Is “none” an option?
The scene in Hotel Chevalier where he sees the brusies on Natalie Portman, but it’s left unexplained.
I second that “none” should be an option.
The film in which spoiled kids with parental issues learn the value of friendship and family (preferably captured in slow motion with 60s music playing over it).
I look at his films as a series of moments and such a question should be posed as " touching scenes " IMO…like in Bottle Rocket when Anthony tells Dingnan he’s in for the heist and where he can get one of those jumpsuits or in the Royal Tenenbaums when Margot looks at Richie’s cuts and asked if he’s going to do it again and she loses it when he says " I doubt it "
Bottle Rocket is probably the gentlest.
but I find The Royal Tenenbaums to be the funniest, which I guess makes it the most touching/moving whatever…
of course, like all good comedies, it shies away from being “touching” so that it can be humorous. i mean, to be “touching” (i can only assume the word is being used in it’s more traditional, overly-sentimental meaning), a comedy has to drop it’s conceit and artifice, which by nature comedy is reluctant to do (Anderson’s films especially).
The Darjeeling Limited seemed to drop Anderson’s arch style at times (in terms of dialogue only) and the directness really stuck out and was at odds with the rest of the film’s tone.
Honestly, my favorite of all Anderson’s films is Rushmore. Just in terms of music, tone and acting, I love it to death. However, I think that his most moving film is The Life Aquatic. There’s a lot in that film that may seem pointless, or even a bit too Wes Anderson (even for Wes Anderson), but Zissou’s face when they finally show the Jaguar shark is incredibly telling. That scene always gets me.
For some reason, I really liked The Darjeeling Limited. Everything abuot it seemed to fall together so well. Strange sense it seems an unpopular pick and personally not a huge fan of Wes Anderson in general.
Rushmore
I’ve only seen RUSHMORE and that TENENBAUMS thing, didn’t find either of them to be even remotely moving, or interesting, or even memorable. I had to remind myself that I had seen that RUSHMORE thing…
I’m with RUS on this one. None of Anderson’s films really pull at my heartstrings. The irony and detachment in all of them produce far better comedy than drama. But I guess “The Darjeeling Limited” had some decent pathos, so I’ll go with that one.
The Life Aquatic, Fantastic Mr. Fox looks pretty great if I can say
Darjeeling is my personal favorite, because the brothers are pitch perfect in their relationships and attempts to change without success. That is poignant and funny like real life.
The Royal Tenenbaums, hands down. I think its just how far the family has fallen from the greatness achieved when they were children. While all the characters are over-the-top quirky, the situations they are in still seem real and resonant. Richie’s personal struggle is poignant, as is Royal’s, but Chaz’s always gets me at the end when he finally opens up to his father. For me, Wes hasn’t topped that yet, though I love all his movies.
“…but Zissou’s face when they finally show the Jaguar shark is incredibly telling. That scene always gets me.”
Agreed. Considering how ambivalent I felt up to that point in the movie, I was really surprised to feel so moved by its culmination.
Hmmm. Strange; I never have thought of his films as touching. Not in a bad way, of course. Probably Darjeeling Limited, if for nothing other than the scene where “Strangers” by The Kinks is playing. That scene is really beautiful.
I found the life aquatic to be the most rich story. Though I’m sure, like the rest, what will come will come and go
Hopefully his next one.
Yeah, the whole point of Anderson’s films (what’s with all the opposition to them on this forum by the way, is that the latest “in” thing?) is that they’re not touching. Though, if you mean by “touching” that they bring out some emotion and affect the viewer, then yes, I suppose they are, but because the majority of Anderson’s characters are more like blank canvases reflecting our own feelings in their inability to conjure up emotion. It’s actually rather clever, though certainly not original in any way. Anderson owes a lot to Greenaway though (not to mention several other directors that have been mentioned in various other threads on this site) so I just love that kind of sensibility.
So, all that being said, the Anderson film that brings out the most emotion in me (this is a purely subjective thread) is Royal Tennenbaums, but Rushmore is a more accomplished film. It’s difficult to say though, they’re all very similar.
Rushmore. I personally think it is the most touching film ever. At least for me it is. That whole film and its soundtrack is, in retrospective, how I cope with growing up.
Touching is perhaps not quite the right word, and RUS is correct in observing that Anderson’s films are comedic & sentiment is the enemy of comedy. Still, Anderson doesn’t entirely shy away from tragedy, either. The sequence in DARJEELING where the one child drowns and the funeral that follows I found very moving – and it’s intriguing that this directly follows the brothers making fun of the children’s attempts to cross the river & call them assholes then promptly jump in to try to save them. (and it’s very telling that the brothers then take the results personally in the way they phrase the outcome … each child is “mine” [or words to that effect]).
But the comedy is so dry – even the most outrageous aspects and character quirks are never over-drawn – and the more dramatic aspects are equally underplayed so the films just feel true-to-life in an off-kilter kind of way.
I admit I, too, am puzzled by the negative reaction by some here (and on other message boards) to Anderson’s work. I’m guessing that because Anderson doesn’t really telegraph to the audience how they’re supposed to react to various incidents, some people are just at a loss. I acquired my copy of LIFE AQUATIC when someone at work was brandishing it & announcing his intention to take it a local electronics store & sell it to them & let forth a string of profanity that boiled down to it being the worst thing he’s ever seen. I asked how much they’d give him for it & ponied up the $5 he cited.
A weird analogy just occurred to me: In their deadpan approach Anderson’s films are almost the modern equivalent of Buster Keaton’s silents or Laurel & Hardy’s shorts …
“I’m guessing that because Anderson doesn’t really telegraph to the audience how they’re supposed to react to various incidents, some people are just at a loss.”
Not that there needs to be another discussion of the relative merits of Wes Anderson but I think the problem with his films are just the opposite of what you write above. His films are way too telegraphed. In particular, I find his overreliance on pop music to trigger a specific response from audiences to be incredibly irritating.
I agree with Harry. You can’t call his movies straight comedies. “Dramedies,” I suppose, if you have to have a word for it. He’s able to blend both in a way that makes it feel similar to the tone of real life. You have a range of emotions in real life, not just one, and that’s what I like about his films, because in their best moments they capture that. Of course, he juxtaposes this with oddball characters and situations, but for me that just heightens the effect.
>>In particular, I find his overreliance on pop music to trigger a specific response from audiences to be incredibly irritating.<<
Well, since I haven’t paid very much attention to pop music since the Beatles broke up (it’s strictly jazz & classical for me) I can’t say the songs Anderson chooses manipulate me in any way. They’re tunes in the background & that’s about it. So if manipulation there may be in that regard I’m blind … or rather deaf … to it.
>>He’s able to blend both in a way that makes it feel similar to the tone of real life.<<
One thing that got lost in my rambling post was that it’s generally the small things (things that I think a lot of viewers miss, they’re so subtle) that are deliriously funny or very telling as to charcacter in the films. A moment that comes to mind is when the daughter – who’d been a closet cigarette smoker lights up in front of the family & the mother explodes with “When did you start doing that?” Told it was like, 20 years ago (or whatever), the mother says, “Well, I think you should stop.” The moment is so true, so beautifully observed – and the line so prefectly delivered by Angelica Huston – that I just break out laughing. [Maybe it helps to know that I smoke & have heard practically that same sentence delivered with that same sense of superiority over and over.]
Call me a loser but the Darjeeling Limited was touching as all hell. The Ending with car and everything? Really sad.
“Hotel Chevalier.”
“I can’t say the songs Anderson chooses manipulate me in any way. They’re tunes in the background & that’s about it. So if manipulation there may be in that regard I’m blind … or rather deaf … to it.”
That’s interesting to me that you say that, Harry, since Anderson’s choices of music has always seemed so painfully upfront to me in the way they set the moods of scenes (or their use in his montages). I would think it’d be evident even if you tuned out of pop music post-Beatles since Anderson’s main point of reference is British Invasion stuff. I think Will Oldham was right a few months ago when he criticized Anderson’s use of music as “cancerous” (perhaps parasitic would have been a better choice of word). Anyway, I know that can be a criticism of most uses of popular music in film but with Anderson, it seems more the case.
This scene would be a case in point for me. What lends it its pathos is largely cannibalized from the Elliott Smith song.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pyBB7y8fDU&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fmusic-mix.ew.com%2F2009%2F04%2F15%2Foldham-anderson%2F&feature=player_embedded
I disagree Ari. Compliments it, sure. But that scene is amazing with or without the music. It just happens that Wes picked the perfect music for it, which is part of a director’s job, IMO. Would it be better if he used a more traditional score? Either way its somebody else’s music unless he scores it himself. For example, why is “Needle in the Hay,” a song about drug addiction, so obvious for that scene? It’s not like the lyrics are “I’m Gonna Slit My Wrists.” I suppose you could argue ANY Elliot Smith song brings in that tone, but would you really not get the thrust of the scene without it? It enhances the experience for me, especially in Tenenbaums. I guess it boils down to your philosophy of music in films, but I just don’t understand how the fact that its a pop song rather than a traditional score (which he uses as well) makes it less worthy.
Erik Villasenor
I think it’s a tie between bottle rocket and rushmore. What’s your opinion and why?