full life

(no subject)

I love Wes Anderson, but why? It turns out that most of what I love about his movies are the performances. Yes I love the OCD-level attention to detail, the composition, the soundtrack, and also the dialogue - one of my favorite things to do when I watch one of his films is to look in the corners of each frame - but when the movie is over, what I remember are the performances. The word "performance" seems appropriate here because there's nothing inherently natural about the worlds he creates - everything you see on screen has been meticulously considered, designed and set in place (hell, there's only one font). Which, consequently, leaves very little room for poetry.

The performances in The Life Aquatic are really what save this movie, which is remarkable in that most of the characters in it are only given one note to sustain for the duration - for example, Angelica Houston and Willem DeFoe give brilliant performances but have absolutely nothing to do and nowhere to go. Bill Murray is, of course, terrific - this movie was made for him and he knocks it out of the park, and his chemistry with Owen Wilson is rich, unforced, and quite beautiful to watch. Cate Blanchette is also quite good in a difficult role.

At this point, Wes has established his bag of tricks almost too rigidly - there are many long, difficult camera moves, there are crazy there are a lot of great songs on the soundtrack and they are all played loudly, there is the obligatory slow-motion shot at the coda. There are a few surprises in this movies, to be sure - boobies, profanity, explosions and a lot of charming stop-motion sea creatures - but ultimately it's not going to be mistaken for anything but a Wes Anderson movie.

Let me switch gears a minute here, because I can feel myself trying to write an intelligent review and everything's coming out all constipated and forced.

After the movie, Kath said she loved it. More tellingly, she said, "No matter which film of his I see, I can honestly say that I've never seen anything like it before." I'm not so sure I agree - this particular movie feels a lot like The Royal Tenenbaums but with a much bigger budget. But anyway, that's not the point - the point is that I was struggling to figure out how to talk about it, and the truth of the matter is that I really don't have much to say about it. It's a Wes Anderson movie, Bill Murray is absolutely fantastic, there's a lot of great dialogue and certainly this is a movie I'll want on DVD to examine in great detail. But ultimately, it's also a movie that I'll forget about after a while.

Clearly, Wes is talented and has a very clear vision. My worry is that his access to bigger budgets will lead him away from what makes his movies so charming - Rushmore and Bottle Rocket didn't need elaborate sets, they succeeded on the basis of having rich characters who had unfulfilled dreams. TLA is an extension of the excess of Royal Tenenbaums - big sets, tons of extraneous details - but largely one-dimensional characters.

I can certainly recommend this film to people who were going to see it anyway, but I'm not so sure that it will resonate with anyone who isn't already a willing audience.
This is mostly what I've been hearing from pre-reviews, but I'm still glad to shell out my 9 bucks and see it on Christmas. :)
I'm certainly very curious to hear what other people have to say about it; I still haven't really made up my mind about it. I think I want to see it again, though.
i was actually quite enjoying your "constipated" review. in any case, two questions:

1. did Royal Tenenbaums resonate and stick with you?

2. who's boobies?
1. It did, although not nearly as much as Rushmore.

2. Minor character - it's not sexual, she's just a crewmember who sunbathes in the first half of the film.
Was your initial reaction to the Royal Tenenbaums similar? TRT is my favorite movie, so if Life Aquatic is a continuation of those themes and meticulous attention to detail, I think I'll love it.

I have tickets to a screening next week. I also find it hard to write about Anderson's movies because they hit at an emotional level that isn't easy to describe. He is one director where people either get it or they don't.
Re: Hi
Rushmore is the first WA movie I saw; I sat in the front row all the way to the side, so my neck hurt and everything was warped. Nevertheless, as soon as the movie ended I raced over to the neighboring Virgin Megastore and bought the soundtrack and made plans to see it again, immediately. I loved the hell out of it - it's by far my favorite of his films.

Then I found out about Bottle Rocket, so I rented it and loved it. I was totally in love with how intimate and sweet it was.

So I was prepared for TRT; I had been excited for it ever since I heard it was in production, and I was the first one in line when it opened. It was fun to watch, and I enjoyed it immensely, but it didn't quite hit as close to home as I would've liked; it held up a lot better on DVD, though.

Obviously, I couldn't WAIT for TLA - Bill Murray's been on a hot streak, and I knew that this movie was basically built for him - and, well, I still liked it, but it didn't really satisfy me. I'm still probably going to see it again in the theater, and I'm sure that repeated DVD viewings will endear me to it, but right now I'm a bit unsure as to where I'd rank it. And that's really part of the problem - this is not a movie that requires any deep analysis, and I don't know if that's unfortunate or not.
Re: Hi
what's interesting is that my WA viewing experiences have been the opposite of yours. TRT was the first movie I saw of his, and I absolutely loved it-- it's my favorite of his films. Next I saw Rushmore, which I liked and then finally (just this year in fact) saw Bottle Rocket, which was enjoyable but my least favorite, and I found myself viewing it as a novelty in terms of noticing many techniques that he'd use in his later films. I suppose my point is that it's all about perspective and expectation. i do, however, anticipate having a similar reaction to LA.