Wes
Anderson
I
know my first sentence swung rapidly from enthusiasm to dismissiveness, but
that’s the most accurate way I have of summing it up. When I came out of the
movie (which elicited a rare ripple of applause from the Varsity audience), I
felt completely happy and elevated, but I also had no idea what I was ever going
to write about it. I mean, I could describe this scene or that scene, or say
how I particularly like this bit or that bit, but where would that ultimately
get you or me? For all its strengths, Anderson’s cinema doesn’t add to our
sense of the world or of ourselves as the most significant films (at least as
measured by my criteria) do; he just doesn’t see himself as that kind of
artist.
In
a recent Salon interview he put it
this way: “My kind of movie — the kind I’ve always been interested in making —
are ones where part of it is that we’re inventing a setting where I hope the
audience has never been before. Part of the experience of the movie is going
into this world, and the characters are a part of the world. They’re a part of
what is making that world.” He’s proven his facility at refining these invented
environments, and cinema wouldn’t exist without such dreamers – the trip to the
Moonrise Kingdom doesn’t perhaps fall so far from Georges Melies’ voyages to
the moon and to subterranean fairy kingdoms. But then Scorsese’s Hugo recently reminded us of how easily
the world lost its taste for Melies’ visions.
Moonrise
Kingdom
All
of that said, although Moonrise Kingdom
might sound in outline like a rather regressive project – eschewing the
mainland, the present day, and to a great extent adulthood – it carries a rather
moving sense of melancholy and regret. Suzy’s parents, both lawyers
(occasionally addressing each other as “Counsellor”) have long fallen out of
love it seems; she dallies with another man, and he seems to have had all the
colour drained out of him. Likewise, the cop is lonely and almost affectless,
and the scout master (who composes his daily log over a cigarette and a stiff
drink) just bleeds a desire to count for more than his profession as a high
school math teacher seems to allow him (the scouts actually seem like a godsend
for Anderson, bringing along their weird rituals and iconography, and their
sense of an idealism that no doubt seems naïve and archaic now, but embodies an
honest desire for community and a kind of clarity). And even the two children
have the least heady “love” affair you’ll ever see on screen – the magic of
their relationship consists in large part of its matter-of-factness, which
Anderson rather magically manages to keep from seeming like a mere stunt (you
might find his approach to some aspects surprisingly frank).
In previous
reviews, I’ve summed up Anderson’s familiar style as being defined by, among
other things, distinctive fonts, bright colours, slow pans, chapter headings, a
stark use of close-ups alternating with a “figures in a landscape” approach to
framing elsewhere, a certain laconic terseness in the dialogue, an avoidance of
over-emoting, and left-field musical choices. When I reviewed The Darjeeling Limited a few years ago,
I said it all “has the effect of draining the flavour from everything he looks
at.” I didn’t like that film, about three brothers on a “spiritual journey: his
view of India seemed to me just another source of gimmicks and bric-a-brac,
presented without a shred of real engagement or integrity (I think I liked his
earlier work – especially Rushmore I
guess - more at the time, but it hasn’t had much staying power with me). The
familiar style hasn’t changed here, but it certainly didn’t rub me up that same
way. The opening credits play over a tour of Suzy’s house, as her brothers
listen to Benjamin Britten’s Young
Person’s Guide to the Orchestra – it has the appearance almost of a giant
doll’s house, but Anderson’s shot-making is too precise to connote play,
feeling almost scientifically rigorous. Britten’s record (combining stirring
music with a narrative guide to how it’s all done) reinforces that sense of
investigation and instruction, as do the repeated head-on shots of Suzy looking
through her binoculars (the film also has a narrator, who at various points
instructs us in such matters as weather patterns and crop yields).
Rear Window?
In some ways the
set-up reminded me of Hitchcock’s Rear
Window, but the intent isn’t voyeuristic – there’s nothing furtive about
the act of seeing here, because this is a world that comes most alive from
being observed. This is the glory of signature Anderson shots such as the sight
that greets Sam and Suzy when they open their tent one morning, raised on a
narrow strip of beach: they encounter what seems like half the cast arrayed
before them, perfectly arranged across the frame. You wouldn’t want to change a
single detail of such shots: if Anderson wasn’t a filmmaker, he could have
single-handedly reignited the art of window-dressing.
Anyway, I was
already feeling more positive about Anderson because of his previous film, the
animated Fantastic Mr. Fox, which
seemed to me a rather wonderfully peculiar fantasy (and rather oddly, his most
fully realized examination of a fully complex community), and Moonrise Kingdom certainly continues
this upward evaluation. Really, there’s nothing about it not to like. It’s hard
for example to see Anderson as a great director of actors exactly, certainly
not if that means “drawing them out” as the phrase goes – this is why the
inscrutable Bill Murray is so vital to his universe. But the new film’s cast –
including Bruce Willis, Frances McDormand and Tilda Swinton – is pitch-perfect,
and very well-integrated. And the film has any number of grace notes and
moments of sweetness that I haven’t mentioned. In fact, the longer I keep
writing this article, I realize that maybe I’m not in such a hurry to put the
movie back in the box after all.
No comments:
Post a Comment