300 The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou

[denti alligator]

Well I saw it last night.
My reactions will have to be tentative. I didn't particularly like Rushmore when I first saw it; now it's one of my favorite films.

This one is very much "a Wes Anderson film." It's got all the stylistic markers. This is the part of the film I loved. It is very funny. It is very clever-- very well written.

But what left me somewhat uncertain about the film's success is that it is so clever and funny that there doesn't seem to be much else. Anderson seems to want to tell a story, but I wasn't interested in it-- or I didn't really know what it was supposed to be: father-son relationship? adventure story? what? The story seemed to be there just to make way for the incrredibly entertaining "set pieces," jokes, and amusing situations and characters.

But this is all a very tentative reaction. I really liked the film, but that's because I like Anderson's films. What did others think?

[Lino]

I haven't seen the film, but IMO Anderson's films seem to be about family as an important nucleus in the lives of every human being.

Does it make more sense if you look at it this way?

[denti alligator]

I know what he's trying to do. I just don't think he succeeds in convincingly exploring the family dynamic through a story. It's hard to say exactly what's missing. The characters seem to be well developed-- but their relationships seem undeveloped. If these relationships are the film's central concern they are too peripherally dealt with in favor of the central attention given to the style and humor of sometimes "gratuitous" scenes.

Caveat: I still liked the film and may change my opinion after a second viewing.

[Michael]

It seems like each time Wes Anderson turns out a new film, the number of characters increases. I admire The Royal Tenenbaums a lot and it is a very good film but Rushmore is so much better. Rushmore focuses on three characters - Max, Herman and Miss Cross and the intimacy between those three makes the film. The Royal Tenenbaums is a film about one particular family and to explore the intimacy between a great number of characters is quite challenging. The Life Aquatic seems to have even more characters.. and possibly a bigger scope than the previous film. Without having seen it yet, I could be wrong.

In my opinion, Rushmore has better developed characters because it spends the time with them instead of jumping all over the place, trying to keep up with many characters.

[jorencain]

Just saw it this morning; I really enjoyed it. It has, of course, all of the Wes Anderson quirkiness that we would expect; the same look, the same attention to detail. Like all of his films, I'm going to have to see it again; they have all grown on me.

For the first 2/3 of the film, there was the feeling of goofiness that I loved about "Bottle Rocket." Putting these characters in the setting of an action/adventure movie was great. The setup was perfect for the last part of the film, which was extremely poignant and touching, and I was surprised at how emotional I became, seemingly out of nowhere. I'm being vague because I just want to recommend it and not ruin any of it for those who haven't checked it out yet.

SPOILERS, I guess, so beware:
I think, in response to an earlier post, that the story that Wes Anderson is telling is not about the external action and Zissou's adventures, but life as an adventure (as hokey as that sounds). Steve Zissou says that himself near the end, or at least paraphrases that thought; and the idea becomes clear that his relationships are more important than his "adventures" when he stands up and takes the kid with him down the stairs, not his film trophy.

[tristan]

Since I'm gonna have to wait until Friday to see this, which really pisses me off, can anybody shed more light about the soundtrack? What didn't make the released soundtrack? More Bowie? I heard there was Sigur Ros, what song? Anybody?

[jorencain]

Since I'm gonna have to wait until Friday to see this, which really pisses me off, can anybody shed more light about the soundtrack? What didn't make the released soundtrack? More Bowie? I heard there was Sigur Ros, what song? Anybody?

The Sigur Ros tune is "Staralfur" from "Agaetis Byrjun." It's a great moment in the movie.

The actor who played Knockout Ned in "City of God" plays and sings several Bowie songs throughout; I can remember "Rebel Rebel," "Life on Mars," "Changes," and "Space Oddity," but there may have been 1 or 2 more.

[Steven H]

This film is a serious collection of oddities. "Knockout Ned" singing Bowie? Sigur Ros, Scott Walker, AND Devo on the soundtrack? Ladies Man reference and animated fantasy sea creatures? Gore Vidal's house and Bud Cort?

This is too much for me. It's like some dadaist, or even Mad Lib like, appropriation of my own personal interests/eccentricities.

[Jeff]

Anderson seems to want to tell a story, but I wasn't interested in it-- or I didn't really know what it was supposed to be: father-son relationship? adventure story? what? The story seemed to be there just to make way for the incrredibly entertaining "set pieces," jokes, and amusing situations and characters.

I think that you hit the nail on the head, Denti. Anderson didn't seem to be quite sure what it was supposed to be either. I thought that it succeeded much more as a 20,000 Leagues style adventure picture, and that Anderson's mentor/mentee fetish got in the way more than anything else. And I'll also agree that none of the characters were really fleshed out -- including the titular one. Even in Tenenbaums massive ensemble, I felt like we got to know pretty much everyone in the family (even if Murray's Raleigh St. Claire still seems like excess baggage). All of that being said, I still enjoyed the hell out of The Life Aquatic. Incredibly silly set pieces, great music, and Wes Anderson's Quirky Sensibility(1) go a long way in my book. The film currently sits at number seven on my top ten. It's just frustrating to see a film that good and know that he is capable of making 'em great.

(1) Wes Anderson's Quirky Sensibility is a trademark of American Empirical Pictures

[DrewReiber]

I've read a great deal about lack of character development, but whose characters are sped by? Not Murray's. Maybe Owen's, but I would tend to disagree. Maybe Cate's... But other than that, what characters require so much development that it should consume other precious moments of an already 2+ hour film?

I saw the film tonight too, and I find myself vehemently disagreeing with this growing and unfortunate sentiment. In my opinion, people are trying too hard to compare this film to Royal Tenenbaums when they are in fact quite different. First off, that was an ensemble character film, while this one is about Steve Zissou. I will try and make this is as spoiler free as I can, but if you guys go into this movie with any preconceptions or expectations of what Anderson will try to do, you might harm your experience.

First and foremost, the entire film is about Bill Murray's Zissou. The supporting characters are just that, they are not as fleshed out or as integral in their arcs as his journey is. The film is about how he is percieved... for his work, his celebrity, his skills, his reality/fantasy, his family, his friends, etc. As we never actually SEE his life in the past except through a few of his films, we are challenged to continue our critical analysis of who he truly is through his self reflection, choices in crisis and the perceptions of him by those who actually know him. I think, overall, the film is about faith. In our imagination, in our dreams, in ourselves and in others.

As it's a film about filmmaking, you really have to have your head on for this. It says so much in every scene, and it's extremely subtle most of the time. I believe the plot is about the adventure that is had in trying to find the supposed "jaguar shark". The story is really the mystery of who is Zissou, a man, a fake, a filmmaker, a father, an oceanographer or everything? The message of the "story" is that we should not allow our weaknesses or failures to consume us.

Though I would argue that the supporting characters are not entirely three dimensional, their discoveries and their actions support not only the reconstruction or solution to the puzzle of Zissou, but they also must face their own obstacles in life. If you're looking for easy answers through exposition or other traditional forms of gathering information, you're in trouble. It is through action, implication and the absence of certain behaviors or choices that tell us what is going on.

The deeper dimension of the film is an analyzation of how we allow that which is produced onscreen (in film) or that which we are told to guide our perceptions. You've really got to pay attention to the levels of artificiality and realism that is depicted through the camera, editing and performances to enjoy that path. The techniques of the film - image flatness, jump cuts, lack of location image linkage/continuity, rarity of intersecting planes, and so many others I am too lazy to mention - combined with the more subtle and minimalist narrative design that Anderson challenges our senses and our thoughts at every turn.

I really think people need to take their time when they take in this film. It is the most stylized, complex and polished film from this auteur to date, in my opinion, and I really think with time that we will all come to find more detail, depth and appreciate for what it succeeds in accomplishing.

Oh, and btw, it's about TIME that someone did something from influences of The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the Eigth Dimension. That film was waaaay ahead of it's time and truly took the consciousness of formula to new heights. I only hope that the little obvious nod in Aquatic gets people thinking back to how essential it is to strive for fresh combinations in genre filmmaking. And THAT'S why you can't nail down what it's about, because maybe... just maybe... it's a film that is developed enough that it's not easily labeled.

[Lino]

Great review, Drew! So I guess that Anderson has made the film that will finally win Murray the Oscar?

[DrewReiber]

Great review, Drew! So I guess that Anderson has made the film that will finally win Murray the Oscar?

Oh man, I wish. Bill Murray brought a lot of pain and perserverance to this role, but as we all know, the Oscars are run by some of the oldest and traditionalist Hollywood veterns. Look at what happened to Lost in Translation, the most accessible film thus far from the newer generation of directors. Judging from the good number of people who already have no idea what to make of this movie, I would say the likelyhood of this movie getting away with anything other than a screenplay nom is probably impossible. My guess is that The Aviator will be the chosen one this year, as it pretty much glamorizes Hollywood anyway.

Nah, I doubt it's going to get any real respect from those skeletons. However, I do sincerely hope that it does well theatrically, because it really deserves it. Oh and I also hope Criterion makes a killer DVD release out of this... I'm already dreaming up the possibilities for nifty supplements.

[THX1378]

I can't wait til christmas to see this film. I really don't care what Ebert and Roper said about it. Both said that the film wasn't that funny and that only one or two people at a time would laugh at something. I still can never forgive Ebert for his review of Rushmore. I think he need to rewatch the film and review it again.

[DrewReiber]

I can't wait til christmas to see this film. I really don't care what Ebert and Roper said about it. Both said that the film wasn't that funny and that only one or two people at a time would laugh at something. I still can never forgive Ebert for his review of Rushmore. I think he need to rewatch the film and review it again.

Why? So he can re-review/re-rate it like he did The Good, the Bad & the Ugly and the other films whose quality outlasted his poor judgement? What purpose does it serve to get him to go back and change his opinion? I just don't understand why it's so necessary for people to see eye to eye with Ebert, he's really not that important. No critic is.

[Mr Sausage]

Why? So he can re-review/re-rate it like he did The Good, the Bad & the Ugly

To be fair, Ebert gave the movie three stars and a quite decent review.

Once Upon a Time in the West, on the other hand...

Besides, how many of us have been baffled or put-off by a movie on first viewing--which is solely what a critic must go on--only to come to admire or outright love the film on repeat, often multiple viewings.

[Martha]

Ok kids, take the discussion of criticism here, please. Back to the topic at hand.

Bill Murray dancing=funny.

[oldsheperd]

If you will notice however, that Owen Wilson hepled Anderson write his first 2 films. I always felt that there was a definite loss of style or something(Can't put my finger on it) with Tenenbaums due to Wilson's departure from writing. I'm expecting the same thing with Life Aquatic.

[Andre Jurieu]

If you will notice however, that Owen Wilson hepled Anderson write his first 2 films. I always felt that there was a definite loss of style or something(Can't put my finger on it) with Tenenbaums due to Wilson's departure from writing. I'm expecting the same thing with Life Aquatic.

I thought Life Aquatic is the first Anderson film in which Wilson did not help Wes write the script? I'm fairly certain Wilson has a writing credit on Royal Tenenbaums.

[cdnchris]

If you will notice however, that Owen Wilson hepled Anderson write his first 2 films. I always felt that there was a definite loss of style or something(Can't put my finger on it) with Tenenbaums due to Wilson's departure from writing. I'm expecting the same thing with Life Aquatic.

I thought Life Aquatic is the first Anderson film in which Wilson did not help Wes write the script? I'm fairly certain Wilson has a writing credit on Royal Tenenbaums.

He only played a very small part in the writing to my understanding and only makes up for a small fraction of the film.

[The Elegant Dandy Fop]

According to the commentary Anderson and Wilson only discussed TRT once or twice, and wasn't the actually writing phase, but more as of a discussion.

Wilson's always said he's not important to the writing team, but I think he's being modest or something.

[igor s.]

bill murray's a "bastard"?

December 16, 2004 -- BILL Murray was ambushed the other day by a disgruntled former colleague at a VIP screening of "The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou." At a Q&A session with director Wes Anderson, Anjelica Huston, Willem Dafoe and some of the rest of the cast at the Hollywood event, one man announced, "I am a cameraman, and I've worked with all the actors onstage. Anjelica, you're wonderful. Willem — you're great. But, Bill — you are a bastard. You are horrible to work with. My question is for Wes and the cast. What's it like to work with someone as awful and difficult as Bill Murray?" After a stunned silence, Huston muttered, "Bill isn't a bastard." Anderson demanded, "Why are you in a position to make such a statement?" Murray didn't react at all. "I was a cameraman on 'Charlie's Angels,' and Bill Murray is awful," the man continued. "I have every right to say that." Our spy snickers: "This guy crashed the screening solely to confront Murray and call him a bastard to his face in front of a theater full of people. The guy totally had b - - - s."

haha,

-igor s.

[DrewReiber]

bill murray's a "bastard"?

I'm surprised it's the first you've heard about it. Murray's off screen behavior was infamous during the production and release. He would get into fights with the cast during shooting until people would walk off the set in disgust (I believe it was Liu). During the promotion of the film at ShoWest, he walked around the meet and greets proclaiming how awful the film was and for people to avoid it. I don't know if anyone knew the hit they had on their hands at the time, but it's likely that production management felt he was poison and never even asked him back. I don't know if Murray's attitude has changed since, but that kind of crap is what gets you blacklisted in the business. Is it any wonder that most of his work now is outside the studio-produced projects?

[Mr Sausage]

bill murray's a "bastard"?

I'm surprised it's the first you've heard about it. Murray's off screen behavior was infamous during the production and release. He would get into fights with the cast during shooting until people would walk off the set in disgust (I believe it was Liu). During the promotion of the film at ShoWest, he walked around the meet and greets proclaiming how awful the film was and for people to avoid it. I don't know if anyone knew the hit they had on their hands at the time, but it's likely that production management felt he was poison and never even asked him back. I don't know if Murray's attitude has changed since, but that kind of crap is what gets you blacklisted in the business. Is it any wonder that most of his work now is outside the studio-produced projects?

From what I have heard it was primarily his friction with Liu, whom he refused to work with again, hence his replacement in the sequel.

I have no idea how exaggerated and blown-up the story has become, but in any case Anderson seems to have had no problem working with Murray repeatedly. That in itself says something.

[Lino]

A great interview with Henry Selick, animation director on The Life Aquatic:

http://mag.awn.com/index.php?ltype=page ... le_no=2328

[analoguezombie]

bill murray's a "bastard"?

I'm surprised it's the first you've heard about it. Murray's off screen behavior was infamous during the production and release. He would get into fights with the cast during shooting until people would walk off the set in disgust (I believe it was Liu). During the promotion of the film at ShoWest, he walked around the meet and greets proclaiming how awful the film was and for people to avoid it. I don't know if anyone knew the hit they had on their hands at the time, but it's likely that production management felt he was poison and never even asked him back. I don't know if Murray's attitude has changed since, but that kind of crap is what gets you blacklisted in the business. Is it any wonder that most of his work now is outside the studio-produced projects?

From what I have heard it was primarily his friction with Liu, whom he refused to work with again, hence his replacement in the sequel.

I have no idea how exaggerated and blown-up the story has become, but in any case Anderson seems to have had no problem working with Murray repeatedly. That in itself says something.

Is any of that a surprise? Charlie's Angels SUCKS! It's one of the most bloated, convoluted, films ever made. And for his part Murray derided it at public screenings and interviews all the time. He hated his involvement with it, and based on his interviews with Charlie Rose after Lost in Translation he fired his entire publicist/agent team afterwards. He didn't like the turn his career was taking and so he began simply doing work that he was interested in/had passion for. Hence his recent resurgence as an actor when utilized correctly.

I hope he was a bastard on that set. Why shouldn't he have been. Murray is one of our greatest living talents, and for him to have to play second fiddle to lucy liu, cameron diaz and their ilk is regrettable.

I think the real question is, Is he a bastard on evry film? And even though its obvious from many soucres that he can be difficult to work with, I think that's also his dry humor. Check out the interview' extra on the Lost in Translation dvd that is conducted while Murray is shooting Life Aquatic.

At any rate, he can be a bastard, i don't care, he's still amazing.

on a Life Aquatic note:

given the glut of Holiday films and the mixed reviews, can we expect TLA to open everywhere this weekend?