criterionforum.org

Maybe. I'm actually kind of glad it didn't make it and we can watch it online for free instead. Neither Rushmore or Tenenbaums had any added features, so it kind of makes this release more in line with those.

You're glad that more features weren't included on this disc? How is that an actual opinion that someone can have?

Not so much glad it's not on there, but wondering why new content wasn't made for those other two releases. Could have worded that much better, honestly.

A new appreciation/"A" review from Mike D'Angelo on The AV Club: Wes Anderson’s The Life Aquatic is much better than its initial reviews claimed

And rightfully so.

Is there something wrong with the commentary track or are all of my wires crossed or something? Every time WA or NB speaks, it sounds like they are muffled at a dinner party with 40 people....

EDIT: additionally, their voices are floating all around my 5.1 speakers. This is driving me crazy.

EDIT 2: So at the beginning it says they are in the diner they wrote the film in. Wow.... It doesn't even sound like they are wearing lav mics or that there is even an overhead boom. This might be the dumbest thing I have witnessed in terms of production in a while to record a commentary track. So stupid on a ton of levels. While I do appreciate hearing (when I can) WA's and NB's thoughts on my favorite WA film, I can't believe no one interjected to stop this. What is even the novelty of this?

It's really not ideal. I could hear what they were saying much better when I put it through just one speaker, but honestly I'm not sure if the commentary is worth the trouble since they don't say much of interest (though I love the film as well).

I haven't had a chance to try it with the commentary yet, but wow, that sounds terrible. I'm guessing WA and NB were approached for a commentary and maybe they felt sitting around the restaurant, discussing the film and using snippets from the conversation as commentary would be more enjoyable for them. Who knows?

I remember turning on the commentary whenever I first rented the film way back when and being equally put off. It was unlistenable and I don't recall whether I lasted through all of it or not (especially since I didn't like the film to begin with)

I find it hard to hang onto Wes Anderson's every word in the first place, so this commentary was a struggle for me as well. One thing I found interesting was how Noah Baumbach initially wanted Steve Miller songs in place of the Bowie. This must have been satisfied when he did Greenberg years later.

flyonthewall2983 wrote:I find it hard to hang onto Wes' every word in the first place, so this commentary was a struggle for me as well. One thing I found interesting was how Noah initially wanted Steve Miller songs in place of the Bowie. This must have been satisfied when he did Greenberg years later.

Why Life Aquatic is better than Greenberg: Exhibit A

I revisited this one recently after far too long and liked it better than the first time I saw it. Likely because I'm almost years older now, and probably paid better attention this time too.

I listened to the commentary on the old DVD on my 2.0 setup and it seemed perfectly audible, and as good as most writer/director commentaries. One part that I listened for was about the line in the last 15 minutes about "I'm part gay," "Supposedly everyone is." Earlier in the film I'd understood Steve's comically silly homophobic remarks as a way of showing his maladjustment toward other people, but this line near the end seemed meant to bring this around to something, but I could never understand what exactly. Maybe it was significant, maybe a throwaway bit of writing that we're not supposed to think about. I hope not the latter, and I also hope it's not just a way of capping off the earlier slurs with an earnest exchange about how we're all sort of bisexual. It just seems kind of glib and out-of-nowhere. In the commentary, we find out that this is the line Anderson got the most compliments and remarks about, but we don't find out anything more, just some slightly awkward chuckling about the lines and "very true."

It's been years since I've watched the movie, but I thought that the "I'm part gay" line was an indicator of him having matured. Earlier, but he overhears some people talk about his "gay earring" (or something like that), and he takes it out and throws it away. The "I'm part gay" stuff just seemed like a book-end to that thread.

Possibly, but it doesn't seem to work too well. Why would Goldblum's character suddenly say this to Steve? I thought the part about the earring had more to do with Steve's wish to be accepted and to reclaim something of his younger self rather than anything about his sexuality.

I love Anderson's films, but in Rushmore, Royal Tenenbaums, and this one, he had a real pattern of wrapping up the stories with one or more of the main characters abruptly maturing and becoming wiser and more self-aware. This brief exchange struck me as a strange variation on that device.

I think for Goldblum's character, it was just some way to show that despite their rivalry he's come to trust Steve and wants to be a part of his group. So he awkwardly shares a secret. Steve's response is just an attempt to acknowledge this, and show that he does accept Hennessy, but in a way that makes this communal rather than just between the two of them. I don't think it's meant to imply anything about Steve's sexuality.

And I'd agree that Steve's earlier comments are more casual homophobia covering his dislike for certain people than actually deep-felt homophobia. They're more Steve masquerading as a tough guy than something deeply felt. I don't think there's a real through line between the early insults and this later acceptance, besides showing that the earlier insults were mainly hollow blustering to begin with.

Same could be said for the "gay earring" line too. I don't buy some opinions that I read that it was reflective of anything of how Anderson feels.

We get it, man. Do you have to reference that you're incorrect about using last names in every post you make?

It was a slip of the fingers. I'm sorry.

"Had Seu Jorge not recorded my songs in Portuguese I would never have heard this new level of beauty which he has imbued them with." - David Bowie

http://thisrecording.com/today/2009/7/1 ... or-yo.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I found this supposed interview with Wes from 2009 where he discusses some songs he likes, both in and outside of his films. One of the songs listed is "Ceremony" by New Order, which was used in the trailer for The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou. He has this to say:

We almost used this in The Life Aquatic, and sometimes when the wind is full I wish we did.

Wes has toyed with different songs for specific scenes in the past, like the final scene of The Royal Tenenbaums at one point supposed to have The Beach Boys' "Sloop John B" (you can see how it might have played here), and supposedly the Anthology version of The Beatles' "I'm Looking Through You" before that. That being said, where do you think "Ceremony" would've fit in The Life Aquatic? My gut says it too would have been in the final scene, and as much as I love David Bowie, I think "Ceremony" would have fit just a bit better there.

Funniest line of This Is An Adventure is where they're filming one of the flashbacks where the boat is stuck in ice, and Bill Murray says at one point "bad news guys, the mongoose saw it's shadow...6 more weeks of shooting"

Saw this in the theater at a midnight screening for the first time since its release and endeavored to watch it through a lens that ignored any meta interpretations that I am guilty of engaging in since I saw it for the first time. When this film came out in the height of Charlie Kaufman-mania, I'd always assumed there was an ironic, detached unreality to the proceedings (i.e. Anderson presenting this film as a Zissou production, where many of its occurrences [namely the hijacking (yes, that sword still looks like plastic, but that's besides the point)] were staged and did not actually take place). However, by letting go of that sort of "ah, I'm smart enough to have unlocked what Anderson is actually doing here" and just taking it as a straightforward telling of a spectacular journey, I'm much more fond of it than I had been in the past for an entirely different set of reasons. Anderson takes some of his first significant license with the fact that he's not telling a story that takes place completely in the real world (though there are markers of it prior to this), but I'm no longer certain that means we're not supposed to take any of this seriously. Characters in this film are actually harmed and die, Zissou himself experiences real sorrow and real triumph, and he stares a big metaphor for the passage of time in the eyes and decides to throw down his arms and accept it rather then continue to sullenly rage against it.

And really, unlocked from that sense that Anderson's having a go at his audience (his later films are more evidence that he's not particularly interested in heavy doses of ironic detachment from emotional pathos), it dawned on me how little this film itself has in common with a Zissou film. The glimpses we see of Zissou's earlier and later work show that those are edited to remove anything but triumph, discovery, wonder, and drama - while Anderson's film finds a lot of beauty in the much quieter struggles that occur in-between those moments.

It's still lower on my list of Anderson's films mainly because it can't help but feel overlong once the island rescue comes and goes and there's still much more movie left, but I feel like I have newfound appreciation for what Anderson is doing here by just taking the film straight and letting the pleasure and anguish of its emotional center come to me.

Great appreciation, mfunk. I've never viewed it through the lens you originally did but it's an interesting one to consider at least in part, especially in the context of that era of films as you describe.

mfunk9786 wrote: Wed Jan 29, 2020 5:53 pm Zissou himself experiences real sorrow and real triumph, and he stares a big metaphor for the passage of time in the eyes and decides to throw down his arms and accept it rather then continue to sullenly rage against it.

While it's not one of my favorite Anderson's either, this climactic moment you're alluding to has always been one of the most emotional in all of his films for me, and really films in general. Maybe it's helped a bit by the Sigur Rós, but Zissou's line, "I wonder if it remembers me" strikes a vulnerable chord in not only acceptance (and really the beginnings of acceptance, in 'surrender' to facing his pure emotions, as your "throwing down his arms" aptly indicates) but in that surrender to emotional flow, Zissou then must face his existential reality that has been protected by his anger, revenge, distractions, narcissism, etc. throughout the narrative. So he asks the most unsafe question imaginable, to actually ponder his own validation, worth, importance, and realizes as a speck in the deep realm of the ocean that while he is not necessarily important in the grand scheme of things, that he wants to have a connection, a connection to the thing that affected him so greatly, but also to other people. It's a beautiful moment that allows us humility and keeps us right-sized and yet recognizes the significance of being important, having value and worth, without discrediting this existential need to distasteful traits such as narcissism. It's one of the best examples of stripped-down defenses in movie history, as well as the raw pleading to be validated and cared for within a scary and unpredictable world. The day that scene doesn't draw a tear from me is the day I'll start worrying about my own capacity for empathy.