Last Christmas I watched my favourite film, The Darjeeling Limited, with my brothers and mother just as we were winding down from a busy festive day. Everything about this film entices me, from the escapist commentary to the beautiful mise en scene. And yet, on this particular viewing, the film ended with grunts from my family members, with my mother even questioning the point of the film. This was a reaction that took me back - this was a film I had worshipped since its arrival at my door. I had watched every scene intently numerous times, with the feeling of disappointment always being far from my mind. And yet, here my family members were being left unfulfilled by such cinematic mastery. The result of this bleak reminder of different people’s taste was that I began to look more provisionally at other Anderson films, in an attempt to answer the questions about their uniqueness and the possible dissatisfaction that some people may attain from them.
The main reason why I believe my family members didn’t enjoy The Darjeeling Limited was the inward-looking narrative employed by Anderson. The story follows three brothers, each with their problems, as they somewhat reluctantly travel around India. They each come to resolve their internal emotional problems as the story develops, with the overarching feel of the film being one of dealing with grief, attachment and running away from problems. And yet, while it has its moments, the film lacks a foe, a twist or even plot satisfaction. This absence is something that doesn’t make the film unique but it does bring the audience into a state of self-reflection often not harnessed in traditional narrative-based films. This effect is also present in some of Anderson’s other films, like The Royal Tenenbaums and Moonrise Kingdom. Both are devoid of a central enemy, both follow the easy, twist-free narrative and both are insightful keyholes into human nature. Some could argue that Anderson ignores this effect in his more popular films, like The Grand Budapest Hotel and Fantastic Mr Fox, but I would argue back that the effect still lingers. While both of these films do contain the big bad foe, they are extremely traditional archetypes that serve only to catapult the plot towards its true, deeper feeling, again the emotional nature of the characters. Therefore, this effect is what helps set Anderson’s films apart, the true inward-looking story which poses humanistic questions to oneself.
However, if you asked most about what Anderson’s most standout factor would be, the answer would almost always be his style. In any line-up against Scorsese, Tarantino or Spielberg, and it is Andersons that will catch your eye. His meticulously beautiful colour palate presents each image not as through the eyes of you and me, but as the painter touching the canvas. Its cartoon impression through the scope of a camera creates this dazzling beauty unmatched by any other. The obsessively symmetrical formulation of countless scenes across all his films is visually magnificent, serving as the law of the screen. Furthermore, the brilliant set pieces, each designed painstakingly to perfection, act as the true tunnel to our escapism. I wish I could describe more, yet I know that even with the use of an endless combination of adjectives will not come close to you just going to view artistry for yourself. For this article, just know it is beautiful and it is unlike no other.
Now, I haven’t got many minutes of your attention left. So, I will quickly brush aside Anderson’s intelligent use of the same actors, his escapist agenda, and his captivating script, in favour of one of his film’s best traits: its comedy. Recently, while watching The Grand Budapest Hotel again, my girlfriend, who was watching for the first time, couldn’t stop bursting out laughing at basically anything the character Monsieur Gustave did. The characters regular use of ‘darling’, his frame movement and distinct morals were all of the particular amusement. Here, I will compare Anderson’s comedic feel with another great director Edgar Wright. Both directors use rigid character movement in a hilarious slapstick manner. For two brilliant uses of this watch the scene where Knives comes to Scott's flat in Scott Pilgrim VS the World and also the scene where Monsieur Gustave and Zero fight after the will reading in The Grand Budapest Hotel. Another key element in Anderson’s comedic feel - the formality of his characters' speech – shines through as a cornerstone of the hilarity expressed throughout his films.
Anderson blends all of these elements in unison to create one of the most unique forms of cinema, which never fails to entertain. His beautiful scene composition, his narrative structure, and his comedic genius are just a portion of what makes his films some of the best in cinema and are why I will never skip the chance to indulge in a Wes Anderson film.
Comentarios