just so god damned beautiful. This one, in particular, was operatic -- visual poetry.
ReplyDeleteHere are my jotted thoughts (there's too much to say, and I don't have much time right now)
______________________________________________
I like the flashback of a flashback play...
Boisterous colors; the lighting is perfect for each scene. The camera shots/angles/pans/drastic move-ins and zooms. This all shows how Anderson is a master with the camera. Definitely brings to mind Scorsese-esque perfection.
I was sitting to the left of the TV, and physically had to get up, move the chair, and sit directly in the center. The movie's asymmetrical form literally took me out of my chair. Bravo!
No one does set design like Anderson, though. Those miniatures! All the familiar pieces are there. No stone unturned; every inch of the sets are carefully detailed.
Fiennes is a great Gustave. He is such an underrated actor, and this was a great highlight for his work. He's an aging charmer, that's for sure, and that casting couldn't have been more perfect.
The character itself is such a great character, too. I love movies that make you love the characters. If I were to read the novelization of this story, Gustave would have been a memorable character, no doubt.
The script is superb: touching, witty, poetic, straight-foward, self-aware. Even though some of those descriptions are opposites, they all coexist in this layered movie. "Did he just throw my cat out the window?"
The sound was playful. I forgot there was even a score (probably because the visuals are so engaging). But it's very apropos.
Gustave says to Zero regarding Agatha: "She gets it. That's important."
You have to appreciate this movie. You have to "get it." It's very important to film, screenwriting, and storytelling. It's a cheeky movie with balladry composition. This is Anderson art.
Every time I get ready to write about a Wes Anderson movie, I think that my ratings are probably too high. When I watched them all recently, I kept thinking, "These ratings are too low!" I think Anderson, more than any current person making movies, is going to be appreciated way more in the future than he is now. Not that he isn't appreciated now because he is--by hipster doofuses--but I think these movies are going to have a lasting appeal. He's like a 21st Century Preston Sturges.
ReplyDeleteI also don't rewatch movies as much as I should, but these Wes Anderson movies...it has to be the details of the sets that you mentioned. I think whatever part of my brain that appeals to just keeps telling me, "Hey, you need to see Darjeeling again...there's stuff we missed!"
I think I agree with every single thing you said in your comment, and I really like the way you used those contradictory adjectives. You almost want to take all that just on the surface and think there's no way at all it could work. The fact that it does is what's so brilliant.
I did really like the score.