Tweedy fashion + family of misfits + Kinks-y soundtrack + daddy issues + Angelica Huston + liberal captioning + elaborate set pieces + reverence for childish innocence + primacy of accoutrements + one jarring scene of violence = Wes Anderson film #wesanderson
What's the one element that has kept Wes Anderson's more recent movies from being great?
Owen Wilson as a principle writer.
He's more than a pretty-ish face and a fucked up nose. He is apparently the key to making WA movies more than a sum of its quirks. I think he brings an ease, a sense of humor, and the heart that mitigate the jarring nature of WA quirky film-making. Movies like Rushmore and Tenenbaums and Shanghai Noon are great because Owen Wilson has contributed to the script.
OK... the guy has made the same movie a few too many times now. Here's hoping he breaks out of it and finds a new direction to go. Maybe this film is even it. But I don't really understand the absolute hatred going on with this post. I mean... is he really the worst problem with American cinema these days?
Unearned gravitas? What kind of bullshit first day of NYC film school garbage is this? Is music no longer an acceptable part of a film? Was a tear inducing score in The Bicycle Thief a cheap trick to cultivate unearned gravitas. Or is it only cheap when you use Nico? I'm confused about the logistics here... The guy makes nostalgia laced comedies. Gasp! Is there a problem with this? I know he surely has kool aid drinking fans that know nothing about great films from decades past, but it's not his fault. So he's a stylist and not a heavy filmmaker. You know what... I have room for that once every few years. If nothing else it's a change of pace from the typical four releases we get every week.
Granted, I'll watch fucking Nic Cage crap just as happily as I'll watch Haneke or PT Anderson or whoever we're deciding is good now. At least until we decide they are crap a couple years from now and disregard any love we had of their previous work.
Or was this just an opportunity to say hoodie? Funny how it has a different meaning on deadspin.
Life Aquatic was hardly a flop. It's in the Criterion Collection so apparently there are at least some people out there who can recognize it for the master piece it is. Hating on The Life Aquatic is just one of those convenient go to opinions people have without really thinking about, everyone else does it, so why actually give the film a fair shake when it's cool to shit on it.
See also Ralph Nader and M. Night Shymalan.
@Al_Pastor: What do you mean "since Gawker took over"? Were you ever laboring under the impression that Defamer was NOT a site owned by Gawker Media's Nick Denton?
@snugbug: Not you, bug. It's just the sad, mean, pointless tone here. It used to be fun and constructively critical, right?
Maybe it's just me, and I'm that horrible old person who hates everything about the next generation. I accept that might be part of it, and I'm as annoyed as anyone by that hypocrisy. But picking on Wes Anderson -- and not the stuff he may have deserved it for -- makes my black little heart hurt. (Dude earns a lifetime pass for Rushmore, Bottle Rocket and Tenenbaums.)
That and I miss the WN/FN/SNFF, I miss Ian, I miss Emily, I miss the Commies, I miss the camaraderie of us commenters.
@PrincessKashmir: Dear PrincessKashmir, I completely sympathize with your qualms, but all the same beseech you not to leave. I agree that Gawker of yore seemed to attract a somewhat more enlightened quality of commenters. These days, I often find myself being Miss Contrarian on most threads. I don't even mean to, but it's as if I know too much, or something. If you and your ilk leave us, the quality of the site will further devolve. I only defend this because, like you, I got a taste of intellectual camaraderie here, and I relish it. It's fun. So, again: Please don't leave.
@PrincessKashmir: Hearted, but you're being overly sentimental. There are plenty of us old gawkers still here. And he does get a pass for RUSHMORE certainly and I actually look forward to seeing this. I think he's a more interesting match for Roald Dahl than someone more obvious like Tim Burton. I'd love to see a Jan Svankmajer version, though.
@Balsa Wood: It's true that Emily has acid-trip forearms and a sense of self-entitlement the size of the Con Edison Building, but on the other hand I can't recall her ever making four major typos in a single post. #wesanderson
If being quirky is wrong, I don't wanna be right. Anderson is extremely talented and there's nothing wrong with having a "style" of filmmaking-- it must be annoying if you don't like that style, but I personally love his movies.
@lafleur: Me too! I adore the fact that he's a filmmaker that cobbles together his stories from surface/style details, but somehow still manages to achieve emotional depth. I'm a little disappointed that he seems to have been making the same movie over and over again since "Rushmore," but maybe "Mr. Fox" will break that spell. Also, Anderson gets all his suits custom-made by an old-school NYC tailor. It's VERY HARD not to love a man who does that.
@snugbug: I was always a bit of a groupie: I passed him on the street in Paris a few years ago and nearly had a stroke. His uber perfect trenchcoat was straight out of a dream.
I loved Rushmore and Bottle Rocket too. I think that WA is a great stylist, but his films seem just seem lean too heavily on great costume design and british invasion music for any trace of emotion. He's obviously talented, but without a good script, what's it all for?
@disinterested 3rd party: I can't believe how much we think alike. "Stylist" is a brilliantly descriptive qualifier for Wes Anderson. He and Sofia Coppola are like two peas in a pod. I adore their work, but I do not confuse it with substance. I am convinced they have no "stories" per se to tell, they're just collectors of wonderful artifacts that they want to share with the world. And making movies is a vehicle to do so. Luckily, they have good taste.
Here's "Making Time" from the Creation, from "Rushmore"..
@snugbug: I've posted a similar "rant" about him here before. I've actually run out of steam on this subject. I'm only posting again because of Princess Kashmir's defection. I think she doesn't realizes that she's the personification of what the post is explicating. Somehow Wes is untouchable because his appropriation of other people's skills is unimpeachable? He's a great pop cultural editor, not unlike Tarantino or even Paul Thomas Anderson. But those guys have something to say. Wes doesn't seem to. His earliest films are his best in my opinion because they were personal, not exercises in style. Everybody has that great story in them about themselves, growing up. The truly great ones are the people that can move on from that and tell another story and tell it well. I understand he knows where to put the camera. I love where he puts the camera, but being a Kubrick devotee isn't enough.
@piminnowcheez: Agreed, and I'd go even further: This misspelling of "repertoire" appeared in something that is ostensibly a piece of film criticism. What do you do with cognitive dissonance like that?
And the error is not a typo. To come up with "repatoire," one actually has to think the word is spelled that way. Actual typos are trivial by comparison.
@skahammer: amen, and a notable distinction. i just barely caught it, as sadly, i seem to have developed a sort of snow blindness to gawker's burgeoning illiteracy problem. it's why i used to have to read all my sudents' papers twice--but this did not seem to warrant such treatment.
@Balsa Wood: You're right, Balsa. I overreached. God help me when my own blunders are subjected to such unforgiving scrutiny.
And I'm not sure if I'm remembering this correctly, but some instinct of mine formed by long months of Gawker scanning wants to trust you on the topic of nastiness....
I lost it on a recent Gus Van Sant post, if that's what you're referring to. Lost it entirely. I still have flashbacks.
Interestingly enough, the Van Sant post was not written by Richard Rushfield, but ANOTHER writer. Gawker has a deep, deep distaste for fancy-pants directors, apparently.
Hey, the seats reserved for the "20th Century Fox" crew were in front of mine and got in the way of me seeing Bill Murray's facial expressions. They should be glad I let them leave the Ballroom without experiencing my polite British rage.
Jesus, is there a young American director Gawker likes? Maybe I shouldn't be surprised, but the outright hostility towards Anderson, Jonze, Van Sant (not all that young, but still), et al, makes you sound like a bunch of cranks. (If it were backed up with more specific criticism, that might help...)
I'm not much of a Wes Anderson fan myself, but the tone of this post is almost Limbaugh-esque. You really WANT him to fail.
Hello, copy editors! It's kookiness, not cookiness. And gravitas, not gravity. Repertoire, not repatoire. And America, not Americ. Surely there are enough out-of-work copyeditors willing to lend a hand at Gawker HQ?
10/15/09
10/15/09
10/15/09
10/15/09
10/14/09
Owen Wilson as a principle writer.
He's more than a pretty-ish face and a fucked up nose. He is apparently the key to making WA movies more than a sum of its quirks. I think he brings an ease, a sense of humor, and the heart that mitigate the jarring nature of WA quirky film-making. Movies like Rushmore and Tenenbaums and Shanghai Noon are great because Owen Wilson has contributed to the script.
10/14/09
Unearned gravitas? What kind of bullshit first day of NYC film school garbage is this? Is music no longer an acceptable part of a film? Was a tear inducing score in The Bicycle Thief a cheap trick to cultivate unearned gravitas. Or is it only cheap when you use Nico? I'm confused about the logistics here... The guy makes nostalgia laced comedies. Gasp! Is there a problem with this? I know he surely has kool aid drinking fans that know nothing about great films from decades past, but it's not his fault. So he's a stylist and not a heavy filmmaker. You know what... I have room for that once every few years. If nothing else it's a change of pace from the typical four releases we get every week.
Granted, I'll watch fucking Nic Cage crap just as happily as I'll watch Haneke or PT Anderson or whoever we're deciding is good now. At least until we decide they are crap a couple years from now and disregard any love we had of their previous work.
Or was this just an opportunity to say hoodie? Funny how it has a different meaning on deadspin.
10/14/09
See also Ralph Nader and M. Night Shymalan.
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
i haven't visited this site much since Gawker took over. i should have stuck to that program
10/14/09
10/14/09
Maybe it's just me, and I'm that horrible old person who hates everything about the next generation. I accept that might be part of it, and I'm as annoyed as anyone by that hypocrisy. But picking on Wes Anderson -- and not the stuff he may have deserved it for -- makes my black little heart hurt. (Dude earns a lifetime pass for Rushmore, Bottle Rocket and Tenenbaums.)
That and I miss the WN/FN/SNFF, I miss Ian, I miss Emily, I miss the Commies, I miss the camaraderie of us commenters.
10/14/09
10/14/09
i guess i should have said "since they fired all the cool people and replaced them with sucky ones".
all i know is ever since the website says defamer.gawker it has sucked my balls
10/14/09
Please tell me how the following was constructive, or even vaguely sophisticated:
[gawker.com]
10/15/09
10/15/09
10/15/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
Here's "Making Time" from the Creation, from "Rushmore"..
10/14/09
10/14/09
This typo appearing in the same sentence as "unearned sense of gravitas" made an ugly little part of me smile.
10/14/09
10/14/09
And the error is not a typo. To come up with "repatoire," one actually has to think the word is spelled that way. Actual typos are trivial by comparison.
10/14/09
10/15/09
10/15/09
10/15/09
10/15/09
And I'm not sure if I'm remembering this correctly, but some instinct of mine formed by long months of Gawker scanning wants to trust you on the topic of nastiness....
10/15/09
I lost it on a recent Gus Van Sant post, if that's what you're referring to. Lost it entirely. I still have flashbacks.
Interestingly enough, the Van Sant post was not written by Richard Rushfield, but ANOTHER writer. Gawker has a deep, deep distaste for fancy-pants directors, apparently.
10/15/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
I'm not much of a Wes Anderson fan myself, but the tone of this post is almost Limbaugh-esque. You really WANT him to fail.
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
See? We don't want each other to fail!
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
It's pretty mind blowing the level of hostility towards these directors. makes me wonder why Richard Rushfeld is so bitter.
i would hardly call Anderson's last two films "flops". yet more pointless hyperbole and another piece of shit journalism
10/14/09
10/15/09
10/14/09
10/15/09