criterionforum.org

I think that Murray doesn't suffer fools gladly so his attitude and behavior towards an individual might vary widely. By all accounts the Charlies Angels shoot was a mess (I believe they had like 9 writers working on it - even as they were shooting), so it may not been the most representative of his overall behavior. The December Esquire had a very nice profile of him and he seemed very at ease with the Teamsters on the crew of the new Jarmusch film. I think if he were really an all around prick more word would have filtered out by now. I still love him though even if he is one.

More Life Aquatic/Murray Business (USA Today article) and a couple of highlights.

A question about his youngest son - he has six - prompts a tirade.

"They don't have anything to do with this press junket," he says, "and they're my guys and it's clear when I come home that they don't care about movies at all, and I shouldn't really make the movies care about them. There is a creep factor out there, and the world is getting much too small. You don't know my life. Whatever is mine is hard enough to protect from me let alone from the outside. You're an international newspaper, and there are strange people everywhere."

At last, Murray gives a little. Asked whether he considers Ahab-like Steve Zissou a hero, he delivers an intriguing reply.

"I've been sort of working off a definition of hero. A hero is someone who does what he really doesn't want to do. And Steve is doing what he really wants to do. So I don't think he's a hero. He wants to discover things in the ocean and tell the world about it. He wants to entertain people with his documentaries. He wants his crew to love him. But he doesn't do what he doesn't want to do. I can't think of any time he does what he doesn't want to do."

Personally, I think Bill Murray's bastard schtick is hilarious and enjoy it, thoroughly, when he smacks people around. But I'm probably a bastard too.

Speaking of Wes Anderson bearing uncanny resemblances: buh, huh

Just saw this tonight as well, and would love to comment at length, but upon reading DrewReiber's earlier posting, a lot I would have to say would be redundant.

However, I agree that the film is centered around Zissou. Furthermore, it's not entirely accurate, in my opinion, to call the supporting characters "two-dimensional;" rather, it seemed they are either seen through Zissou's eyes, or used in order to further flesh out the character of Zissou. It may be the Wes Anderson equivalent of an "epic film," in that it strives for gigantic themes, and attempts to accomplish a lot of different themes at once (and how successfully it does both is up to the individual decide). Yet, as Drew pointed out, it's deceptively subtle - the real depth of the film is almost going on inside of Zissou.

Anderson's films have always walked the line between comedy and melancholy, and this one may lean toward the latter more than his previous efforts (although, not to be misleading, has its fair share of laughs). Many have critiqued Anderson's earlier efforts for being cold and distancing, but I really felt for Murray's Zissou, and really related to him, whether he was depressed, angry, confused, or just being a flat-out asshole. What's even more interesting is that all this interior drama is playing out against a wonderfully fantastic setting - a child's impression of a Costeau / 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea adventure.

Overall, this a densely-layered film, and will probably take many viewings to fully absorb all its dimensions (let alone all the stylistic and self-referential content). But, IMO, there's a masterpiece to be dug out of the film, but it's buried as deep within Zissou (and Anderson himself, for that matter) that the viewer is willing to go.

neuro wrote:Furthermore, it's not entirely accurate, in my opinion, to call the supporting characters "two-dimensional;"

Er, "not entirely three-dimensional".

it seemed they are either seen through Zissou's eyes, or used in order to further flesh out the character of Zissou. It may be the Wes Anderson equivalent of an "epic film," in that it strives for gigantic themes, and attempts to accomplish a lot of different themes at once (and how successfully it does both is up to the individual decide).

Absolutely, but I also believe this is one of those wonderful films where you can discover something new everytime. I would hope a lot of people go back to see this a few more times, just to approach it from different angles (different theme, level, etc).

Many have critiqued Anderson's earlier efforts for being cold and distancing, but I really felt for Murray's Zissou, and really related to him, whether he was depressed, angry, confused, or just being a flat-out asshole. What's even more interesting is that all this interior drama is playing out against a wonderfully fantastic setting - a child's impression of a Costeau / 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea adventure.

At the risk of destroying what respect I have left on this board, I must admit I teared up

Spoiler

towards the end, just a moment before Zissou did underwater

. I'm really upset because I haven't had a chance to see this film again since the preview screening, and I'll be on a stinking boat for 7 days starting tomorrow. In my best pirate voice, "ARRRRGGHH!"

Overall, this a densely-layered film, and will probably take many viewings to fully absorb all its dimensions (let alone all the stylistic and self-referential content). But, IMO, there's a masterpiece to be dug out of the film, but it's buried as deep within Zissou (and Anderson himself, for that matter) that the viewer is willing to go.

Ditto, and ditto!

****Some Spoilers (I'm just going to warn now instead of blacking out the entire message)****



I saw this last night with some friends and loved it. Even having high hopes, it was better in some ways than I expected. I thought there were going to be too many characters, there weren't. Just like in many of Anderson's films there seemed to be a number of triangle relationships that formed the emotional base. I can't wait to see it again and think of the triangles a little more during the viewing. I also thought it was interesting that much like Rushmore, at least two important characters were offscreen and dead the entire time: Murray's father figure, Mandrake, and Esteban (spanish for Steven? Steve and "Steven"?). This relationship alone deserves a lot of attention.

I thought that the action scenes were going to be flat and uninteresting, I was completely wrong. Both the "Search and Destroy" scene and the Stooge Rescue mission were entirely harrowing. I loved how Steve's seeming invincibility was normal and believable in Anderson's universe. The adventure aspect of the film seemed to balance out Anderson's quirky dialogue very nicely.

And the music! ah...

And the music! ah...

It now goes without saying that any soundtrack to a Wes Anderson film is outstanding, but I think he really outdid himself here. I found the usage of Bowie's "Life on Mars?" especially striking - one of my favorite scenes in any film I saw this year, I think...

I felt almost like this is a movie Max Fischer would have made rather than Anderson

What's the difference?

SPOILERS

Spoiler

I have to differ in opinion regarding Owen Wilson's character. I think he was the one that brought it all together for me. I was really won over by his dogged pursuit of Zissou's father figure and his selfless support of Zissou throughout. I think my favorite sequence of the film is when Ned dies. (Although I think he should have sunk into the sea when they're clinging to the life raft; another death that only Zissou witnessed.)

As to laminatedcanker's concerns over Anderson's status, I don't know that Anderson is really driving any sort of film movement. He's a person who makes children's movies for adults. Movies which require a lot of simple faith. I think to make his movies out as something more important than they are is to set yourself up for continual disappointment. Anderson fans have been getting bummed out about his movies ever since Rushmore. If you don't expect more than is reasonable, you might enjoy yourself. Anderson has peaked, he's not going to climb any higher, but he's not aiming to and that's just fine with me.

****spoilers****

I loved the whole innocent feeling of the film, though the story itself wasn't completly. It almost felt like a child was telling the story, they whole way the film was shot and the stop motion characters. And whne Zissou's team has to go save the Stooge, it's great how they turn the little techno ditty serious for the whole situation.

I really was feeling for Murray's character at the end. When he sees the shark at the end, I really had a lump in my throat. The death of Wilson wasn't played out like most Hollywood movies, it was short and almots instant, like a rael death. And then he gives Dafoe's kid Wilson's ring, and I thought that was a very nice way to end the film.

I'm for getting the funny parts too. The blood seeping through Goldblum's "I'm a Pepper Shirt", the Aryan looking crew members in Goldblum's ship, Bill Murray stealing from Hennesey's ocean base, and the "Search and Destroy" part.

I'm not sure yet, I still want to see the film one more time, but I'm reall starting to lean toward the idea that this is Anderson's best film. I like Royal Tenenbaum's, but not on the level of Rushmore, and Bottle Rocket is just okay with me. I would love to see this film get the Criterion treatment.

hrossa wrote:I have to differ in opinion regarding Owen Wilson's character.

I agree with your sentiments about his character, but Wilson's acting seemed distracted and insincere at times (when the character called for complete sincerity and focus). It's probably hard for Anderson to direct his friend (especially when he's become a household name)... I wonder if this had anything to do with it (or maybe I'm imagining things).

the "search & destroy" scene caused me to laugh more than anything else in the theater all year.

Has anyone who has bought the Life Aquatic soundtrack noticed that the Scott Walker song runs for 86 seconds? In the movie you hear Scott singing and all, but on the soundtrack it's just the guitar with no singing - for 86 seconds! Does anyone know what's up with this?

Came back from it and I really enjoyed it (even think my wife liked it.) The theater I saw it in was packed, too, which kind of surprised me as I know its opening wasn't too impressive. But the audience was pretty good. When I saw the last couple of Anderson pictures in the theater it was pretty much just me and 4 other guys laughing and everyone else just kind of staring. The audience I was with this time around seemed to be having a good time, which probably enhanced my enjoyment of it. I shouldn't let an audience hurt my viewing, but it's hard when you know everyone around you isn't enjoying it as much as you. But this one was good, people were smiling, laughing and seeming to have fun. They even stayed through the credits, only a small minority running for the doors in terror. But the people who remained were all saying very good things about it. I know the movie will still be love/hate, but it was nice to have a good experience for once.

Anyways, found it quite funny, though I find with Anderson movies they're funnier the second time around and I suspect this to be the case here as well. I think one aspect that disappointed me was the relationship between Steve and Ned. I didn't feel the relationship was as built up as it could have been and I think the final scene between them wasn't as strong as it could have been, but then maybe I need to see it again.

But the other aspects of the Steve character were very well fleshed out. I heard some people complain about no character arc, that he was just a dick. I don't know, I saw a complete transformation at the end. And when they finally confront the Jaguar Shark (which I thought was a really cool creation) and Steve says "I wonder if he remembers me", I actually did kind of well up, but fought it back.

The movie was pretty much dead-pan humour (more so and much dryer than Anderson's other films I thought), and was maybe a little sillier, but I can't think of anyone who can handle these things better than Murray and I thought it worked in the end. I also really enjoyed the performances from Dafoe and Goldblum (I nearly died when he whacked that dog over the head) and hope both do even more comedy. I do wish both were in it more and had more to do, but this was Murray's show.

My expectations were incredibly high (I try not to do that as I know it hurts a viewing) and it may not have met them, but it was still pretty close. Had a lot of fun, enjoyed every second of it and can't wait to get on DVD, Criterion or not.

I am surprised that no one seemed to have picked up on the Proustian nature of Life Aquatic and how the story reflects upon Proust.

One thing is that Jane is reading À la recherche du temps perdu to her unborn son, but also how it plays with homosexuality, as when Steven answering Alistairs admission of being "half gay" with "aren't we all", or when Ned answers Steven's warnings about Jane and her questions and her having something "against us", with "I don't think she is a lesbian, she is pregnant.", and finally how all characters are in search of an identity.

Steven most directly. Not only is he a former shadow of himself, as he lived by, first his mentor Mandrake (associated with adventure and mystery), then Estaban (spanish: Steven), but thruout the film by two unknowns (the Jaguar shark and Ned). Steven also doesn't have a name as such: His singular identity is Steven Zisou, the oceanograph, but towards Ned he calls himself first Stevesou, later Papa Zissou, and even attempts to give Ned a new identity as Kingsley (Ned) Zissou. In fact his identity is so lost, that when a fan asks him to sign posters, he tells him "I do the first four, then you do the rest yourself."

Other identity searches are Ned (in search of his father), Drakoulias in search of his passport status, Klaus (who finally not only becomes A leader, but also becomes a surrogate son) and so on.

But still at the end, identity is first and foremost a red cap and a pair of speedos. (EDIT: Note how props constantly note upon identity: The Zissou adidas and "Do temps get a Glock?")

After the rescue of Bill (and Alistair), identity is somewhat restored, but it isn't until the death of Ned where Steven realises, that that he is what he is. His entire life he has been the projected image of himself, but now, thanks to having lost "his son" twice and being faced by the expose by Jane, he finds himself:

Obviously I was a little embarrassed at first, that people think of me as a showboat and a prick. But then I said to myself, thats me. I said those things, I did those things. I can live with that.

but also accepts his part as father, even though Ned never was his son, and adopts the late Ned.

In the end, identity relies on memory, how others think (and remember) one, not how one sees oneself, which also is why, when they finally meet the Jaguar Shark, Steven says, "I wonder if he remembers me?"

It is not a film about filmmaking, as DrewRiber sees it. The filmmaking notes upon Stevens obsession with his own self image and his identity. What Steven doesn't realise until the very end is, that there actually is a person called Steven Zissou in reality and that Steven Zissou is more than the person behind "Steven Zissou presents". I will admit that there is a footnote towards auteurism in it, and even if these footnotes are hilarious, as when the cameraman checks the light to see if its "ok" to storm the hotel, they are not connected as such and only reflect back onto Zissou as character.

It is also nice to see Anderson use a different design of his ideosyncratical narrative structure, in stead of reusing Rushmore techniques, as he overdid in Tenenbaums. It is still the same technique, but thanks to the documentary nature of the inner narrative, Anderson is able to disguise them by intertitles (Day 20: Towered into Port au Patois habour) and by Zissou showing us maps. The only Rushmorian element is when Zissou is showing us the inner of his ship, complete with muzak.

The biggest improvement is the dialogue. On the surface it makes no sense, but all conversation is reflective, which means, that instead of replying to what A has said, one replies by having interpreted what A has said. For instance when Steven is telling Ned that Jane is out to get them, Ned replies, "I don't think she is a lesbian, just pregnant", suggesting that "out to get them" refers to hostility against the masculine sex, hence not hetero, but also hostility to man, in terms of simple procreation and the independent woman. This is such a great touch, which also does, that one can return to the film time and time again, take one part of it and search for the deeper meaning of things.

As such, Anderson with Life Aquatic has taken a step away and avoided becoming a cliche. His style is more daring, the humour more intellectual and it really is liberating to see a story which is indifferent with if the audience gets it. As such, Life Aquatic is a unique film and such be experienced by all. As such, it also makes no sense to compare it to The Royal Tennenbaums, while it should be compared to Rushmore, as both films have the same style and techniques. Hence, Anderson has matured as a director and that what someone with his talents needs more than a hit.

But Anderson needs to demonstrate that he can think outside the box. While his unique style and storytelling still is refreshing, it riscs becoming a cliche itself, so IMO he really needs to do what PTA did with Punch Drunk Love for his next film. One thing is to be an inventive and talented director, but if ones imagination is limited to one or two ideas, which are related, then it grows old.

dvdane wrote:It is not a film about filmmaking, as DrewRiber sees it.

You're mistaken and once again misrepresenting my statements. As I said, the film is many things. Just because I focused on one or two elements doesn't preclude others. Also, you can't make a film about filmmaking and say it isn't.

dvdane wrote:The filmmaking notes upon Stevens obsession with his own self image and his identity.

Did you even read what I posted? I discussed that many aspects of the film serve to explore identity. Geez, can't we just agree that the film is wonderful and multi-faceted?

Btw, to everyone on this thread who enjoyed the film...

Judging from the box office reports since getting back to the states, I can see that Anderson and his film is in quite a bit of trouble. Seeing as how we are just about the only ones who will be supporting the film at this point, I think it would be a good idea to see it as many times as we would like to while it's still playing.

It's going to need serious legs if it's going to see any return on the investment Disney has put it... which will probably dictate whether or not we see a decent DVD release. I don't know about you guys, but I would much rather have a single disc Criterion release *at least* than a horribly produced, bare bones, over-priced Buena Vista one. Kill Bill did pretty well theatrically and the home video release look like bootlegs (box and video), just like the rest of their line.

Thanks, Henrik, for the intelligent analysis. While I'm not familiar with Proust (and, as such, cannot comment on that aspect), I heartily agree with your other statements, especially those regarding the dialogue and the theme of identity.

Additionally, while Anderson's films will not (and should not) ever be seen as attempts at portraying life in a naturalistic manner (something which many viewers seem to miss), the relationships between his characters are grounded in recognizable human emotion; and this, I think, is what makes his films truly great. The fact that these films are ostensibly "comedies" does not negate this, although it does seem to be a sticking point for many filmgoers (as well as critics). Complaining because there aren't more "laughs" in a film like TLA would seem to me to be missing the point entirely.

I also agree that this (like his other films) must be seen more than once to be properly appreciated. There is simply too much going on (visually as well as emotionally) to be able to absorb it all in one sitting.

drew, i certainly agree that clearly one aspect of the movie is to comment on filmmaking.

henrik, i know shit about proust but your analysis came in most handy for last night's second viewing. another obvious factor in the whole identity theme is the music. not only is bowie the ultimate pop music chameleon, but anderson also plays with the identity of bowie's songs with the portuguese cover versions.

I agree with most of Henrik's take on the issues of identity that the film brought up, but...

dvdane wrote:...or when Ned answers Steven's warnings about Jane and her questions and her having something "against us", with "I don't think she is a lesbian, she is pregnant."...

... when Steven is telling Ned that Jane is out to get them, Ned replies, "I don't think she is a lesbian, just pregnant", suggesting that "out to get them" refers to hostility against the masculine sex, hence not hetero, but also hostility to man, in terms of simple procreation and the independent woman.

Am I the only one that thought Ned comments regarding whether Jane is a lesbian or not were provoked by Steve's comment that she is a "bulldog" (which I believe is a term he uses twice in reference to her), and not prompted by Steve's comments that she is "out to get them"? Personally, I haven't heard that term used a whole lot in reference to lesbians, but I'm fairly certain Steve intends that the term be a slang for a gay woman. I didn't think Ned made the jump in logic/assumption that Steve believed Jane was gay just by the statement that she was "out to get them". The use of the slang term clearly demonstrates Steve assumes she is gay, hence hostile towards men. Doesn't Steve's claim that Jane is gay have more to do with her rejecting his advances, and hence Steve further discovering himself inadequate in his old age (probably even harder to take because she has acknowledged herself to be a fan)?

Also, I'm not sure I understand what you are saying in this part:

dvdane wrote:His entire life he has been the projected image of himself, but now, thanks to having lost "his son" twice and being faced by the expose by Jane, he finds himself:

Obviously I was a little embarrassed at first, that people think of me as a showboat and a prick. But then I said to myself, thats me. I said those things, I did those things. I can live with that.

but also accepts his part as father, even though Ned never was his son, and adopts the late Ned.

In the end, identity relies on memory, how others think (and remember) one, not how one sees oneself, which also is why, when they finally meet the Jaguar Shark, Steven says, "I wonder if he remembers me?"

But isn't his acknowledgement and acceptance of past actions and words a demonstration of "how one sees oneself"? Isn't the resolution of Steve's identity about acknowledging that the perceptions of others have merit, but as much as we are insecure about how others perceive us and how readily we attempt to change those perceptions, we must accept that we made those choices and move on? Personally, it felt that Anderson was trying to convey the notion that the "life aquatic", or the life lived on the high seas on a boat, is something that starts as a means to isolate yourself and hence becomes narcissistic, but that in the end those who live this life must accept the lives and viewpoints of others.

dvdane wrote:It is not a film about filmmaking, as DrewRiber sees it. The filmmaking notes upon Stevens obsession with his own self image and his identity. What Steven doesn't realise until the very end is, that there actually is a person called Steven Zissou in reality and that Steven Zissou is more than the person behind "Steven Zissou presents". I will admit that there is a footnote towards auteurism in it, and even if these footnotes are hilarious, as when the cameraman checks the light to see if its "ok" to storm the hotel, they are not connected as such and only reflect back onto Zissou as character.

I think you kind of made a strong case for Drew's original point.

dvdane wrote:His style is more daring, the humour more intellectual and it really is liberating to see a story which is indifferent with if the audience gets it.

Wait a sec... it's liberating to see a film that has humor that only the director and a few select intellectual people "get"? Sounds more constricting to me. This feels weird from someone who regularly defends the intentions of Ron Howard and Steven Spielberg.

dvdane wrote:It is also nice to see Anderson use a different design of his ideosyncratical narrative structure, in stead of reusing Rushmore techniques, as he overdid in Tenenbaums. It is still the same technique, but ... Anderson is able to disguise them by intertitles... and by Zissou showing us maps.... The only Rushmorian element is when Zissou is showing us the inner of his ship, complete with muzak...

... As such, Anderson with Life Aquatic has taken a step away and avoided becoming a cliche. As such, Life Aquatic is a unique film and such be experienced by all. As such, it also makes no sense to compare it to The Royal Tennenbaums, while it should be compared to Rushmore, as both films have the same style and techniques. Hence, Anderson has matured as a director and that what someone with his talents needs more than a hit.

Ok, you lost me. You are saying his ideosyncratic narrative structure is designed differently, and doesn't use the same techniques as Rushmore, which were overused in Tenenbaums, but it's the same technique as Rushmore, but it's been slightly adjusted to become intertitles. You then say The Life Aquatic is a unique film that shouldn't be compared to The Royal Tenenbaums, but should be compared to Rushmore, because both use the same style and technique, and this demonstrates that he has matured as a director.

I'll have to admit that I'm truly lost in this logic. At once you are saying he overused the narrative structure he applied in Rushmore in Tenenbaums, and that The Life Aquatic uses an adjusted form of the structure of Rushmore, but that The Life Aquatic should be judged as it's own unique creation and compared to Rushmore because it shares the same style and technique? You then go on to say that Anderson must demonstrate he can think outside the box. I'm confused, and fully prepared for you to respond by calling me an idiot, but I don't really understand this logic at all. How can you claim The Life Aquatic to be a unique film, but then begin to say that it shares similarities with Rushmore, and claim the Tenenbaums to do the same to far too great an extent, but claim Rushmore and The Life Aquatic to be similar, but not Tenenbaums? Could you explain a bit further Henrik?

Andre Jurieu wrote: Am I the only one that thought Ned comments regarding whether Jane is a lesbian or not were provoked by Steve's comment that she is a "bulldog"...

I believe he said "Bull-dyke"

chris beat me to the bull-dyke. also, steve calls ali a "slick faggot" and something else of a similar nature. it seems to be his childish code insult for anyone he feels perhaps inferior too, a sad attempt to knock them down in stature (his way of identifying the enemy?).

also w/ the identity,

Spoiler

as soon as steve's earring and red cap, or toque as we call it in canada, are called into question he immediately removes them, doubtful of himself

.

andre, also nicely done w/ your statement of confusion over the confusing nature of henrik's statement being even more confusing (or at least head spinning) than he was.

Andre Jurieu wrote: The use of the slang term clearly demonstrates Steve assumes she is gay, hence hostile towards men. Doesn't Steve's claim that Jane is gay have more to do with her rejecting his advances, and hence Steve further discovering himself inadequate in his old age (probably even harder to take because she has acknowledged herself to be a fan)?

I don't think Steve believes she is gay; his statement is mainly aimed at trying to ward the competition (Kingsley) away from her. Obviously it doesn't work, as we discover later in the film.

He probably did use the term "bull-dyke". I've only watched the film once (sorry Drew), so I'm going on memory from about 10 days ago, and there has been a great deal of drinking on my part in that short time span.

Brian Oblivious wrote:I don't think Steve believes she is gay; his statement is mainly aimed at trying to ward the competition (Kingsley) away from her. Obviously it doesn't work, as we discover later in the film.

Yeah, that's true. I'd agree that his statement is aimed at warding off his competition for Jane's affection(? - don't know if that's a good term for it), but I can't really say for sure that he doesn't actually think she is gay. His delivery of the line kind of implies he's just using it as a method of keeping Ned away from her, but Steve is quite self-centered and insecure at times, so I don't know if he's also trying to convince himself of this "fact" while he's making his statement to Ned regarding Jane's sexual preferences. Either way, my point is that Steve's "bull-dyke" comment is what draws a response regarding Jane's sexuality from Ned.

... As such, Anderson with Life Aquatic has taken a step away and avoided becoming a cliche. As such, Life Aquatic is a unique film and such be experienced by all. As such, it also makes no sense to compare it to The Royal Tennenbaums, while it should be compared to Rushmore, as both films have the same style and techniques.

No wonder you are confused, Andre. What I meant, and should have been more precise about is, that RT should be comepared to Rushmore, as both films (RT and Rushmore) share style and technique, but as LA steps away from their style, one shouldn't compare it to them. If Anderson had reused the same techniques from RT and Rushmore a third time, then I believe there would have been a very large chance for the style to become cliche and him being trapped with it.

This is still very much a Wes Anderson film. He has a unique signature, with his use of music, his use of direct-adressing, his use of chapters and so on, but while his mise-en-scene, in all three films is partial comparable, his overall construction of the film is not, as he used new methods, like the "DAY" for chapters, like having a member play guitar or the music coming out from a taperecorder and so forth.

Andre Jurieu wrote:I've only watched the film once (sorry Drew)

You're going to make me cry, aren't you? Do you want me to beg? I'll do it! I will...

Today I saw it for the third time, which is twice in just two days. I'm making up for the time I was on that cruise (which played Open Water, hilariously enough) through the New Year and my birthday, just obsessing over this film.

I noticed even more this time, like some shots borrowed from Innerspace (which I only noticed because of the credited music track), some designs from Buckaroo Banzai and more obvious stuff like the low angle POV of Steve during the Arctic Lights sequence for the sake of establishing the narrative's switch in the depiction of his character.

I also felt like slapping myself in the head for not recognizing the signifigance of having that beautiful portrait in the opening shot, using a well known New Wave device for clueing the audience into how they need to study the piece more objectively (like Godard or Antonioni would do). There seems to be so much more going on, and I will keep going until the movie gets old.

I hope that Criterion disc is coming, because I would hope to hear an Anderson commentary about the other less obvious influences on this film. How many have you guys picked out so far? Anyone else seen this more than once, or I am the only loser here?