300 The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou

[KJB2]

You're not alone. Saw it for the second time last night, and the wife and I will probably see it at least once more before it leaves. Once again, the jaguar shark scene and the footage that follows left me in tears - due in no small part to the gorgeous Sigur Ros song that it's set to. Anderson's use of pre-existing music is, once again, unerring - in addition to that, the scenes involving Bowie's "Life on Mars" and the aforementioned "Search & Destroy" are quite inspired.

One thing that became much more prominent on second viewing (for me, at least) was the question of which point of view the action was being seen from - the omniscient observer (Anderson), the documentary crew, or the characters within the film. (Hopefully that makes SOME sort of sense).

Looking forward to a third viewing . . .

[DrewReiber]

One thing that became much more prominent on second viewing (for me, at least) was the question of which point of view the action was being seen from - the omniscient observer (Anderson), the documentary crew, or the characters within the film. (Hopefully that makes SOME sort of sense).

It makes perfect sense. Even on my third viewing, it was difficult to keep up with which POV we were seeing. I tried to keep tabs if it was Vladimir Wolodarsky, Klaus or someone else carrying the camera, but I'm still so sucked into the movie that paying close attention to the perspective musical chairs isn't as easy yet. There are clues that make it easier sometimes, though, like the acting-acting and a more traditionally composed shot. Maybe on the fourth try.

[DrewReiber]

For anyone interested, the production notes for the film are available here:

http://www.cinemareview.com/production.asp?prodid=2825

There is a decent article in Script Magazine, though it ended up being more about production than the story. Could have been better, but I discovered that Newmarket is releasing a companion book to the film at the end of the month:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... EY9LMYSBKV

I also found some Henry Selick interviews where he talked about The Life Aquatic and his next projects, "The Fantastic Mr. Fox" and "Coraline". Same writing team for Fox that was on Aquatic, with Selick and Anderson possibly sharing directing credit. Meanwhile, Selick is sole director for Neil Gaiman's Coraline adaptation with music by They Might Be Giants.

He also mentioned the huge undertaking involved in creating

Spoiler

the Jaguar Shark

made even more amusing by some anecdotes about Ray Harryhausen's visit to the workshop during production. Last but not least, he talked about one of his favorite creations glimpsed in the trailer but cut from the feature. Anderson has promised him that the deleted scene, Steve visiting Hennesey at his headquarters, will be included as a supplement on the DVD! Here's some interview links:

http://www.ugo.com/channels/filmtv/feat ... /henry.asp

http://mag.awn.com/index.php3?ltype=pag ... le_no=2328

http://movieweb.com/news/news.php?id=6276

That's all for now... working up to viewing #5, sometime this week.

[Steven H]

Spoiler

Everyone saw Ned Plimpton, in silhouette, smoking a pipe on the boat at the very end of the film, as Queen Bitch ends, right?

Watched it again last night. It keeps getting funnier.

[lord_clyde]

I've seen the movie only once, and while I agree there is a lack of character development and possibly too many characters, none of that mattered to me because of how unbelievably funny the movie was. To those that have seen it, there is a line by Jeff Goldblum's character late in the film that had me almost in tears.

Spoiler

"I fold."

There were several other great comedic moments, but overall I think this movie is already underrated and that kills me because Murray's Oscar chances seem quite dim.

[DrewReiber]

Spoiler

Everyone saw Ned Plimpton, in silhouette, smoking a pipe on the boat at the very end of the film, as Queen Bitch ends, right?

Watched it again last night. It keeps getting funnier.

Yes

Spoiler

I believe it is the idea that his spirit (in the figurative sense, sort of looking out over them) now has it's place aboard Team Zissou, just as others (Hennissey, Bill, the intern) have made their own places too. It's also interesting to note that each character has a place on The Belafonte that fits their function, such as the guys with the money, his wife and closest friend, and the others. Also of note is how like Buckaroo Banzai's credits march, the Team Banzai character who died also joined in regardless.

[cdnchris]

Spoiler

"I fold."

I laughed at this, too, because of just the whole set-up of the scene.

Spoiler

"Steve. Are you here to save me?" And then to have everyone else just kind of looking around and then Goldblum say, with this real innocent smile on his face, "I fold" was great.

And I felt bad afterwards because Goldblum then gets shot and it was such a friggin' shock I laughed even harder because I couldn't believe what was going on. Felt better when I saw for sure that Goldblum was just wounded. It was just such a chaotic sequence and I was surprised how well Anderson held it together.

[Steven H]

Drew...

Spoiler

My roommate has a crazy theory that Ned didn't really die (I don't buy into this for a minute, but it's interesting, and shows a good example of how ambiguous the film within a film aspect is). His clues are when people start calling his Part I film "fake", which comes up a few times... but anyway. I like the idea of his spirit watching over them, The Ghost of the Belafonte sounds like a Zissou picture if there ever was one.

Goldblum was hilarious. His delivery early on about being knighted in Portugal is pretty damn funny. Also, any mention of "crooked fuckers"... that kind of thing does it for me.

Spoiler

All in all though, I think the most quotable line in the film is early on when Steve gets high and first meets Ned, "sorry buddy, you caught me with one foot off the merry-go-round."

[DrewReiber]

Spoiler

My roommate has a crazy theory that Ned didn't really die (I don't buy into this for a minute, but it's interesting, and shows a good example of how ambiguous the film within a film aspect is). His clues are when people start calling his Part I film "fake", which comes up a few times... but anyway. I like the idea of his spirit watching over them, The Ghost of the Belafonte sounds like a Zissou picture if there ever was one.

I've seen this "theory" crop up in a few places and find it baffling that anyone could get so confused. I know the film shifts reality more than most are used to in mainstream film, but such a concept completely defies the perspectives that are represented (solely) by the same characters in question and undermines everything the film builds upon, much like the ridiculous Minority Report/Brazil theory that showed up elsewhere on this board. You should remind him that there were no cameras to capture said event, and after all it's just a subplot and not the driving force of Steve's final project, which is the search for the shark.

It is interesting though that the film strives to make a distinction between percieved reality and reality through the media, resulting in some audience members to side with what opinions from early on through Steve's films and the television interview. I think that says more about those predisposed to taking the what they see at face value, because "seamless realism" has trained them to, than it does the film. That's why I believe it was inevitable that those who liked this film will be seen as a minority for sometime, because American filmmaking just isn't respected enough right now to be taken seriously enough to warrant more thought.

[Matt]

That's why I believe it was inevitable that those who liked this film will be seen as a minority for sometime, because American filmmaking just isn't respected enough right now to be taken seriously enough to warrant more thought.

So, either you like this movie or you don't respect American cinema enough to think about it? I respect American cinema very much and I still think this movie stinks.

[DrewReiber]

That's why I believe it was inevitable that those who liked this film will be seen as a minority for sometime, because American filmmaking just isn't respected enough right now to be taken seriously enough to warrant more thought.

So, either you like this movie or you don't respect American cinema enough to think about it? I respect American cinema very much and I still think this movie stinks.

Ouch. No, Matt, I meant that the mainstream audiences (and for the most part, I believe the "critics" who work for the mainstream press) do not like to approach American filmmaking outside the idea that classical cinema is the only/best way to go. If there is any apparent use of reflexive filmmaking or an attempt to achieve reception in a state of distraction by making the audience aware they are watching a film, the idea is often either called a cheap trick or ignored entirely.

The most prevelant opinion I see today refuses entertains the idea that the aesthetics of the French New Wave or Italian Neo Realism should ever be applied again. Their attitude towards movies that play theatrically, or the attitude in the industry and especially in the "film education" environment is very much against any film or filmmaker that strives to break the seamless escapist fantasy that Hollywood has perfected since the late 70's. It's like "those movies had their time and they were novelties". I know no one (or at least I hope no one) on this board could have that attitude because they praise what Criterion does, but really... do the views of Criterion's kind of consumer represent the attitude toward cinema in this country? I highly doubt it.

Nobody has to like The Life Aquatic or even think it's a good movie, but the few times I've heard honest criticism is few and far between. What I do find is that most 'critical analysis' doesn't go much father than "it was smug and Bill Murray is lazy and I hate Wes Anderson. DONE." I didn't mean you or anyone else on this board, because frankly I think anyone here who thinks they are part of the mainstream demographic is likely deluding themselves (look at the attacks on Armageddon's inclusion in the collection). I'm talking about most magazine, newspaper and television criticism I've seen (the Entertainment Weekly world), as well as the backlash from most people I know who are much happier that they saw I, Robot over being exposed to Paul Thomas Anderson. It's a generalization, yes, but one that sticks to the environment I am currently a part of and see.

Sorry if I offended anyone, but I've just about written off the current Hollywood attitude of the industry as a decaying skin left over from the era when Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Superman and The Excorcist was new. Box office continues to sink every year and regardless of who your favorite new voice in the cinema is, the American industry is struggling to figure out how to adapt it for their own purposes. It's why we have The Life Aquatic produced through Buena Vista in the first place, and why Focus and all these other studio produced "indie houses" are appearing. Anyway, gotta stop my rant never ends...

[Steven H]

I've noticed a lot of criticism about this film calling it too "ironic". I'm assuming they're talking about it's self-consciousness. But self-consciousness seems more of an American trend than something to hold against Anderson.

What did you not like about it Matt? There've hardly been any negative postings about this film on this forum... It's like my grandma always said, "if you can't say anything nice, say it on the internet".

[Fellini-Hexed]

Reading all these whited-out texts is kinda creepy; it must be akin to skimming the 9/11 Commission Report.

I agree with dvdane and Drew's pointing out of the identity question, even though they disagree about the film's emphasis on film-making as subject matter. I can't see how the film is not about film-making to a great degree, as ALL of Anderson's films are, to some extent: they are all (Rushmore and beyond, at least) so highly self-reflexive, using direct address as dvdane pointed out, and chapters (by turning the screen into a simulation of a book, he makes us consider the act of watching a film as a kind of reading, yes? And reminds us that we are in the act of reading, at all times), etc. After Steve confronts Ned and Jane in bed, Ned and Steve walk through the ship room by room in what can only be a soundstage, total artifice: a dissection of the ship which allows the viewer to take in all the rooms at once, which is also an echo from Steve's earlier tour (for us, as audience) of the boat, which again exposed the guts of the ship as if it were a model. If I as a viewer am given access to the film's 'guts', it's most submerged, aquatic elements, then is this film (perhaps) more about the audience, about the identity of one who watches cinema? Which does not negate either dvdane's assertion that film-making as a theme reflects back intensely on Steve's character (it sure does!), or Drew's idea that this film is about film-making (it is absolutely that as well: Steve is all about 'did you get that? that was important stuff, why the fuck weren't you filming! geez!'). I thought I saw a warm nod to 8 1/2 at the end, too, where the crowd exiting the film descend the stairs as a group, with Steve leading them along with (Klaus' son? I can't remember) on his shoulders. Maybe I'm just seeing things.

About identity: I just want to add to some of the previous comments about the question of identify in the film, and the theme of family relationships, which, as someone pointed out (sorry, can't remember who right now) is a common theme in Anderson's films. I think that the figure of the absent father echoes throughout this film: Mandrake's fairly recent death, Ned's search for his father, Klaus' wish that Steve was his dad (and jealous claim of Steve as his in front of Ned), etc. But there is both an element of impotence to the father figure(s), and a powerful desire to claim patrilineal right by many characters in the film. Both Ned and Steve fall in love with a pregnant woman, fer chrissakes, and Steve takes about 11 seconds of soul-searching before he agrees to take on Ned as a surrogate son. Regarding my reference to impotence, I think it's more than a coincidence that Steve's dead mentor (or father-figure) was named Mandrake. A mandrake is not only a nifty name for a famous magician, but the name of a root which is very closely associated (in Elizabethan poetry, anyway) with sterility and impotence. Steve, remember, only shoots blanks, as his wife points out late in the film. How is this related to the identity question? There is a great push, on the part of many characters in the film, to either be a son or a father. But there is also a resignation that fatherhood is impossible in the film; even the father-son duo of Ned and Steve is a false one. I don't quite know where to go with this idea at this time, it just struck me as interesting, and possibly useful to the discussion.

I'll be watching the film again soon, I get the feeling it'll grow with repeated viewings. As much as I told myself not to compare it to Tenenbaums, I found myself doing that anyway. Sigh.

[DrewReiber]

Wow, nice work. Definitely another fresh look at the film...

But there is also a resignation that fatherhood is impossible in the film; even the father-son duo of Ned and Steve is a false one. I don't quite know where to go with this idea at this time, it just struck me as interesting, and possibly useful to the discussion.

I don't think Anderson and Baumbach intended for us to know for sure, as they even claim (adding that no one will likely believe them) that they couldn't decide for themselves. After writing the script, they figured the bond developed between as presented by the film was enough that it didn't matter.

However, since they do go out of their way to present the implausibility of Ned's linage, it still adds to how we read into the film or it's meaning(s). There is definitely something interesting here, even if an unconscious/unintentional connection to impotency.

Personally, I enjoy how as a catalyst, it reads as yet another impossible and even ridiculous plot point in Steve's fantasy world. He also represents the culmination of all of Zissou's failures in life, as a husband, father, hero and considering Ned's investment, as a filmmaker. Impotency is definitely in there, but it seems like just one more obstacle that against all odds Steve must find a way to overcome.

I'll be watching the film again soon, I get the feeling it'll grow with repeated viewings. As much as I told myself not to compare it to Tenenbaums, I found myself doing that anyway. Sigh.

Hey, I'll be the first to say that you were right to do so. Again, I hadn't seen anyone compare it to Royal Tenenbaums except on the surface. The reflexive qualities are definitely something I didn't appreciate enough when I first saw his eariler films. By the way, I've now seen it 5 times, and I've taken 5 people who had never seen it before. One of those friends just took 27 people... how, I have no clue. Anyone else been successful on convincing others to check it out?

ADDED NOTE: Were you getting Mandrake confused with Estaban at all? I was a little confused by what you meant by "fairly recent death"

[Matt]

What did you not like about it Matt? There've hardly been any negative postings about this film on this forum... It's like my grandma always said, "if you can't say anything nice, say it on the internet".

I didn't want to get into it since I don't really have any solid, defensible reasons for not liking it. I just thought it was a boring, unfunny mess that leaned too heavily on great songs for its only moments of quality. I thought all the random "fag" and "dyke" slurs were a little much, too.

[Steven H]

SPOILER (I use a line of dialogue from the film...)

I thought all the random "fag" and "dyke" slurs were a little much, too.

Gotcha... I'm not really sure why all the gay bashing is in the film myself. But doesn't Steve make some mention at the end about it? I think Hennessy says "I am part gay" and Steve says something like "I think we all are" or "we're all supposed to be". Maybe there's an explanation in that.

[cdnchris]

I noticed the slurs which caught me off guard at first but I just figured it was Zissou's way of belittling people in his eyes, his childish defense mechanism against people who were threatening to him (since he only called Goldblum and Blanchett the names, one of whom was more successful, the other out to get him). I unfortunately see it all the time, and I'm sure others do. I always heard amongst my "friends" when I used to hang around with them stuff like "so-and-so is such a fag!" and "he's so gay" and yada yada. I was taking it along the same line in the film as Zissou was a real insecure dick. I couldn't see it as Anderson meaning anything by it other than just a bad character trait for Steve. The guy was seriously a child.

I'm not gay so maybe I can't really say anything on the subject of being offended by it, but it didn't really offend me. Of course I've found it hard to be as offended after seeing the awful Boondock Saints and its insulting take on homosexuals (and everything else.) After that, I think Life Aquatic is incredibly tame.

[jorencain]

I noticed the slurs which caught me off guard at first but I just figured it was Zissou's way of belittling people in his eyes, his childish defense mechanism against people who were threatening to him (since he only called Goldblum and Blanchett the names, one of whom was more successful, the other out to get him). I unfortunately see it all the time, and I'm sure others do. I always heard amongst my "friends" when I used to hang around with them stuff like "so-and-so is such a fag!" and "he's so gay" and yada yada. I was taking it along the same line in the film as Zissou was a real insecure dick. I couldn't see it as Anderson meaning anything by it other than just a bad character trait for Steve. The guy was seriously a child.

I think, though, that we can chart Steve's emotional growth from beginning to end in reference to these slurs. Throughout most of the film he acts just as cdnchris describes. But during the strange making-up scene between him and Hennessy, he has finally become comfortable with himself and others (as people; I don't think sexual preference is even really the issue - it's just a front for his insecurities). Anyway, their little exchange about everyone being part gay and the hug seem a little odd at first, but it's a major indicator of Steve's development from being a gay-basher to, ultimately, someone who is less of a prick.

[Poncho Punch]

I didn't think it was as funny as Rushmore or The Royal Tenenbaums, nor did it have any moments that felt as "true" as parts of Bottle Rocket. On a whole, though, it worked for me. I guess I'm just a sucker for quirky adventure films.

[Michael]

I'm in the same position as Matt. The "fag" and "dyke" slurs threw me out of the film...they just didn't fit in the picture well. Surprisingly idiotic for a Wes Anderson film, in my opinion. I do love his first two films but the rest is plain okay.

Almodovar's Bad Education has plenty of "fag" slurs but they fit in perfectly. It's the frame of thinking while watching/processing the film, especially that it involves mostly gay characters. The Life Aquatic is the opposite, making the use of slurs senseless.

[Steven H]

here's something interesting on a page about Jacques Henri Lartigue (whom the offscreen character Lord Mandrake is based) where one of his companions is referred to as "Zissou". The picture also reminds me of the beginning of Rushmore, the "Yankee Racers" club.

[denti alligator]

After seeing it a second time, I'm in Matt's camp too. I like Bottle Rocket and The Royal Tenenbaums a lot. And I think Rushmore is a minor masterpiece. The Life Aquatic was fun, at first, but only because I like the actors, the music, and Anderson's style. The second viewing proved that these elements can't carry a film.

[DrewReiber]

After seeing it a second time, I'm in Matt's camp too. I like Bottle Rocket and The Royal Tenenbaums a lot. And I think Rushmore is a minor masterpiece. The Life Aquatic was fun, at first, but only because I like the actors, the music, and Anderson's style. The second viewing proved that these elements can't carry a film.

Fascinating. I found Bottle Rocket to be his weakest effort and that it didn't work as a film overall, especially due to the conventional second half. It is interesting that those who feel like Matt, or "denti alligator", have mirrored thoughts. Two of my friends had similar feelings on the first viewing, but since then one of them saw it a second time and took it back. I'm still waiting on the other to see it again, but that probably won't happen until DVD.

I might see it again today with someone who hasn't seen it at all. I'm curious as to his feelings on the homophobic statements made by Zissou. He's also a big fan of Wes Anderson, so I'll ask him about the inevitable Tenenbaum comparisons afterward. This is definitely the kind of film that is going to get strong reactions (positively or negatively), which I prefer more than a ton of people nodding their heads approvingly as if lemmings (Spielberg......!!!!).

Thanks all to your posts thus far, it has been very interesting.

[Fellini-Hexed]

I found this to be a more satisfying and funny film the second time around. I took my brother and his wife a few nights back, and he especially loved it, although I noticed that he and I were the loudest laughers at a sparsely attended 4 pm showing. I thought the meeting with the shark was much more powerful second time around, and the humour of the filmic segments far more enchanting.

I've been thinking more about the questions of identity and fatherhood, and Zissou's line "because I hate fathers. And I never wanted to be one" to be particularly telling. He seems to me a character who is grossly flawed and selfish, impulsive and unable to empathize with anyone, but he's also redeemingly generous: he saves a bond stooge, fer chrissakes. As per the disdain from various members of the forum about Zissou's homophobia, I find this somewhat short-sighted. Royal Tenenbaums, which Matt gushingly adores, features (yet another) bastard father character who barely tries to conceal his racism: he refers to Danny Glover's character as "that big black buck", for instance, and riles him up by calling him "Coltrane", and taunts him with "you wanna hear some jive talk?" etc. Does this put people off of Royal Tenenbaum? Yup, it's supposed to. It points to one of many gross character flaws of Royal's: he's a bigot. His bigotry plays no little part in his jealousy and wish to reclaim his family from Henry. Does this turn me off the film? No. Royal is supposed to upset me, as a viewer, I'm supposed to love and loath him, and be taken in by his conversion later in the film. Did it turn off any African-Americans from this film? Well, I really can't say. But as a white heterosexual male, I roll my eyes and shake my head when Zissou says "bull dyke", and find him even MORE pathetic because of it. Does it make me roll my eyes at the film? No. I'm distinguishing the character's intentions and behaviour from the film entire, which I would hardly call homophobic. Espcially considering Zissou's and Hennesey's (albeit stylized, but this is Anderson, after all) reconciliation at the end: "we all are", says Steve, and why should we doubt him? His barking out "she's a bull dyke!" in front of Ned seemed to me to be an attempt to veer Ned's desires away from Jane anyways.

BTW, thanks Drew for your comments about my first post. Much appreciated.

[DrewReiber]

But as a white heterosexual male, I roll my eyes and shake my head when Zissou says "bull dyke", and find him even MORE pathetic because of it. Does it make me roll my eyes at the film? No. I'm distinguishing the character's intentions and behaviour from the film entire, which I would hardly call homophobic.

Well, I call them homophobic because that is the best description for them. Regardless of his own personal reason for saying them (extreme insecurity is always the reason for such nonsense), he's trying to degrade the people he's referencing through the basic idea that it means there is something wrong with them to begin with.

I hope my use of the term has not made it appear that I'm limiting my own interpretations of what's going on, but I also have to accept it for what it is. As a white heterosexual male myself, I can't possibly know how much of an impact the comments would have... but I do read and enjoy Thunderbolts, where the main "hero" character is a Nazi. Being of Jewish descent, I choose to look at the arc of the character and how his redeemable attributes and the story counter balance this.

I'm not saying others shouldn't be offended by Zissou's statements, but they might want to at least consider that there is a greater reason that Anderson had him speak in this way to begin with. Not all of my friends are heterosexual, and I'm going to try and get their feelings on this element of the film specifically. I don't want to influence their opinions, but I would like a better understanding of how much of an impact Anderson's choice makes and if/how they see the film's deeper meanings anyway.

I just want to make sure when weighing these viewpoints and my own opinions on the board, that I don't step on Matt's or anyone else's. This is definitely a very interpretational film, and everyone's opinion is equally valid... I just would hope that we all put enough thought into it so we don't write off every possibility too easily. Thanks.

BTW, thanks Drew for your comments about my first post. Much appreciated.

No problem, keep 'em coming!