tavernier wrote:Just waded my way through both discs....I'm no Anderson fan, and the movie leaves me absolutely bored (as do his other films), but for those of you who adore it, you'll surely enjoy the extras. Although I daresay that 40 minutes of Portuguese Bowie tunes - yes, all the songs are performed in full as a bonus - might be a little much, even for the most die-hard, "I love everything he does" Anderson fanatics.
Only if one is Anderson and Bowie fan! like myself...
I don't understand, however; that CC released one and two disc editions instead of making it a double disc-cheap edition such as Royal Tenenbaums.
IGN review if anyone cares. I may have to eat my shoe because it looks like the DVD does indeed kickass (I'm looking forward to seeing the interview with Seymour Cassel) I haven't ordered it (was just going to pick it up at Future Shop or wherever on Tuesday) so I'll have to wait. But I'm looking forward to getting it.
I thought I'd throw in my two penniesworth having just seen the film! I hope it is interesting and makes some sort of sense! There will also be some spoilers. (cdnchris - The Cassel piece is great - you get to see where he goes to get his cigars!)
I really enjoyed the extras and one thing that caught my eye was Mark Motherbaugh's distinctive looking (i.e. green and round) office in his interview. I was certain I'd seen it somewhere before and sure enough Saffron Burrows walks past it at 28 minutes in the film Timecode! I was wondering whether anyone knew any more about this part of Los Angeles more because it was very interesting seeing the characters wandering around in long takes in Timecode, giving a good impression of the area.
Also watching the Mondo Monda documentary and was thinking how well both this and the Peter Bradley documentary pick up on the themes of their films and put them into the interview genre, but I'll pick up on that later on.
I think that one of the interesting things about Anderson's films is its portryal of intellectualism. I like the way that the worlds that are created are places where knowledge is valued and you are more likely to see Steve Zissou or Eli Cash plugging his latest book and surrounded by a throng of journalists than the latest Big Brother evictee, but this idealistic portrayal of recognition also masks the feeling that what these people are being lauded for is itself not particularly good, that the characters are past their prime, either coasting or in free fall in both their public and private lives.
I think this is because Anderson's films are taking an intellectual approach to his character, one which prevents him from allowing his characters to be 'dumb' - easy creations that lead fantastical lives (although they are in a fable type of a world) and have easy difficulties that are overcome by the end of the film. Thoughtfulness does not allow these types of characters. But I also do not think that the Anderson characters are exactly fully rounded characters themselves - emotionally they are struggling with feelings and expressing them poorly in a way that I don't think American films have wrestled with since Cassavetes, but plot wise they are in big exciting Hollywood-esque plots - it is just that the characters are aimless and without a larger plan of action - the Tenenbaum children all come home for no other reason than than their wanting to, they are not manipulated into all coming together as part of a larger plan by Royal, it is just circumstance. Or think of the way that the plan to catch the Tiger Shark in Life Aquatic almost completely disappears from the film as the pirates, island raids, funerals etc divert the characters - only by pure chance do they come across it at the end and then its function is not only as a goal, but as a way of bringing all the characters together who have played a part in support Zissou and his now realised plan - their faith in him paid off, and at the same time he could not have achieved anything without each and every person (even the intern whose staying gives Zissou a little hope when all the other interns have mutinied - and that is why I don't mind Owen Wilson in the manipulated cover image - he played his part in getting Zissou to that point as well).
Because there is this 'thoughtfulness' in Anderson's films, rather than 'thoughtlessness' of say a modern action film, this brings with it not really a deeper view into the characters, but a different way of looking at a film's characters by acknowledging things that a 'dumb' film would not think of including in its characters: self conciousness, second guessing of themselves and their abilities (and taking that out on others instead of themselves) as well as the practical problems like having difficulties in relationships, taking comfort in drugs etc. So films like Tenenbaums and Life Aquatic are creating this fable, fake, hyper real and perhaps better world, but not making it a happy world, because the characters themselves have the free will to mess things up, or to not appreciate what they could do, and often end up dwelling in their failure as being a constant, downplaying their successes as a one-off and projecting a cynical eye onto others, at least at the beginning of the films.
I guess we can also think of an intellectually 'thoughtful' film as needing problems and difficulties for characters to define themselves through. An intellectually perfect world does not exist, and even if it was created in a film it would probably turn out to be a dry and academic study which would be extremely difficult for a viewer to look at and think of their lives in relation to.
Looking at a film like Armageddon as a representative of another non-intellectual course of filmmaking, there is a feeling from that film that there are definite answers, absolute courses of action to take to get rid of the meteor, of defined relationships and conflicts between the characters and, most importantly, the feeling of trust that these characters are not going to surprise you in a major way, i.e. you can have characters surprising you in a minor way like Willis staying on the meteor, which will shock an audience but will make them think "Wow, what a guy!" - but if you had a major surprise like Willis having a nervous breakdown just landing on the meteor the audience will feel violated, like they've been let down - and of course thats what secondary characters like Buscemi are for! In Anderson's films the audience are not told to expect their characters to be great, they might have been 'great' or 'heroic' once but they have usually run into hard times by the time we see them - so the audience interacts with the characters more as equals, not as looking up to them, and through that perhaps come to like and appreciate them more than they would a one dimensional hero figure.
Another way of looking at it would be to see the introduction scene of the main characters in Armageddon - Bruce Willis shoots at Ben Affleck's character after finding him in bed with Liv Tyler, but this is just a gesture, a signifier of the anger of the character and an exciting way to introduce the characters. But if Willis at that point had shot and killed Affleck, or even missed a shot and blown up the oil rig, think of what a different (and shorter!) film that might have emerged! I think that in his own way Michael Bay makes as distinctive films as Wes Anderson does, even under uber-producer Jerry Bruckheimer. There is something in the style of hyper-editing, action and characterisation that, even if I don’t like it that much, is distinctive. I’m thinking of Michael Bay because you can tell that the film is just as subjective in the way it chooses the easy, obvious relationships, easy on the brain and the audience, a ‘dumb’ film (which I don’t necessarily mean in a bad way – it is a way of trying to suggest that the film is not attempting to make the audience think, but to comfort them by playing with their expectations. A ‘dumb’ film can still be a great film, exciting and pleasing its audience while treating them with respect. One I would mention as a good example, because Wes Anderson jokes in one of the Life Aquatic documentaries that he is copying it is Romancing The Stone!).
The flipside is the ‘intelligent’ film which is unable to portray such easy character relationships. For example, going back to the Affleck/Willis scene in Armageddon if Wes Anderson had directed it Willis would probably have destroyed half the oil rig in his blind rage before winging Affleck with a bullet. Then as Affleck is getting the bullet removed Willis gruffly but affectionately blames it on him – all while Liv Tyler and the film crew she was showing around the rig earlier watch and film! The scene as I imagine Wes Anderson directing it is just as manufactured as the Michael Bay scene but it is dealing with it from an intellectual point of view, showing that these gestures of anger Willis makes cannot be done without consequences. Adding to that there is the constant Anderson trait of embarrassment and humiliation of the whole thing being captured on film – shattering the heroic ‘dumb’ film persona.
Anderson seems more pragmatic in the way that he cannot let his characters lead happy lives without suffering, despite their living in a dream-like fable world. They are constantly being undermined, put upon, hurt and humiliated, usually in front of those that they want least to see them that way. Anderson is using his own set of sketch characters in a similar way to how Bay manages to briefly sketch in his characters in Armageddon: the faithful servant, the dying father, the kid next door in Tenenbaums; the father and suspected son relationship, the Zissou/Hennessey one-sided nemesis relationship in Life Aquatic etc, but instead of being used the way you would expect (to make the characters heroic) these clichés of characterisation are constantly pointing out the character’s flaws, making them act stupidly, jealously, nastily, downright badly rather than rising to a challenge in a purely heroic manner of someone who knows exactly what to do. It is sort of like the characters have the opportunities of a big star, but their opportunities get away from them because they do not know what exactly they are supposed to do or achieve – what their goals are. This is how many of the scenes peter out, or end on an anticlimactic note, like storming the island in Life Aquatic only to find it empty – but because Anderson is somewhat of a ‘negative optimist’ plans are poor or nonexistent and usually doomed to failure, but coincidence and chance usually end up working in the characters failure. I see it as a similar sort of attitude to one that says that when you have lost something you should stop looking for it and it will immediately turn up!
In that way Royal Tenenbaums shows a family who have everything that could give them the best start in life: a great house, many opportunities, the best that money can buy. But they still fall apart as people because no matter how many things you have or tell yourself to be happy, if you are not you are not! Also if you have everything you could possibly need to be successful you then have nothing to blame for your failures other than the limitations of your abilities. The removal of barriers for the Tenenbaum children – the lack of sweet talk from the father when he honestly tells then that they “made certain sacrifices as a result of having children”, or when their mother says to “write yourself a cheque” leaves nothing to define themselves by struggling against or to blame for their failure in life except themselves.
The Life Aquatic is that same situation of all the characters being hamstrung by their own weaknesses from the major of Zissou’s failure to get financing for his expedition (until the unanticipated funding of the expedition by Ted), to the minor elements like the single mum reporter, Klaus’s jealousy of Ted, or Pele being too busy playing David Bowie to notice the pirates until their ladder appears!
I think that the Mondo Monda interview and the Peter Bradley show on the Tenenbaums disc are following up on the same themes as the films – the hostility of the interviewees, the rude comments, uncomfortable silences as the people do not know what to say are all examples of playing with the conventions of the interview format, as much as the characters in the film are being played as flawed, fallible characters. Perhaps these interviews, as well as being a way of livening up what could be a dull interview, show they way that the people working on the film are connecting with the themes. I was reminded of the Tenenbaums having everything and still not being successful when at the end of the Monda interview he asks “Why should we see this film?” and gets the response “Well, we spent a lot of money on it!”. It is both a defiant statement that completely misses the point of the question, dealing with quantity not quality – something that does not guarantee success, as Tenenbaums showed.
The comment Noah Baumbach makes in the Monda interview about being a ‘negative optimist’ is interesting. The characters have tragedies and may not end up changing because they are still people with all their problems and with the ability to be good or bad, but there are usually triumphs (albeit short term) and a level of understanding an co-existence with each other that the characters reach – they are all flawed but all recognise that in themselves and are more accepting of finding the same in others, as well as being able to appreciate the good gestures people make more precisely because there is no guarantee of their being great and heroic people all the time.
To me is seems that there is a cynical idealism – idealistic because the characters having created lives for themselves and managed to sustain them, even if they are having some problems. It seems that in reality their dreams would have been crushed by financial problems or lack of interest in their projects, but the world continues to exist by the end of the films giving some hope, even if the future cannot be certain.
Last edited by colinr0380 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 3:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
My view of Wes' films is that they portray people who just cannot deal with the world they live in so they create a self-contained world of their own in which they can exist free of prejudices and fears to some extent.
However, the real world always has a way of intruding his character's lives - and he knows all too well that escapism is never the ideal solution - and for me the gist of his films is to show us the reactions his different characters (or Anderson's personas) have to those intrusions and how they deal with them.
This is especially prescient today, when for most of us the pressures and obligations of "the real world" become too overpowering and intrusive in our private lives. Some cope with it but more and more just don't and maybe this is where the "real" problem resides when it comes down to appreciating his films.
BTW, nice review colin, but I'm afraid you lost me when you started comparing it to Armagedon...
Yes, I think I may have damned myself in the forum by discussing it - I think it was just the Owen Wilson connection that made me think of that film in particular as the film to compare with!
colinr0380 wrote:Yes, I think I may have damned myself in the forum by discussing it - I think it was just the Owen Wilson connection that made me think of that film in particular as the film to compare with!
To be fair, most of the points you made (not that they aren't valid) apply to virtually any film created with a mainstream audience in mind, so to single out Armageddon, the widely derided bete-noire of the collection, seems like a rather easy cheap shot to show how "intelligent" and "sophisticated" The Life Aquatic is in comparison.
"When the final credit rolls by, you will remember characters with four lines just as vividly as the leads, because they were so distinctly fleshed out."
Yes, thats true, I shouldn't have just singled out Armageddon for another kicking!
Found an easter egg. On the first disc, when the arrow is on the Starz on the Set feature press up to get an up arrow. Clicking on that you to a five minute outtakes from Zissou's trainer scene, with Murray having to jump around a lot! I guess the only way to describe it is "Wow, that was great!"
Yes it has French and Spanish subtitles as well as the English hard of hearing subtitles, but only for the film itself - not on the commentary or extras.
Although the spanish subtitles seem appropriate as the copy I have has a transparent sticker on the back of the slipcase saying 'Made in Mexico' on it!
Last edited by colinr0380 on Thu May 05, 2005 2:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
colinr0380 wrote:Yes it has French and Spanish subtitles, but only for the film itself.
Although the spanish subtitles seem appropriate as the copy I have has a transparent sticker on the back of the slipcase saying 'Made in Mexico' on it!
Thank you Colin,
that explains it all, the other day I bumped with the 'Hero' dvd and it had the same transparent sticker on the back which reads somehting like: "Buena Vista International Made in Mexico".
Ben D Banana told me that the Future Shops out in BC were giving away red caps with the purchase of The Life Aquatic. I checked with a buddy and found out this was also happening in the Ontario stores (and I assume the rest of Canada). Since I'm a nerd (and think the caps are cool) I'm definitely buying the DVD there. I'd assume that Best Buy in the States might be doing the same thing though I don't know for sure (since I think Best Buy owns Future Shop)
Got this Saturday with Burden of Dreams and Hoop Dreams. By far this to me is Anderson on point 100 percent. This movie is what made Anderson stand out in the first place. Such care for the bit characters in the film. I was a little concerned Anderson lost his touch after Tenenbaums, but when he deals more with fantasy and those realms way outside the norm he is definitely special.
