Many casual moviegoers share your views. I will happily put together a post explicating Wes's style over at www.b-a-dreviews.com. (PTA is a bit trickier to "nail down", as his aesthetic can shift greatly between films.) Stay tuned!
Oh I would love to read that! A big part of my frustration with WA is not really his fault at all; the critical ecosystem seems unable to discuss him objectively. The Criterion Collection DVDs which I'm getting from the library include critical essays but they are almost entirely gushing. WA himself says that he's not trying to say anything in particular with his films and that may be true but people are finding something of worth in them, yet are unable (or unwilling) to articulate what that is . . . I will look forward to reading your thoughts. Thank you!
Thanks for that. It's interesting that you mentioned bricolage and Tarantino. The more I think of it, the more I am sure a big part of WA's appeal is the "easter eggs" / hidden references which only film hipsters are likely to see. To each their own, I suppose, but that sort of thing is rather off-putting to me. I am prepared, though, to say that WAs is a fine director, and his works are quite good — but I reserve the right to not enjoy them as much as other critics might.
I'm not really sure what the point of all the Brechtian unreality is supposed to be. You mentioned "a desire to be obvious about the artist's control of the piece"—and I have to ask, why? How much of WA's "joy" is really vanity and self-indulgence? "Look at me, look at what I'm doing"? This strikes at the heart of my discomfort with his films—he has no story to tell, and he's only telling it to show off his own talent, skill, and film nerd credentials? If so, why should I watch?
(This isn't an attack on your piece or a condemnation of anyone who likes WA's films and finds value in them; it's just me publicly working things out, I suppose. Like I said in my piece, I am really not sure I'm qualified to be a film critic.)
Sorry that I didn't present it clearly. I feel like I addressed all those questions--but I also obviously disagree with you. Except that yes, you have no duty to like his films. I just fight all the time against comments like these. I suppose my desire is that people who are not film critics steer away from comments about a work's inherent value. All critics, of course, are individual and biased human beings, as well. There aren't many directors I actively disdain, but at the top of that list is Francis Ford Coppola. I can't make claims about his intentions and skill, but I am free to hate his movies. Another example: even among my creative writing MFA colleagues, there was a very large distrust of Shakespeare among the fiction writers. Billions of people think Shakespeare's work is pretentious and boring and unintelligible. What they ought to be saying, perhaps, is that they haven't given his work enough attention and study to appreciate it. (LOL, now I'm working things out publicly. It's frustrating to a critic to live in the age in which everyone thinks they are a critic, just as it is frustrating to be a poet in a culture that affirms the lie that anyone can write poetry.) I now cede the communal soapbox.
Greatly appreciate William's Ruins and the article on the two directors! Our family, which is reformed, covenantal and Calvinistic are big fans Wes Anderson's portfolio and "There Will Be Blood", but you have listed a few others of Paul Anderson we have yet to see. It is indeed a rich life when we can ENJOY so much of art and life in a broken world. With so many evangelicals angry and fearful, we need to step back and remember all the earth is the Lord's and there is no place where His voice hasn't gone out, even in the quirkiest and silliest art. PS 19:3,4. Any artist making stuff shows that we are truly made in God's image precisely because He makes stuff. When it's great art it shows the qualities about Him that are great. When it's "low" art it simply shows what He is not. If we are unbelievers, we will crave the entertainment that feeds the lie that God is not there or that he is not good (ie. much of the content of the later "Asteroid City" for sure!). If we are believers, we will recognize that in certain artists' work and this should generate a compassion in us for them. All the while the good qualities of their films can be attributed to God as gits to us. My favorite part of Asteroid City was the roadrunner doing his happy dance at the end of the credits to the tune of "...Freight Train, Freight Train, goin' down the track", the rest of that film was the director doing his old, audience-favorite tricks in a dark and increasingly trapped worldview.
Since there is no perfect art in this very broken world, we should still engage it, grow from our engagement and conversations about it, and if we be believers we will even be conformed to Christ's image through it, along with "...all things"-Romans 8:28
I know what you mean about Wes Anderson's movies. I have enjoyed them in an almost "eh, why not" kind of way. And I've also been mildly put off by the ennui many of his characters embody. Like things are happening to and around them without much of their own agency.
I disagree with you that Wes Anderson's films do not have messages or morals, that they are art for art’s sake. Let me try to prove that, then talk about the ideas you bring up here (I haven’t seen any movies from the other Anderson, so I won’t speak on him).
Let's look at Moonrise Kingdom (spoilers to those who haven't seen in). This is basically a buildings roman (sic) for the side characters. The khaki scout boys start out hunting Sam because he is different and it is fun. Midway through, the one boy's speech forces them all to look at what they have been doing and rethink it. We feel the weight of this change when the boys are looking down the chimney, and Sam is disgusted by them, but they show Susie as a sign of their repentance and willingness to help going forward. It's not quite an apology, but it feels like one. The pivotal speech ends with "are we MAN enough to save him?" There is a lot of matter there about how fraternity can be turned to good or bad ends.
Our introduction to Captain Sharp (Bruce Willis) is him learning that Sam can't go home and saying "well what am I supposed to do with him?" Later on we get something about how he loved once, and it doesn't seem to be the woman he is in passionless adultery with. He just goes with the flow these days. By the end, however, he is the first one to stand up to Social Services, he braves the storm to rescue the kids, and he adopts Sam. We emotionally experience his new character when the tower is blown off the church and the kids are hanging by his hand (notice the music).
Scoutmaster Ward (Edward Norton) doesn't really have to change his beliefs, but we see him consistently striving to be enough for his boys. He fumbles by saying his job is a math teacher with a side of scoutmaster, then tries to correct it to the opposite. We see him broken in his tent: "horrible day at camp Ivanhoe." When Sam's plans are destroyed, Ward commends his campsite (again not enough at the time, but the heart is correct). Then at the end, immediately after being humiliated for failure once again (field stripped of his command), he saves the general and leads all of the boys on an epic march to safety. His constant striving eventually builds him into the right man for the hour.
I can try to paint morals in other films if requested, but the above is already probably long winded for a comment section.
All this said, I still believe you are making a valuable distinction in your piece between novel style messaging, and movie style visuality. I just believe that WA has good messaging underneath all the visuality. This seems to be more true about his older works, and I will admit to worrying that he is becoming all visual, as his last four films have been much less meaningful in my opinion. They still have the aesthetic, and I assume that is all critics are in it for (those movies being Grand Budapest, Isle of Dogs, French Dispatch, and Asteroid City). But Moonrise Kingdom, Life Aquatic, and Rushmore are all excellent films that have messages and morals if you are willing to sit with them a bit.
As a side note, I think there is a minor way that his visuality serves the messaging: it allows his characters to be larger than life. In a normal movie, we wouldn’t accept a boy scout troop leader assuming control of a huge group of boys he doesn’t know, and immediately organizing them into a march to escape death by flood (Much less doing it while piggybacking the previous leader who he just saved from death by fire). But this is not a normal movie, and the first time we saw this guy was in a long tracking shot where he conveniently interacts with each of his campers in his straight line boy scout camp. He is still mainly a human, but much more of an Archetype than the people in normal live action films.
Along with more heroic/unconventional actions, the characters can also get away with speaking through their development much more directly. At one point Suzy’s parents have a conversation something like:
“I hope the storm blows the roof off and takes me with it.”
“Stop feeling sorry for yourself”
“Why should I?”
“Because we’re all they’ve got.”
Not how humans talk, but in 15 seconds I understand what these characters have been wrestling with, and why they throw shoulders in to help at the end. This allows for an ensemble movie where rather minor characters can tell you the deep things that are going on with them.
Maybe these benefits are not worth it, and Wes Anderson could make better movies if he used a more normal style. I really am not sure. But in either case he has made some good ones that I believe you will find merit in even if you are not a hipster who likes to think about cameras and how they were used in _____________.
This is exactly the kind of discussion I hoped my piece would incite, so thank you! Your points are very clearly stated and well argued, and I agree that of all the Wes Anderson films I've seen, Moonrise Kingdom seems to be the one with the most substance at its heart. The scene you mentioned (with the Bishop parents lying in bed talking to each other) caught my attention as well. Using minor characters to flesh out the story's moral universe is an interesting phenomenon and worth more considered study.
Many casual moviegoers share your views. I will happily put together a post explicating Wes's style over at www.b-a-dreviews.com. (PTA is a bit trickier to "nail down", as his aesthetic can shift greatly between films.) Stay tuned!
Oh I would love to read that! A big part of my frustration with WA is not really his fault at all; the critical ecosystem seems unable to discuss him objectively. The Criterion Collection DVDs which I'm getting from the library include critical essays but they are almost entirely gushing. WA himself says that he's not trying to say anything in particular with his films and that may be true but people are finding something of worth in them, yet are unable (or unwilling) to articulate what that is . . . I will look forward to reading your thoughts. Thank you!
https://open.substack.com/pub/brettalandewing/p/setting-the-scene-wes-anderson?r=i2vmn&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
Thanks for that. It's interesting that you mentioned bricolage and Tarantino. The more I think of it, the more I am sure a big part of WA's appeal is the "easter eggs" / hidden references which only film hipsters are likely to see. To each their own, I suppose, but that sort of thing is rather off-putting to me. I am prepared, though, to say that WAs is a fine director, and his works are quite good — but I reserve the right to not enjoy them as much as other critics might.
I'm not really sure what the point of all the Brechtian unreality is supposed to be. You mentioned "a desire to be obvious about the artist's control of the piece"—and I have to ask, why? How much of WA's "joy" is really vanity and self-indulgence? "Look at me, look at what I'm doing"? This strikes at the heart of my discomfort with his films—he has no story to tell, and he's only telling it to show off his own talent, skill, and film nerd credentials? If so, why should I watch?
(This isn't an attack on your piece or a condemnation of anyone who likes WA's films and finds value in them; it's just me publicly working things out, I suppose. Like I said in my piece, I am really not sure I'm qualified to be a film critic.)
Sorry that I didn't present it clearly. I feel like I addressed all those questions--but I also obviously disagree with you. Except that yes, you have no duty to like his films. I just fight all the time against comments like these. I suppose my desire is that people who are not film critics steer away from comments about a work's inherent value. All critics, of course, are individual and biased human beings, as well. There aren't many directors I actively disdain, but at the top of that list is Francis Ford Coppola. I can't make claims about his intentions and skill, but I am free to hate his movies. Another example: even among my creative writing MFA colleagues, there was a very large distrust of Shakespeare among the fiction writers. Billions of people think Shakespeare's work is pretentious and boring and unintelligible. What they ought to be saying, perhaps, is that they haven't given his work enough attention and study to appreciate it. (LOL, now I'm working things out publicly. It's frustrating to a critic to live in the age in which everyone thinks they are a critic, just as it is frustrating to be a poet in a culture that affirms the lie that anyone can write poetry.) I now cede the communal soapbox.
Greatly appreciate William's Ruins and the article on the two directors! Our family, which is reformed, covenantal and Calvinistic are big fans Wes Anderson's portfolio and "There Will Be Blood", but you have listed a few others of Paul Anderson we have yet to see. It is indeed a rich life when we can ENJOY so much of art and life in a broken world. With so many evangelicals angry and fearful, we need to step back and remember all the earth is the Lord's and there is no place where His voice hasn't gone out, even in the quirkiest and silliest art. PS 19:3,4. Any artist making stuff shows that we are truly made in God's image precisely because He makes stuff. When it's great art it shows the qualities about Him that are great. When it's "low" art it simply shows what He is not. If we are unbelievers, we will crave the entertainment that feeds the lie that God is not there or that he is not good (ie. much of the content of the later "Asteroid City" for sure!). If we are believers, we will recognize that in certain artists' work and this should generate a compassion in us for them. All the while the good qualities of their films can be attributed to God as gits to us. My favorite part of Asteroid City was the roadrunner doing his happy dance at the end of the credits to the tune of "...Freight Train, Freight Train, goin' down the track", the rest of that film was the director doing his old, audience-favorite tricks in a dark and increasingly trapped worldview.
Since there is no perfect art in this very broken world, we should still engage it, grow from our engagement and conversations about it, and if we be believers we will even be conformed to Christ's image through it, along with "...all things"-Romans 8:28
Thanks again to Mr Collen for such engaging!
Glad you enjoyed it.
I know what you mean about Wes Anderson's movies. I have enjoyed them in an almost "eh, why not" kind of way. And I've also been mildly put off by the ennui many of his characters embody. Like things are happening to and around them without much of their own agency.
Mr. Collen,
I disagree with you that Wes Anderson's films do not have messages or morals, that they are art for art’s sake. Let me try to prove that, then talk about the ideas you bring up here (I haven’t seen any movies from the other Anderson, so I won’t speak on him).
Let's look at Moonrise Kingdom (spoilers to those who haven't seen in). This is basically a buildings roman (sic) for the side characters. The khaki scout boys start out hunting Sam because he is different and it is fun. Midway through, the one boy's speech forces them all to look at what they have been doing and rethink it. We feel the weight of this change when the boys are looking down the chimney, and Sam is disgusted by them, but they show Susie as a sign of their repentance and willingness to help going forward. It's not quite an apology, but it feels like one. The pivotal speech ends with "are we MAN enough to save him?" There is a lot of matter there about how fraternity can be turned to good or bad ends.
Our introduction to Captain Sharp (Bruce Willis) is him learning that Sam can't go home and saying "well what am I supposed to do with him?" Later on we get something about how he loved once, and it doesn't seem to be the woman he is in passionless adultery with. He just goes with the flow these days. By the end, however, he is the first one to stand up to Social Services, he braves the storm to rescue the kids, and he adopts Sam. We emotionally experience his new character when the tower is blown off the church and the kids are hanging by his hand (notice the music).
Scoutmaster Ward (Edward Norton) doesn't really have to change his beliefs, but we see him consistently striving to be enough for his boys. He fumbles by saying his job is a math teacher with a side of scoutmaster, then tries to correct it to the opposite. We see him broken in his tent: "horrible day at camp Ivanhoe." When Sam's plans are destroyed, Ward commends his campsite (again not enough at the time, but the heart is correct). Then at the end, immediately after being humiliated for failure once again (field stripped of his command), he saves the general and leads all of the boys on an epic march to safety. His constant striving eventually builds him into the right man for the hour.
I can try to paint morals in other films if requested, but the above is already probably long winded for a comment section.
All this said, I still believe you are making a valuable distinction in your piece between novel style messaging, and movie style visuality. I just believe that WA has good messaging underneath all the visuality. This seems to be more true about his older works, and I will admit to worrying that he is becoming all visual, as his last four films have been much less meaningful in my opinion. They still have the aesthetic, and I assume that is all critics are in it for (those movies being Grand Budapest, Isle of Dogs, French Dispatch, and Asteroid City). But Moonrise Kingdom, Life Aquatic, and Rushmore are all excellent films that have messages and morals if you are willing to sit with them a bit.
As a side note, I think there is a minor way that his visuality serves the messaging: it allows his characters to be larger than life. In a normal movie, we wouldn’t accept a boy scout troop leader assuming control of a huge group of boys he doesn’t know, and immediately organizing them into a march to escape death by flood (Much less doing it while piggybacking the previous leader who he just saved from death by fire). But this is not a normal movie, and the first time we saw this guy was in a long tracking shot where he conveniently interacts with each of his campers in his straight line boy scout camp. He is still mainly a human, but much more of an Archetype than the people in normal live action films.
Along with more heroic/unconventional actions, the characters can also get away with speaking through their development much more directly. At one point Suzy’s parents have a conversation something like:
“I hope the storm blows the roof off and takes me with it.”
“Stop feeling sorry for yourself”
“Why should I?”
“Because we’re all they’ve got.”
Not how humans talk, but in 15 seconds I understand what these characters have been wrestling with, and why they throw shoulders in to help at the end. This allows for an ensemble movie where rather minor characters can tell you the deep things that are going on with them.
Maybe these benefits are not worth it, and Wes Anderson could make better movies if he used a more normal style. I really am not sure. But in either case he has made some good ones that I believe you will find merit in even if you are not a hipster who likes to think about cameras and how they were used in _____________.
This is exactly the kind of discussion I hoped my piece would incite, so thank you! Your points are very clearly stated and well argued, and I agree that of all the Wes Anderson films I've seen, Moonrise Kingdom seems to be the one with the most substance at its heart. The scene you mentioned (with the Bishop parents lying in bed talking to each other) caught my attention as well. Using minor characters to flesh out the story's moral universe is an interesting phenomenon and worth more considered study.