The Film Fatale

Scroll to Info & Navigation

Amazon is having a Wes Anderson collection sale!

THE WES ANDERSON MIXTAPE

Great directors create their own genre and Wes Anderson movies are a genre unto themselves. His films are played out in linear motion, his actors moving like costumed dolls in a vast toy house. It’s as much theatre as film. Here are Anderson’s movies remixed like a cross section of a doll’s house - the themes and styles blended and mashed together.

Didn’t mean to ignore these. I just couldn’t reply to them on mobile Tumblr.

quaasar said: i know what you mean about Anderson. his films, when you watch them, are actually very substantial and well written, just thinking about them, you think they will be really cutse-y.

Eh I don’t know if I agree. Just look at the female characters in Wes Anderson films. They are basically the same person. It’s probably his dream girl or something. Someone who looks like they’ve stepped out of a Godard movie, wears outfits only from the Modcloth catalog, and someone who probably orgasms at the word “vintage”.

There are only three Wes Anderson films that I love and they are Rushmore, The Royal Tenenbaums and The Life Aquatic, and those three are very different and actually substantial. Tenenbaums I love because of the dysfunctional family, and the use of humor to kind of skirt around that touchy subject was very well done. It’s actually a very emotional movie without being saccharine, and part of me wonders whether Anderson poured all of his evocative writing into this movie and as a result, his other films are much less moving. Rushmore is great because it’s sort of like a less raunchier, less obscene Election, and Max Fischer’s character felt novel and fresh at the time. And The Life Aquatic is just made up of a slew of entertaining shenanigans. The story is completely ridiculous but so much fun. And the ensemble cast in each of these films seemed intentional, like they had very specific roles to play and they served a purpose. Now the ensemble cast just seems like schtick. The actors just show up and sort of phone it in, partially because the script is just so blah.

I know after reading this, it seems like I have a serious bone to pick with Anderson. But I really don’t. I don’t care enough to dislike him. I’m not overwhelmed or underwhelmed by his work. To paraphrase a quote from 10 Things I Hate About You, I’m sort of just “whelmed”.

pricklylegs said: Just watched Catching Fire and I noticed how different (better) it was from the 1st movie.. read Gary Ross` (brown nosing statement) on why he did not return. Kinda wish he`d not touched the first one.

I don’t think it was entirely Gary Ross’s fault. Yeah, the shakycam didn’t do him any favors, but the problem was the script, which he co-wrote along with Billy Ray and Suzanne Collins. I think that the script made the book seem like child’s play, when in truth it was a lot grittier. I find it interesting that Collins, who had a hand in the first film’s screenplay, took a step back and didn’t get involved with the infinitely better script for Catching Fire. The odd thing is that Catching Fire for the most part, is a very faithful adaptation of the book. And one would think that having the author of the book involved in the screenplay would make the movie better, but in The Hunger Games's case, I feel like she did more harm than good. Whether Ross or Billy Ray are more to blame for the lackluster script than Collins, we won't really ever know.

I’m comforted by the fact that director Francis Lawrence is returning for Mockingjay, but since Catching Fire scribes Michael Arndt and Simon Beaufoy aren’t returning, we will see if Mockingjay is as strong as Catching Fire. Danny Strong will be penning Mockingjay Part 1, and he wrote Game Change, which was good but not revelatory, and The Butler, which was okay. So we will see how the third installment turns out.

that’s disappointing to hear but i think i’ll watch it anyway. do you think wes anderson’s becoming less and less great?

Well, it just seems to me that he is a filmmaker who hasn’t grown. His style is becoming increasingly stale film after film, as though he compensates for a lack of fresh ideas by throwing pretty elements all over it. I’m crazy for fonts, too, but I’m not about to revisit a film for its impressive use of typeface. So in a nutshell, yes, I’m tired of seeing his recycled, soulless characters, no matter what exotic location he decides to insert them into next.

THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL (2014)
The Grand Budapest Hotel is perhaps my least favorite Wes Anderson film.
It follows Gustave H (Ralph Fiennes), concierge at the prestigious Hungarian hotel, and his lobby boy Zero Mustafa (Tony Revolori) as the duo embark on an elaborate series of misadventures and near escapes, fleeing from the murderous family of a wealthy, lonely matriarch (Tilda Swinton) whom Gustave has had numerous trysts with. While beautifully photographed, featuring incredibly detailed and impressive sets (not to mention those delightful miniatures we’ve come to know and love from The Life Aquatic and The Fantastic Mr. Fox) and quite the celebration of typography, Grand Budapest was even more emotionally barren than Moonrise Kingdom, and much less charming and humorous than all of Anderson’s other films. It played like an overlong high school skit, and even his impressive ensemble cast of usual suspects could not prevent the pan-tilt-track sequence of camera movements in the film from getting plenty tiresome after the nth repetition. This was also perhaps Anderson’s weakest screenplay, with drawn out punchlines that often relied on hammy performances. The highlight of the film was the painstakingly made-up Tilda Swinton, who was in the picture for maybe all of three minutes, and yet managed to be instantly recognizable and unrecognizable at the same time. I did appreciate Anderson’s homage to Max Ophuls’ The Earrings of Madame de…, a film that the auteur has mentioned before as a favorite. 
I suppose the problem with The Grand Budapest Hotel is that it has become a shining example that Wes Anderson views people as still life, as things that can photograph beautifully, instead of sources of genuine joy or delight. He seems so intent on how they appear on camera that he forgets about the importance of energy and the fascinating dynamics of human interaction. The result is an array of stories about characters, and not people. What’s more, Anderson has seemed to forget how real emotions are played on screen, because when he attempts a moment of earnestness between characters, it falls flat in excruciating failure. In his obsession with mimicking the colorful palette of culture and vibrancy of life, he ends up with a sterile, manufactured product that is completely devoid of warmth. For an audience, this style makes the material impossible to connect with, an exercise of ennui that makes one wonder if this whole venture was better off as a book of photographs instead of a film.

THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL (2014)

The Grand Budapest Hotel is perhaps my least favorite Wes Anderson film.

It follows Gustave H (Ralph Fiennes), concierge at the prestigious Hungarian hotel, and his lobby boy Zero Mustafa (Tony Revolori) as the duo embark on an elaborate series of misadventures and near escapes, fleeing from the murderous family of a wealthy, lonely matriarch (Tilda Swinton) whom Gustave has had numerous trysts with. While beautifully photographed, featuring incredibly detailed and impressive sets (not to mention those delightful miniatures we’ve come to know and love from The Life Aquatic and The Fantastic Mr. Fox) and quite the celebration of typography, Grand Budapest was even more emotionally barren than Moonrise Kingdom, and much less charming and humorous than all of Anderson’s other films. It played like an overlong high school skit, and even his impressive ensemble cast of usual suspects could not prevent the pan-tilt-track sequence of camera movements in the film from getting plenty tiresome after the nth repetition. This was also perhaps Anderson’s weakest screenplay, with drawn out punchlines that often relied on hammy performances. The highlight of the film was the painstakingly made-up Tilda Swinton, who was in the picture for maybe all of three minutes, and yet managed to be instantly recognizable and unrecognizable at the same time. I did appreciate Anderson’s homage to Max Ophuls’ The Earrings of Madame de…, a film that the auteur has mentioned before as a favorite. 

I suppose the problem with The Grand Budapest Hotel is that it has become a shining example that Wes Anderson views people as still life, as things that can photograph beautifully, instead of sources of genuine joy or delight. He seems so intent on how they appear on camera that he forgets about the importance of energy and the fascinating dynamics of human interaction. The result is an array of stories about characters, and not people. What’s more, Anderson has seemed to forget how real emotions are played on screen, because when he attempts a moment of earnestness between characters, it falls flat in excruciating failure. In his obsession with mimicking the colorful palette of culture and vibrancy of life, he ends up with a sterile, manufactured product that is completely devoid of warmth. For an audience, this style makes the material impossible to connect with, an exercise of ennui that makes one wonder if this whole venture was better off as a book of photographs instead of a film.

zubrowkafilmcommission:

RENOWNED FILM DIRECTOR WES ANDERSON SHOOTS IN ZUBROWKA

Three-time Academy Award nominee Wes Anderson brings his directing expertise to the mountains of Nebelsbad for his latest film. Wes will use several techniques to convey the three separate time periods that the movie spans, utilizing his unique artistic approach to capture the heart of old Zubrowka.

(via foxsearchlightpictures)