540 The Darjeeling Limited

[Bananafish]

What were the odds of someone with a Salinger username posting in a Wes Anderson thread

Smartassery is the undoing of genuine film criticism and this board is living, breathing proof.

[pianocrash]

Okay, okay, enough of everyone, please, let's just stop and think of our children who will be reading this one day in a cache, because they will, right? Since I haven't actually chimed in, I didn't think the film was all that horrible or unwatchable due to all the oppressive reasoning-based innuendo that everyone (even me) lumps on Anderson. Sure, it's not his best work, or his worst, but it just feels like a formally made travelogue of a guy who adores his set design instead of, oh, I don't know, his regressive male tendencies. In the scope of his work, Darjeeling feels more like a work in progress or hastily stapled together report on "What India Feels Like To Me" than "Here's the Greatest Movie I've Ever Made, and I'm Not Kidding or Even Grinning Smugly"; the guy's just incapable of it, no matter how he tries. And while the conceit may be his most pared down yet (a few not-so-subtle clues about the brothers' respective pasts felt like a desperate grip at attempting a new approach, for example), what remains is the almost incapacitating nausea of three man-children going through the elevated stages of grief (itself an Anderson trademark by now). Perhaps, like someone else said (sorry, I'm lazy), that euphoric lift we get from the Angelica Huston screentime was on purpose, because these characters, no matter how gentle they try to be, deserve to be abandoned. That whole break shifts the movie past its already stiff stabs at entertainment, but I felt even more relieved once the credits rolled, and the train finally made its pleasant way toward oblivion. If Tim Burton can ply his career into complacent late-period Fellini, then I guess Wes Anderson is some kinda Louis Malle, but with his nose of privilege turned forever up instead of at a more respectful, intriguing angle, like, oh, I don't know, toward the reasonably humane? I totally hate myself for saying that (the funeral sequence, it's falling apart in my mind right now), but I'll try to forgive myself before it's too late. I promise.

[portnoy]

No, but seriously guys, this movie is so offensive(ly bad).

India is exotic! The poor people there are so noble!

Ah yes, please tell us that culture shock doesn't exist, and it makes for poor material for a story! And very untruthful. I for one know that even with in a few minutes of a completely different place I assimilate completely and understand their customs as my own. How right you are to assuage Anderson for making a film about people going somewhere they've never been and not "getting it."

The question isn't whether or not his characters 'get it' - it's whether or not Anderson 'gets it.' It's entirely possible to make a film about culture shock in which the filmmaker himself does not exoticize the people of the culture in question, in which he doesn't resort to orientalist/patronizing cliches about the inherent wisdom or nobility of the non-western and the indigent.

The disappointing thing for me was that I thought that this film was actually kinda doing that - offering a pretty stern rebuke to the more noxious elements of western cultural tourism - until that final third, in which Anderson decides to show us after all how these Noble Savages can show us Spiritual Truths.

[starmanof51]

until that final third, in which Anderson decides to show us after all how these Noble Savages can show us Spiritual Truths.

Could you elaborate because I don't remember that at all. Are you referring to the whole village/drowning business? Because I remember the locals showing good manners and an in no way unusual amount of grief (natch!) but that's about it. Certainly not the pulling of Spiritual Truths out of a hat. I could easily have missed it/forgotten it though. What I walked away with was the irony of a film that might have been a setup to have one or more of the three Marx brothers experience some form of enlightenment, but then subverted that expectation completely.

[exte]

I don't know, I found Rushmore to be pretty annoying and hackish as well. I felt Anderson used his understated deliveries and quirky dialog to hide the lack of real development or relationship between the characters. And the mix tape of a soundtrack (dedicated to his 7th grade crush no doubt) also helped gloss over the bad script.

There's a lot of development and "real" things happening in Rushmore. He finds Mr. Blume and gets under his wing, only to fight and betray him over a teacher he falls in love with. He loses and regains his friend. Even the antagonist relationship he has with Magnus resolves with a surprising bit of heart. The soundtrack is gold, and very much elevated in a positive, enjoyable light. Whereas the darjeeling soundtrack is somewhat good in its selection, but is drowned and suffocated while in the movie. God what a horrible movie. I was afraid by the trailer of all the wonderful colors that Wes Anderson probably spent more time deliberating and employing them than his characters that I stayed away. Looks like I was right. Had I seen it in the theaters, I would've been a s.o.b. audience member, for sure. Someone mentioned taking cues from PTA. Hell's right. For me, Darjeeling was the worst of last year; Death Proof was entertaining but had a quick fall off; and I just can't get enough of There Will Be Blood. If anything, I regret my purchase of Zissou though I can still stomach Tenenbaums sitting on the shelf. Rushmore seems to be one of a kind though, and that's sad, sad, sad...

[oldsheperd]

I was a little late in getting to check this out. There is absolutely no character development in the film and whereas most Anderson characters end up somewhere people just come and go in this film. BTW did anyone else feel that Anderson wasted the 2:35/1 aspect on this. There is very little of India in the film. Most of it is in the train whcih would have served Anderson better if he went with a different aspect ratio. I still however think he does a better job than most of weighing the frame.

[colinr0380]

I finally sat down with the DVD of this last night. I'm not particularly a big fan of Anderson, though I've never really had a negative reaction to any of his films. I even liked The Life Aquatic, mostly for its ensemble cast and locations and the Anderson-take on stunted action sequences and CGI spectacle! So trust me to like The Darjeeling Limited the best of all Anderson's films so far!

This is just an initial impression based on one viewing but I really felt that Darjeeling did provide some development from the previous films. I don't know whether it will have the repeatability and quotability of Tenenbaums yet, but wonder if that was what was being aimed for - there seemed to be a move away from 'set piece' scenes of the earlier films to a larger view of the structure of the film as a whole in this one. (It would be interesting to know more about how much the different writing partners affects the tone and structuring of the films) Set ups and pay offs enter into his work, notably with Portman adding to Schwartzman's 'emotional baggage' in the Hotel Chevalier short, which was cute but insubstantial (what was up with those bruises?), and I particularly liked the opening hand off of the film proper from Murray to Brody.

I also felt that the film benefited from a narrowing down of the characters from the ensembles of Tenenbaums, which worked beautifully, and Life Aquatic, which felt a bit over stuffed with characters who were all systematically given their moment in the spotlight. Though it strikes me that now that he has set up various archetypes Anderson was able to introduce them in the later film as a kind of shorthand to the audience - when Brendan the assistant is introduced he bears relationship to the kidnapped assistant in Life Aquatic and suggests the single minded nature of Francis comparable to Zissou, which itself sets up the encounter with the mother as the person with the domineering personality that Francis is copying, letting his behaviour (and the reactions of his brothers to it) seem more understandable, if still annoying to be on the receiving end of!

While there are still a great number of cameo appearances from the usual suspects, they really are cameos in this film while the focus is only on the brothers. I can understand the concern about the lack of 'real India' but on the other hand with the naive and self absorbed nature of the brothers foregrounded it doesn't feel as patronising as say Slumdog Millionaire does in 'describing' another culture - plus as was mentioned by someone else earlier, it is not as if Anderson was making gritty portraits of New York or Texas before this! (All the Indian songs in the film coming from films as diverse as Satyajit Ray's Music Room up to the recent Bollywood release of the time, Guru, suggests the artificial nature of the journey. Along with the two major Indian characters on the train having American and British accents respectively, making them stand in a way outside of 'real' Indian culture passing by the windows and more as characters co-opted into the brother's story).

I found it particularly funny that this 'spiritual journey' often involved shopping first and foremost on arrival, with frequent stops for a drink, a cigarette and casual sex on the journey! They are rather flawed for potential pilgrims. However this neatly ties into the idealism of one character dragging unwilling others along for the ride - like Life Aquatic, or any of the previous films, things never turn out as perfectly as the main character wished for but the characters just being there together can be seen as a success in itself. Perhaps this idealism is not just shown in Francis's faltering attempts at spiritualism but also Jack's attempts to place a soundtrack to his own life, with the awkward breaks in flow to play an appropriate track on his iPod, both an action and usually a piece of music that has a comical and over emphatic effect due to its obviousness (more about 'obviousness in Wes Anderson' later on!)

The film seems to be suggesting that questing externally for spiritual fulfilment is kind of wrongheaded - you take your baggage with you wherever you go and true spiritual peace can only really come from within, not by how many appropriate rituals you perform. That is why I like the "I couldn't save mine" line - the brothers are too self absorbed throughout the film so while they feel the loss of the child it is in terms which are overly personalised. However that allows for the wonderful funeral sequence in which, as in all the scenes with 'real' Indians, they are distant observers but instead this allows them to have a shared flashback to the centrally important garage scene (with a great cameo from Barbet Schroeder seemingly doing Willem Dafoe doing an interpretation of a taciturn German!)

It finally brings the trouble surrounding their father's death fully out for the characters to acknowledge their grief to each other again after the intervening period of trying to run away from it. This in turn leads to a realisation that they do not really need their mother to 'care' for them - I feel her fear of being needed by others was what had caused her to run as far away from them as possible, even before the funeral. She is sort of the absent Royal Tenenbaum parental figure of the film if you like. The interesting thing about the brothers going to find her is that it starts out like a quest for someone to tell them that everything is all right and there is something more to their lives. Both the spiritual journey and the parental journey let them down in that sense. However after the funeral and almost getting on the plane they decide to return to their mother as a family in which she needs them as much as they need her - she responds with superficial spiritualism and motherly love...and then bolts for freedom again, after providing them with the breakfast she feels obligated to give them!

But the brothers, who would likely have been devastated by her leaving them again if they had 'easily' met her earlier in the film, can let her go without feeling personal guilt at having driven her away. She is the one who made the decision to leave rather than their neediness and chasing after her having been the reason for having driven her off - they've offered their familial love and have to wait for her to deal with her own issues and come back to them. Again I could see her returning in the style of Royal Tenenbaum in a decade or so and trying to make amends for her own perceived guilt (though I also see in her character elements of Margot Tenenbaum's cliched jaunts around the world to 'find herself'). The final ritual of the peacock feather then becomes less important for its power to 'make everything better' but as a bond between the brothers and a ritual in the true sense of the word - something insignificant in itself but symbolic in meaning for them.

While the final letting go of their 'emotional baggage' to reach the train was a little head slapping in its obviousness (though I find that an interesting characteristic of Anderson's films - like a film being so bad it gets good again, I find his films that elements that are so obvious that they become novel again just by being so blatantly used in an unironic, though slightly comic, manner), I particularly liked the idea of the train as an allegorical journey through life. Sometimes you have jolting events that throw you off course and it takes all your efforts to get back on track. The wonderful sequence of the brothers imagining all those people they met (even the abandoned at the station Murray!) each in their own compartments in the train was quite touching. Understanding that everyone else is on the same journey might allow them to reach out beyond their own needs to the other people in their lives beyond their mother before it is too late. I also liked the "they're all fiction...thank you" self acknowledgment by Jack - at least by being aware of faults and proclivities you can at least begin to deal with them, rather than simply playing up to them and living an artificially constructed life.

And I feel that the shot leaning out of the side of the train as the credits roll is the most perfect way the film could have ended. Partly a call back to the characters smoking their heads out of the window and, with its forward looking view down the length of the train along with the side view of the wider world passing by, another nice take on the journey through life.

[knives]

I agree completely and totally. Limited is really Anderson going full circle on his obsessions. I imagine that after this completeness he'll go on to other different themes like what Fox appears to be.

[Matt]

Criterion DVD and Blu-ray announced

[mfunk9786]

This film has really grown on me since my first viewing, and aside from the too-obvious Anjelica Huston sequence, I think it's a very funny and slick film that's both begging for Blu and worthy of the collection.

[aox]

This film, to me, seems to only suffer from being his 5th film.

[swo17]

The American Express commercial! I wasn't a fan of this film at all (I should give it another chance though) but surely that commercial alone is worth at least whatever you kids are able to cut the price down to at one of those B&N sales these days.

[domino harvey]

Wasn't that commercial released around the time of Life Aquatic?

[colinr0380]

The commentary and discussion about the music cues (from Satyajit Ray's The Music Room through to recent Bollywood hit Guru if I remember from reading the soundtrack list during the credits) makes this a must buy for me.

Is this the American Express ad in question?

[swo17]

Wasn't that commercial released around the time of Life Aquatic?

Yes, but they must have figured putting it here was the only way they'd get me to buy this. Now they had just better put it in 1080p and give it first billing on the cover art!

EDIT: Wikipedia says it came out around the time of Life Aquatic, but Jeff's post here makes it sound like it came out two years later. I don't remember, but I take Jeff's facts over wikipedia's any day.

[Steven H]

Easily one of the most divisive films on the forum. I can't wait to own this.

edit: posted before this was tacked on to the end of the same discussion.

[Jeff]

I have indeed merged the previous discussion of this film, as well as discussion of Hotel Chevalier and Natalie Portman's ass, into this omnibus thread.

The film grew on me quite a bit with a second viewing, and even though some stuff (that damn luggage) still drives me crazy, I'll be picking it up. I really like Hotel Chevalier and that AmEx commercial (which may have very well come out with Life Aquatic, but I didn't become aware until 2006), and I'm especially curious to hear that commentary and hopefully get some insight into this theory.

[mfunk9786]

Hotel Chevalier is so thin and light that it barely exists at all.

Unlike a certain glorious ass for those who haven't got the picture yet.

I had a wonderful time going through this thread. Hilarious stuff.

And it's amazing how much I don't miss Barmy.

[Svevan]

Anderson and filmmaker James Ivory discussing the film’s music

This should be interesting at the very least. How old is Ivory, like 105? I'd love to see him gush over Anderson's work rather than vice-versa.

[Matt]

Well, he'll probably be gushing over the work of the Indian composers (including Satyajit Ray) whose music (originally from Ray's films) is used in the film, and they'll probably both be gushing over Ray.

[Tom Hagen]

EDIT: Wikipedia says it came out around the time of Life Aquatic, but Jeff's post here makes it sound like it came out two years later. I don't remember, but I take Jeff's facts over wikipedia's any day.

That Armond White article Jeff links to is priceless. I had to read it myself to fully believe it, but there it is for all to read in Slate: Wes Anderson's American Express Ad homage to Truffaut's Day for Night > Truffaut's Day for Night. Also, why can't these new "eccentric" directors put out a movie a year like Altman did in the '70s?

[domino harvey]

Huge lols @ the idea of "gasps of delight" emanating from an audience seeing that commercial

[HistoryProf]

No, but seriously guys, this movie is so offensive(ly bad).

India is exotic! The poor people there are so noble!

Ah yes, please tell us that culture shock doesn't exist, and it makes for poor material for a story! And very untruthful. I for one know that even with in a few minutes of a completely different place I assimilate completely and understand their customs as my own. How right you are to assuage Anderson for making a film about people going somewhere they've never been and not "getting it."

huh? that doesn't make sense. how is criticizing the movie making Wes Anderson less intense or severe? (assuaging someone's guilt...that kind of thing). I'm curious to hear what you were trying to say though. This movie is quite easy to poke fun at...I hardly see what there is to get worked up about in defense of it. It's just not very good.

[Brian C]

huh? that doesn't make sense. how is criticizing the movie making Wes Anderson less intense or severe? (assuaging someone's guilt...that kind of thing). I'm curious to hear what you were trying to say though.

I wonder if Steven will even remember what he meant ... more than two years later.

[knives]

I consider it Anderson's second best. Everything grand about his film up until this point become crystallized and even more powerful. I'm trying to say something bigger, but everything I type works for all of his films really. Not since at least Woody Allen has one director been able to spin one story off of so many of the same themes and make it fresh and special each time. I understand not liking it,or even Anderson, but to say its not worth a thought out defense (I'm obviously not the man to do it though) is totally insulting on every level.
I'll try to bring about that defense though it could probably apply to any of his films.
The primary thing that I love about it is the characters. (I should back up and say this was only my second Anderson and the first I fell in love with) They all carry this weight to them that they hide through comedy (Is any of this defense going to be unique to Darjeeling). Comedy is a tool and a weapon. Something for protection through attacking. All of them have been hurt, mostly through the loss of their parents, and are afraid of leaving this security bubble they've built for themselves. That's just something I relate to on a level more than any sort of medium can contain. By speaking true to me and my experiences I suppose Anderson has allowed me to think of myself and how I can alter my dysfunction to something stable. I suppose that aspect of the characters is what is uniquely powerful about Darjeeling to me from the rest of Anderson's films. Not that those other films aren't strong on character, but that the aspect of self the they force me to examine is the one that I most need to. It's a bit like therapy in that sense.
Stepping from the characters (because I feel too naked as is on that topic) the events, in part because of the characters I admit, ring honest and earnest. The water sequence is one of the more emotional I've seen in a long time but there is never this note of manipulation that I typically get from The Beard or some other director. That alone deserves a lot of respect.