Wednesday
Sep022009
Wednesday, September 2, 2009 at 9:23AM Wes Anderson's 'Fantastic Mr. Fox' Featurette
I'm guessing your level of interest in and anticipation of The Fantastic Mr. Fox probably depends on how much you like Wes Anderson. I think he's sacrificed story to achieve his rather eccentric means on his past two films, The Life Aquatic and The Darjeeling Limited, and both struggled at the box office. I'm not saying there's a direct link, but neither story is as focused as Tenenbaums or Rushmore.
Reader Comments (16)
Wes Anderson, unlike P.T. Anderson, has never really stepped out of his filmmaking comfort zone, I'm hoping he does here, I don't need eccentric Mr. Fox, I just want a good story Mr. Fox.
Well, who says that you need a story to follow. like a retarded high school kid?
Films can be told by exploring character or setting a mood, which Wes Anderson does admirably.
I loved The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou and I rather liked The Darjeeling Limited.
It goes without saying that quirky and intelligent films llike that, that don't surrender to the lowest common denominator, won't make a ton at the box office.
But they will however make our lives richer.
Well, enjoy your richer life; I thought Darjeeling was Wes Anderson looking in a mirror and jerking off.
I'm with Lengthy, although Darjeeling was not his best, him looking in the mirror and jerking off is still better than most of the crap that comes out of the studios... if story means the formula that most films follow that you can tell what will happen from the trailer than I'll take the reflective masterbation every time. As far as the featurette goes, I love the scenes of Clooney doing the voice work.
No, formula and story are not the same thing. Formula and plot often walk the same ground, but the story is much more than its structure. For example, the fish out of water formula has been used for the overwhelming majority of recent animated films, from Toy Story to Finding Nemo (literally) to Monsters vs. Aliens. But what makes one stand out over another is how the characters go from the beginning to the end of their journey, and that's where the art overtakes the craft.
In the case of Anderson's previous two films, I felt that the story stopped being told pretty early in, at least in relation to how he handled Rushmore and Tenenbaums, and instead of revealing his characters more he stepped outside of them to develop completely peripheral characters and sub-plots. Weird? Yes. Out of the mainstream? Yes. But that doesn't automatically make them special.
By formula I was largely talking about romantic comedies and special effects films... and by studio crap I mean how I never saw Righteous Kill and still told my buddy everything that would happen including who was the bad cop just from the trailer. And yes I know the distinction between story and plot but most mainstream films never branch out beyond the formulaic plot to involve any depth in the story or character, while Anderson films are the opposite, all story and character with less emphasis on plot. The family dynamics that he puts on screen are more real and deep, despite the quirkiness of the characters, than almost any other films released by studios. And your reference to PIXAR is not all that enlightening because they are the exception that proves the rule... they make exceptional films that are probably emblematic of the best that studios can produce not the average productions to which I was discussing my preference of Anderson's oeuvre. He is an actual auteur not just a hired hand to get from point A-B-C.
Oh, he's an auteur? Well then, I guess he's incapable of making artistic mistakes or being too self-indulgent when he has a bigger budget (like the $50 million spent on Life Aquatic). I didn't realize Cahiers du Cinema was in the room. Forgive me.
And I'm not saying he's not a good filmmaker, just that two of his movies were more self-indulgent and less interested in character development than the others.
I'm sorry too, I forgot the part where I was saying he was incapable of making mistakes... or wait I didn't, I just said that his films are still better than the average crap. And I forgot that other 'auteurs' (you may not agree that this is a valid film theory) were never self indulgent, Godard or Fellini (who you personally praise in an article above) or Tarantino or Scorsese (despite how you, based on your discussion of Shutter Island as not a Scorsese film without even haven seen it) were never self-indulgent in their careers. I forgot how art is not a personal expression but merely a product like so much that goes produced these days. I'm sorry his 50 million dollar budget was excessive in your eyes, since the AVERAGE film budget in the US is roughly 35-40 million.
As an avid reader and also often impressed patron of your website and commentary you are quick to become sarcastic, arrogant and condescending. If you don't want people to add their opinions to your site, why have a comments section? Do you really believe your taste or insights are the be all and end all? Perhaps you should find some humility in your grand existence as website movie-rumor distributor and realize that all art is subjective and just because you find it masterbatory doesn't mean that the rest of the cinephiles agree.
And yes I back up my statement, that in a world of cookie cutter filmmakers Wes Anderson is the definition of auteur which doesn't mean he doesn't make mistakes but simply means that he has a recognizable and personal creative vision, which despite your distaste for his work cannot be denied. Nothing I said was not merely my opinion and also not backed up by evidence, and just because you disagree doesn't mean you have to shit on it... especially since you have actually quoted me in one of your previous articles.
And finally, when did he he "step outside of them (his characters) to develop completely peripheral characters and sub-plots" I don't believe there is more than a single scene in Life Aquatic that doesn't involve Owen Wilson or Bill Murray, nor a single scene in Darjeeling without the three brothers. Again, to reiterate my initial argument, he's not infallible, but he makes films that are more interesting, visually and in terms of character and dialogue, than most others.
Thanks for handling the discussion in a respectable and adult manner. And I could only wish that I wrote for Cahier du Cinema, as Im sure you do to, it must be better than one of a million copycat internet sites. Cheers.