A Smarmy Trend

Coming late to the party…

Santino said, In fact, my only criticism is with the pacing and weak narrative.

Basically, that last bit has been my problem with Anderson—although I still have yet to see Life Aquatic and Darhjeeling (don’t yell at my Doc [part of the reason I haven’t jumped in]). I like the quirky characters and overall vibe of his films, but my feeling is that he doesn’t package this into a strong film—and by this I basically mean a strong narrative. On the other hand, character-driven films don’t necessarily need strong narratives, but the sense I get from Anderson is that he loves these creating these characters and doesn’t care about the overall film. In a way, this reminds me a little of how Tarantino is great at scenes, but can’t seem to find a strong narrative framework to hold everything together, forming a strong film overall.

Anyway, there’s a lot I like about Anderson, but I feel like he hasn’t overcome what I see are problems and weaknesses—as if he’s content to stick with the quirky characters and not interested in making a strong film overall. I don’t know, maybe I’m reading him wrong, but that’s my sense, and this is what I find disappointing, and sometimes annoying. This is what makes me gun-shy about seeing his films: if he doesn’t think his films have the weaknesses I’ve identified, then I don’t really want to see more of his films.

Now, if I really loved the characters and oddball tone of his films to the point where I didn’t care about anything else, then I’d be happy to keep watching his films. But I don’t feel that way. This is somewhat different from someone like Michel Gondry, who also has a quirky, oddball sensibility. In his case, I love the way this manifest itself on the screen (especially in his set-designs), but, at the same time, some of his films are very flawed (e.g., Human Nature or even Science of Sleep). The difference between Gondry and Anderson is that Gondry aesthetic is appealing to me, despite the flaws, whereas Anderson’s aesthetic isn’t sufficient.

Oh, just to pull the discussion back to the OP, the suggestion that Anderson, Coppola and (can’t remember the third director) are “smarmy” never really occurred to me. Narcissistic isn’t the adjective that comes to mind, either. Hipster comes closer, I think. Oh well….

@Jazz -

“On the other hand, character-driven films don’t necessarily need strong narratives, but the sense I get from Anderson is that he loves these creating these characters and doesn’t care about the overall film. In a way, this reminds me a little of how Tarantino is great at scenes, but can’t seem to find a strong narrative framework to hold everything together, forming a strong film overall.”

I agree. The problem though is that his films are plot driven and stuff does happen. His scripts have an incredible amount of scenes in them – this is part of what creates that distinctive vibe that is pure Wes Anderson. But I don’t know that I’d say they’re “character driven” films. The characters are not particularly deep or all that interesting once you go down below the surface. No, I’d say his films are more “director driven” in that the style and uniqueness of the film is really what keeps the viewer engaged. This isn’t a bad thing but it’s difficult to sustain for two hours.

You mentioned Michel Gondry, which made me wonder what it would be like if Wes Anderson directed a script from someone like Charlie Kaufman. That might force him to break out of his shell and work with more complex material, which might lend to some interesting results (I actually have thought the same thing about Tarantino, how he might benefit from directing a film he didn’t write). Certainly with Gondry, most will admit he hasn’t matched what he did when he directed Kaufman’s Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

@Santino

The problem though is that his films are plot driven and stuff does happen. His scripts have an incredible amount of scenes in them – this is part of what creates that distinctive vibe that is pure Wes Anderson. But I don’t know that I’d say they’re “character driven” films. The characters are not particularly deep or all that interesting once you go down below the surface. No, I’d say his films are more “director driven” in that the style and uniqueness of the film is really what keeps the viewer engaged.

I don’t disagree with this. The plots seem important, but I feel like Anderson neglects the plot in favor of characters and episodes with them. And I’m not thinking of the films as character-driven, because the characters are deep or multilayered. Rather, I think the films suggest that the characters and perhaps the situations are more important.

This isn’t a bad thing but it’s difficult to sustain for two hours.

To be fair, though, isn’t this mostly a matter of personal preference?

You mentioned Michel Gondry, which made me wonder what it would be like if Wes Anderson directed a script from someone like Charlie Kaufman.

I’m not sure Kaufman writes the strongest scripts, but that’s another story. I do understand you point, and I agree, which is partly the reason I looked forward to Fantastic Mr. Fox. I thought that maybe working from a decent story, the film would be a lot better. But, alas, even this film had a kind of narrative malaise that I found maddening—maddening because I wanted to like this film and actually really did enjoy aspects of it, but couldn’t pinpoint why the film felt flat for me. The narrative just seemed to run out of steam towards the end for some reason. (I never read the original story, so I don’t know if it was any good or not.)

(I actually have thought the same thing about Tarantino, how he might benefit from directing a film he didn’t write).

This sort of happened with Jackie Brown, don’t you think? My memory is hazy, but it does seem like his strongest film in terms of narrative and a strong overall movie. (But it also seems to have the most forgettable scenes and dialogue, imo.)

*Certainly with Gondry, most will admit he hasn’t matched what he did when he directed Kaufman’s Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

I agree, but I really like Be Kind, Rewind, and I consider it a terrific film, in a dark horse sort of way. To be fair, I might say that Kaufman hasn’t matched Eternal—i.e., maybe Gondry helped Kaufman just as much as the other way around.

Jeez, I leave this thread for a day and it explodes. When I watch a Wes Anderson movie I get the feeling I’m watching something made by a really pretentious high school student. Like a lot of people have said, it’s not because he repeats himself, it’s because the formula doesn’t work. There’s no dramatic tension in his films, because they’re so neat. Basically, they’re for people who need to pat themselves on the back.

Man, I think I would really like to see Wes Anderson direct a Charlie Kaufman script!

Btw, is Kaufman working on anything new?

And you did make me want to re-watch Life Aquatic sometime, Doc. I really want to like Wes Anderson, but I just can’t…

@Jazz -

“To be fair, though, isn’t this mostly a matter of personal preference?”

I don’t think so. If you’re making a narrative based film, I don’t think it’s impossible to quantify a strong versus weak narrative. I think you could break down a film, scene by scene, and tell if the scenes are pushing the narrative forward or not. This is not a subjective thing, I don’t think.

Now if you’re not making a narrative film, I agree it would be a waste of time to try to quantify the strength of the narrative.

“The narrative just seemed to run out of steam towards the end for some reason.”

I think that’s indicative of the direction. You know, it just reminded me that Hal Ashby had similar issues. I love several of his films but I have to admit that a lot of his second acts screech to a halt. I think this is just a style that both Ashby (who as an editor knows rhythm and pacing) and Anderson intentionally employ.

“This sort of happened with Jackie Brown, don’t you think?”

Yes, totally. QT’s best film is the one that wasn’t an original script.

@ Drunk -

“Btw, is Kaufman working on anything new?”

Yes, I believe he’s working on something. But since Synechdoche, he has said he doesn’t imagine writing scripts for other directors – that instead he will direct the screenplays he writes.

@Santino

I don’t think so. If you’re making a narrative based film, I don’t think it’s impossible to quantify a strong versus weak narrative. I think you could break down a film, scene by scene, and tell if the scenes are pushing the narrative forward or not. This is not a subjective thing, I don’t think.

Well, I do one can make a case for or against a film’s narrative being strong or not, as well as make a case for whether a film is narrative-based or not. These are points that both supporters and naysayers should focus on, perhaps. If the films depend on a solid narrative and don’t have one, then I think that’s a significant criticism. On the other hand, if the films don’t depend on a strong narrative or actually have a decent narrative, then this would obviously rebut some of Anderson’s critics (including myself).

At the same time, I think fans of Anderson love certain aspects of his films so much, they don’t care about the weaknesses—that’s sort of what I was getting at. Aren’t there some directors who have certain qualities that you love so much you overlook their flaws?

I think this is just a style that both Ashby (who as an editor knows rhythm and pacing) and Anderson intentionally employ.

Why do you think Anderson does this intentionally? My sense is that he’s more indifferent to the narrative—versus trying to achieve some specific effect or purpose.

Yes, totally. QT’s best film is the one that wasn’t an original script.

The overall film is stronger in some ways, but it’s missing a lot of what I like about his films.

“On the other hand, if the films don’t depend on a strong narrative or actually have a decent narrative, then this would obviously rebut some of Anderson’s critics (including myself).”

I think that’s true but I’m not sure Anderson’s films fall into the category of not being narrative based. He’s not Bela Tarr.

“At the same time, I think fans of Anderson love certain aspects of his films so much, they don’t care about the weaknesses—that’s sort of what I was getting at. Aren’t there some directors who have certain qualities that you love so much you overlook their flaws?”

Yes, of course. We all make excuses for the filmmakers we love. The difference I think is perspective. Look, I love Gus Van Sant’s personal films and when I first saw Restless, I loved it. And I still love it. But I understand people’s problem with the film and with Van Sant’s aesthetic in general. And I’m not going to say that Restless is a masterpiece.

The difference with Wes Anderson and Tarantino sycophants is that they refuse to see the forest from the trees. With both of these filmmakers, they make fun popcorn movies. That’s all they are. Wes Anderson makes cute little light comedies. Nothing more, nothing less. And I have no problem with that. The trouble I have is when people start putting these films on pedestals as being giant works of important cinema. And I think that’s just silly.

“Why do you think Anderson does this intentionally? My sense is that he’s more indifferent to the narrative—versus trying to achieve some specific effect or purpose.”

I don’t really know. It might be intentional or it might just be a byproduct of his style of filmmaking. I tend to lean towards thinking it’s the latter, that he’s just not focused on creating a strong narrative and rather has other interests. With Ashby, I think it was more intentional and not accidental simply because he had experience as a professional editor and had to have known these types of things.

God spare us from giant works of important cinema.
I like Anderson’s films because they are clever motion pictures, full of surprises, unusual characters, and carefully crafted sights and sounds that I find appealing.
He documents his obsessions, works out contrivances and all manner of slight, artificial moments and imagery
that, on Anderson’s best day, do not register as important.
Much of what I admire in his pictures is of a kind with the elements I admire in Touch of Evil, The Third Man, and Lolita.
I don’t believe there’s anything all that realistic in those pictures, and I don’t buy much of what the characters are saying. But I want them to keep saying it.
Narrative? If it leads to another shot of Vienna, or a moment with Claire Quilty and Vivian Darkbloom, then I’m all for it.
But just keep the camera rolling and the actors talking.
Ans show me something I can’t find down the street in my real world.

@Santino

I think that’s true but I’m not sure Anderson’s films fall into the category of not being narrative based. He’s not Bela Tarr.

Right (although a film can be quite different from Tarr’s and still be non-narrative-based). But don’t forget the other possibility, i.e., a case that the narratives are actually decent or good (although based on Dr’s recent comment, I’d guess fans may not make that case).

Yes, of course. We all make excuses for the filmmakers we love. The difference I think is perspective. Look, I love Gus Van Sant’s personal films and when I first saw Restless, I loved it. And I still love it. But I understand people’s problem with the film and with Van Sant’s aesthetic in general. And I’m not going to say that Restless is a masterpiece.

I totally agree with you here.

The trouble I have is when people start putting these films on pedestals as being giant works of important cinema. And I think that’s just silly.

FWIW, my approach is to either a) direct the conversation towards reasons people feel the filmmaker is good or not or; b) try to give the fans some slack. The latter can be difficult, but on a forum like this I find this fairly easy as moving to another discussion isn’t so difficult.

I tend to lean towards thinking it’s the latter, that he’s just not focused on creating a strong narrative and rather has other interests.

“…Not focused on creating a strong narrative..” is basically the same as indifference to the narrative, right?

With Ashby, I think it was more intentional and not accidental simply because he had experience as a professional editor and had to have known these types of things.

I haven’t seen his films in a while, but I don’t recall the narratives being really weak.

@Dr.

Narrative? If it leads to another shot of Vienna, or a moment with Claire Quilty and Vivian Darkbloom, then I’m all for it. But just keep the camera rolling and the actors talking. Ans show me something I can’t find down the street in my real world.

I can respect this, but I’m curious if you’re conceding that the narratives aren’t very strong. Also, do you think the narratives are important relative to the film’s objectives and “aboutness?” (I understand that if you personally don’t care about the narratives, but I’m asking if they’re important, given the nature of the films.)

http://www.movingimagesource.us/articles/the-substance-of-style-20120517

““…Not focused on creating a strong narrative..” is basically the same as indifference to the narrative, right?”

Right.

“FWIW, my approach is to either a) direct the conversation towards reasons people feel the filmmaker is good or not or; b) try to give the fans some slack. "

I think that in talking about Wes Anderson specifically, he has a very strong, distinctive style and people who love that style will love his films. It’s present in every single one of his films (with the possible exception of his first one, Bottle Rocket) and I think for critics who love auteurs who have a specific vision, Wes Anderson is their poster child. There’s nothing wrong with this but I think it helps to explain some of the phenomenon surrounding his defenders.

What do you mean by “strong narrative”? Anderson’s films aren’t tightly plotted in a Syd Field sorta way, but neither are they episodic or random.

Actually, having watched The Royal Tenenbaums last night, it feel a bit episodic. Scenes definitely didn’t run smoothly together.

For example:

This happens, this happens, this happens, then that happens, then that happens

as opposed to:

This happens then that happens, then this happens, then that happens.

You know what I mean? Instead of each scene building on each other, they sort of zig zag. That makes it sort of episodic to me. For a movie with a strong narrative, generally speaking each scene would lead to the next scene and build on the previous. But that doesn’t necessarily happen in a Wes Anderson film, particularly in Tenenbaums. I’m not saying that’s good or bad but that’s what it is.

Thanks, Andrew Infante.
That’s fascinating stuff, and it has eased some of the “is it just me?” worries I have had after sharing
(at length) the reasons I am a fan of Wes Anderson.
I think even Anderson’s detractors here will find that moving image essay worth watching,
if only because of its stunning thoroughness.

Well, look, with an ensemble cast, if you stop and think about, you can’t really effective do “this happens then that happens, then this happens, then that happens” with an ensemble like you can with a film that’s got a single predominent POV because it would end up being "this happens to Royal, so then that happens to Etheline, then this happens to Chase, then that happens to Margot, then his happens to Richie, then this happens to Eli . . . "

See what I’m getting at? . . .it would get pretty unwieldy very quickly because you would end up having to follow these really long strings of causation all the way out to the end. The thing with RT is that it’s essentially a centripetal plot, were everybody gets basically thrown together by the force of what’s happening around them.

I knew you were going to say that but my argument is that even in an ensemble, I think you can build a narrative, scene by scene. Of course it’s more difficult but it can be done. In the case of Tenenbaums, whole storylines are forgotten for large chunks of time then revisited (as opposed to storylines building on each other in a organic, fluid way with one thing leading to another – “driving the story”).

But forget about the written-ness of it for a minute . . . isn’t that how things really happen in family conflicts. Something get brought up and resolved, some things get brought up but not resolved, some things don’t get brought up at all. Internal conflicts get externalized, external conflicts get internalized . . .

What you’re calling for is too orderly for what’s actually going on in the film.

lol. I’m not calling for anything. I’m just making an observation. Sure, everything you stated is true in real family conflicts. I’m just saying that mimicking that in a film, the way Anderson did, makes the narrative weak. Again, this is not a judgement on the film.

And btw – “order” is what Anderson is all about, isn’t it? Not “reality”.

I essentially agree with Santino’s points, although I don’t think the a strong narrative necessarily means a strong causal link from one scene to the next—that’s a bit simplistic to me—but I think the scenes have to fit together organically and purposely into a larger whole. And, as far as I can remember, the narratives play a crucial role in creating this wholeness. Therefore, if the narratives don’t work so well, the entire film doesn’t work so well (except for those who don’t care about the narratives, of course). Perhaps, that still doesn’t explain the definition of strong narrative in the context of these films (and I’m annoyed at myself for not being able to remember more specifics from the films)

Here’s something else that comes to mind. When a film relies on a narrative, it often has a sense of direction that it’s moving in—as if the scenes and energy and meaning of those scenes are building to a climax. If my memory is accurate, Anderson’s films don’t do this well. They energy or direction isn’t sustained—it’s as if the energy either peters out or the end point and purpose of the scenes fades away. (This creates the impression that Anderson is indifferent to the narrative.)

Matt said, …isn’t that how things really happen in family conflicts. Something get brought up and resolved, some things get brought up but not resolved, some things don’t get brought up at all. Internal conflicts get externalized, external conflicts get internalized . . .

Do you mean that the films want to be like real life? If so, I would first say that Anderson’s films don’t feel that way at all. There’s a kind of artificiality and contrived element (which isn’t bad). In another post, Den describes Anderson as wanting to build his own dollhouses, and I think this is an apt description—one that I don’t think is pejorative (or at least I don’t take it that way—I personally like this quality about Anderson’s films, and based on some of Dr.‘s comments, I think he’d feel the same way.).

I also would say that a more realistic depiction isn’t always the best option for a film. The more important question is, does it work? And, as Santino said, I suspect this may weaken the film. (However, if it does weaken the film, I do think this is a judgment on the film—but it’s a valid judgment, imo.) But, again, I don’t think Anderson is really shooting for realism.

“When a film relies on a narrative, it often has a sense of direction that it’s moving in—as if the scenes and energy and meaning of those scenes are building to a climax. If my memory is accurate, Anderson’s films don’t do this well. They energy or direction isn’t sustained—it’s as if the energy either peters out or the end point and purpose of the scenes fades away.”

Exactly. It’s like you’re running a marathan but burn out and stop halfway through and just walk to the finish line. In the case of The Royal Tenenbaums, the film peters out somewhere in the second act and it’s like Anderson needs a break from his running and just starts walking. Then after a little time he starts running again so that when he crosses the finish line, it appears he’s been jogging the whole time.

Does that visual analogy work? Makes sense to me.

As a fanboy I think the detractors simplify Anderson way too much.

Take the scene in Darjeeling Limited where the three brothers save the three Indian boys from drowning. The only one who doesn’t save his kid is Brody. Brody is the brother who is going to be a father….and he’s the one who can’t save his kid.

This is good stuff folks…..Anderson is deeper than the surface whimsy. There is tragedy always lying beneath the whimsy.

SPOILERS

The death of Owen Wilson in Life Aquatic, the three dead Indian kids in Darjeeling, Wilson’s attempted suicide in Tenenbaums, etc……hardly the stuff of whimsy.

Just saying…..you guys are selling him a little (a lot) short.

Now that’s a version of The Amazing Spider-Man that I’d be willing to see!

“Do you mean that the films want to be like real life?”

No. I’m just suggesting that if the criticism is that Anderson’s films are artificial, few things are actually more artificial that a conventional “strong narrative.” What I’m saying is that Anderson’s films accrue meaning in other ways. For example, in RT, Between the Buttons is almost a character in the film.

(Between the buttons is an expression meaning that something is undecided)

(can’t help but think of one critic’s description of Brian Jones looking in the cover photo like a . . . )

. . .“doomed albino raccoon”

You have Margot’s association with animals. Most obviously the fur coat:

but also this:

and this:

in the jungle:

and I can’t find a good still of this, but also the play she writes as a kid and has everyone dress up as animals.

Then there’s this,which tells you a lot about the dynamic between Royal and his children:

and really the family dynamic in general.

^games vs.

^drama

@Grimes

As a fanboy I think the detractors simplify Anderson way too much.

How do you feel about the discussions we’ve been having about the narratives?

@Matt

No. I’m just suggesting that if the criticism is that Anderson’s films are artificial, few things are actually more artificial that a conventional “strong narrative.”

I’m not objecting to the artificiality of the films. If anything, I like that aspect.

What I’m saying is that Anderson’s films accrue meaning in other ways.

Right. I’m not saying the film doesn’t have meaning in other ways (I’ve talked about the interesting characters and situations) but the process of accruing meaning should add up to something whole and unified, right? In some films, the narrative is crucial for achieving this unity and wholeness; in another films it isn’t. What I’m saying is that the Anderson’s films, given the way they’re made, do depend on narrative, so if the narrative fails in some way, the overall films also fail. Again, I’m not trying to take away the pleasure from those who really enjoy the films, but I’m trying to explain why the films don’t work for me. This is not something I take pleasure in—just the opposite because I think Anderson has a unique sensibility and one that I find interesting. But for whatever reason Anderson doesn’t seem to be addressing the problem (at least what I see are problems) and I’ve lost interest in seeing his films.

“Anderson’s films, given the way they’re made, do depend on narrative”

Yeah, see I don’t think they do depend on that kind of hard Fieldian narrative structure. If they did they would just end up being Alexander Payne films.

^ Sounds like an improvement to me.

Except that Alexander Payne is already making Alexander Payne films.