The Shining

The Shining

“He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man.”
–Dr. Samuel Johnson

Though only marginally filmed here, Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining has always stood out as a defining moment in Colorado’s cultural history. Well, for me anyway. I was only 6-years old when The Shining was released, and there was no way in hell my parents would take me to see the thing, but my unhealthy fascination with the TV trailer’s wintry menace and the horror-struck, elfin face on the film’s poster stuck deep in my gut for the 8 or so years until I was deemed old enough to watch it on cable.

Mostly, the ambiguous nature of what was supposed to be so damned scary troubled me. I was well acquainted with monster movies, but what kind of monster was in The Shining? Was it the trees? The elfin thing? The snow itself? I asked my parents what “the monster” was, but they could only shrug at me.

I remember blizzard-like conditions on the night they left me with a babysitter to go to the theater (although verifiable facts now tell me the release was in late May, but this is Colorado and I suppose there could have been a blizzard), and my Dad, an avid reader of Stephen King novels, was well aware of my fixation and teased me gently about the film’s Colorado roots, much to my mother’s displeasure. It probably helps that this scene was dressed in the tensions of my parent’s own unraveling marriage, but that was the moment that The Shining became my film; it was about a little boy in Colorado surrounded by indefinable horror, and therefore it was the first adult movie that I could relate to, years before I was old enough to actually watch it.

The Shining Poster

Once finally allowed entry to the film, it was all that I’d built it up to be: horrifying and bloody, riddled with skeletons and ghouls, but above all else, it still felt personal. To this day, what I want in a film is to feel entirely lost, to have no sense of where the film is going, and though a first viewing of The Shining certainly provides that, it stays nestled so deep in its own overbearing style that the entirety of the thing feels familiar, and the rare flashes of actual Colorado (an establishing shot of Boulder’s Flatirons, the nebulous connection to Estes Park that elevated its Stanley Hotel to near mythic levels) raise the film to another level of significance. Surely, this is not a key element of Kubrick’s design, but it hints at how other locales might grow connected to films set in their worlds. New York, London and LA have several billion films about them, but what does it say about Colorado that we seem to have this one, and well… there’s Red Dawn and the South Park movie, Aliens vs. Predator 2, and that Day of the Dead remake, but these contradictory facts really only strengthen my argument.

And now, as an adult, I can see a little further past the grand guignol spook show of bloody torrents and stacked corpses and can begin to understand how Kubrick aimed the deeper horrors of his film toward the father (Jack Nicholson); here is a failure of a man, down to his absolute last chance to provide for his family, who is haunted by memories of his own very real drunken brutality, whose son understands the horrific truths of him on a primal level, and yet he is primarily cursed by an inability to communicate and explain himself, and this is doubly horrific for a man who defines himself, as Jack Torrance does, as a writer.
Jack
A common complaint against the film is the casting of Nicholson as a sane man who breaks down and that his familiar screen persona is easily more the feral beast of the film’s second half than the straight-laced father of the first, but it’s clear to me that this is by design: what we see in The Shining is not so much the transformation of a character but the collapse of a social role. In the key scene where Wendy (the astonishingly 70’s looking Shelly Duvall) discovers Jack’s “manuscript,” and its seemingly endless pages of well formatted, but essentially juvenile, complaint (“all work and no play… “), we see that the true monster here isn’t The Overlook Hotel’s myriad demons and that they aren’t somehow possessing or transforming her husband, but that they’re giving voice to the vulgar thug that he truly is, like a sort of preternatural Iron John movement.

The pacing in The Shining is so masterful, and the pressure cooker levels of tension so severe, that Jack’s descent into either madness or base, brutal truth seems so smoothly inevitable that while I can understand the complaint against Nicholson, of how a man getting in touch with his inner-monster could be viewed as less horrific than the transmogrification that audiences expect, I can’t help but feel that Nicholson’s portrayal, and Kubrick’s decision to cast him, is more honest. Consider how a father, in more normal circumstances, would view a son’s ability to seamlessly communicate with a more protecting father figure, or a wife’s desire to take that child away, as a threat. The realities of divorce, separation and remarriage have broken better men than Jack Torrance.

After having lived my own fair share of personal failures, there’s something far more fundamental in the film to relate to than just the presence of Denver’s long-time anchorwoman Bertha Lynn, there’s the savage satisfaction in the film’s climax, as Jack goes berserk and hunts down his family with an axe, where he hatefully yells through the battered down door of the family home in a perfect parody of polite communication: “Wendy, I’m home…”

Cloverfield

“Let your hate flow through you.”
–The Emperor

I saw a made-for-TV trailer for CLOVERFIELD last night which ended with the whispery voiced movie trailer guy whispering “directed by Matt Reeves,” and I thought to myself, “Self, who the hell is Matt Reeves?” As my Self had no answer to my question, I searched him out on the interweb.

Matt Reeves wrote UNDER SIEGE 2, some episodes of Felicity and the excellent James Gray film THE YARDS. He also directed the underrated THE PALLBEARER which stared TV’s Ross as Ross. And that’s all fine and dandy, and I’m sure he’s a very nice fellow, but I mention all of this because it sort of strikes at the heart of the whole CLOVERFIELD marketing bonanza, which is essentially that it’s a part of the whole J.J. Abrams marketing bonanza.

While J.J. Abrams does not have a body of work that I care about, my TV keeps insisting that I do. “Produced by J.J. Abrams,” it purrs. “From the creator of Lost,” it moans. There is this entirely fictional love for J.J. Abrams that some corporation somewhere keeps insisting exists between us that’s not at all dissimilar to the mentally handicapped girl who lived in my neighborhood when I was twelve and how she would speed down the street on her bicycle screaming “YOU’RE MY BOYFRIEND!” While I do appreciate that J.J. Abrams is indeed a nerd, and that he produces work seemingly solely for the vast nerd demographic, I also think it’s a bit crass the way this demographic has been pandered to after the LORD OF THE RINGS extravaganza unearthed them.

And this is very much what CLOVERFIELD is: it’s a gimmick supported by hype and underneath all the gimmick and hype there is mediocrity. The gimmick and hype work really hard to convince you that you’re having fun and are witnessing some sort of cinematic event but you, of course, really aren’t. You’re just watching Godzilla via the Blair Witch. Some people seem to really love this film, and God bless ‘em for having a good time at the movies, but the marketing and the gimmick backfired on me. I saw the first trailer and my take was, “oh, cool, it’s Godzilla via the Blair Witch,” but the marketing bonanza just scoffed at me.

“You can’t know what this is,” it hissed. “It’s bigger than that.”

But it isn’t. It is what I say it is and it would have been better off as just a thing instead of a thing wrapped inside a CINEMATIC EVENT. Which leaves me in the unenviable position of being a curmudgeonly jerk because I am standing outside of a “CINEMATIC EVENT” and a cinematic event written by Drew Goddard who was a staff writer on Buffy and, therefore, a genius.

And, maybe I am a curmudgeonly jerk because I just do not want to spend an hour and a half with this guy:

His character’s name is Hud, which may be some sort of geek reference to ‘heads-up-display’, and he’s our narrator, camera-man and ultimately our chronicler of the destruction of Manhattan. He also seems like he would be more welcome in Mike Judge’s superior film IDIOCRACY. If Hud is supposed to represent you, the viewer, then somebody thinks you’re an idiot. I spent almost the entirety of this film wanting to grab the camera out of this mouth-breather’s fumbling hands and shoving it deep into his his gaping pie hole (aka the hole in his face that he puts pie into). Hud spends the entire film either creepily filming his crush, Marlena (the charming Lizzy Caplan), incessantly and psychotically repeating the name “Rob” (his best friend and the infuriating, stalwart hero of the film, Michael Stahl-David) or suffering from violent epileptic seizures. That his best friends and cohorts don’t seem to care about his constant and violent fits doesn’t help me relate to or find sympathy for them as they’re each slowly (and deliciously) devoured, crushed and exploded over the film’s 86-minute run time. But, I was bound to root for the monster anyway (and the monster is fantastic). It’s just my nature.

At times the Hud-o-Vision camera is pretty effective and at it’s best it downright artfully paints a world that’s dissolving into chaos but sadly these times are far too rare, and for the the majority of the film, the effect is equal parts frustrating and nauseating. The upcoming George Romero film, DIARY OF THE DEAD, uses this same gimmick to capture an apocalypse (naturally a zombie apocalypse) but Romero wisely places his cameras in the trained hands of a fictional group of film students (update from the future: it didn’t work). Again, this seems like such a curmudgeonly thing to complain about. This trapping should and could be a tremendously effective method of involving your audience with your characters, but I’m of the opinion that if you’re going to inflict this upon your audience then you’re just going to have to put more thought into each shot and find a way to fit your conceit (which you borrowed) into my tolerance for it.

“But,” retort the film’s defenders, “if you were filming the assault of a giant fish monster on your city then you wouldn’t be the world’s best camera operator either. So there!”

I’ll concede this point, but if that were to happen to me then I would not call it entertainment and would not charge people their monies to watch it.

Which brings up my final grouse on this clearly very important film. I am not a “God-Bless-Rudy-Giulliani” style American but I do believe the September 11 attacks are events that should be treated with respect and CLOVERFIELD’s not-too-subtle references just seems to ooze itself across the borders of bad taste.

2007 – A Year That Had Movies In It. Movies that I saw.

How’s that for a catchy title?

Want an alternate title? How about “2007 – The Year Where My Standards Declined”. If I stopped writing reviews in the past few weeks then it’s because I think something in my brain has snapped and I somehow stopped being in anyway critical of the entertainment that’s put in front of my face. I noticed this around the time that I found myself happily renting DUNE or when I found myself really enjoying PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN 3. I think this is somehow related to my fear of ever being a “mean” critic. The first draft of my review for the Harry Potter movie was not the happy, I-love-puppies version that you’ll currently find on this website, in fact, it was actually downright vicious and far more vicious than the film deserved. Like Homer Simpson says, criticizing other people’s work is not just easy, it’s “fun too.” If anyone feels my review of that particular film is too kind then it’s possible I may have over-corrected slightly.

And so, because a. despite what the talking rat movie says, I feel negative criticism has a positive effect on our culture and b. because I have to stop liking movies with monkey pirates, I’m going to sit down in my chair and channel my inner-bastard.

To kick off my year in review. Here are the lower points of the films I sat through in 2007 (not including HALLOWEEN because that should go without saying).

SPIDER-MAN 3:

Too long. Too self-important. The second film covered Peter Parker’s angst pretty thoroughly, in fact, entirely too thoroughly. So why the hell do we have to go back down that road in another god damn movie? Admittedly, being too self-important and humorless is pretty much the standard for comic books but that is one of many reasons why I no longer read comic books. This film should have just let Spidey, and we the peoples, have some much deserved fun. Swing on some ropes, punch some dudes. I dunno. Do super shit. Stop talking about Mary Jane’s career, god damn you.

I agree that films should have human interaction and motivations. Absolutely. Yes to that. However, there is a difference between that and people just acting like assholes to each other. Long-winded, overly-complicated set piece finales are usually so tiresome, the solution to this problem is not bringing all your main characters together to hold hands and have a big cry. Aside from being joyless, it’s also poorly conceived, written, paced and acted. Why is Spider-Man constantly taking off his mask? What is up with the jazz dance sequence? Just what in the seriously hell?

Finally, and least importantly, Kirsten Dunst is a beautiful woman and she was absolutely stunning in MARIE ANTOINETTE but Sam Raimi just has this gift for making her head look like a potato. It’s a weird and powerful gift.

TRANSFORMERS:

I am capable of suspending my belief. In fact, I lie to myself on a shockingly regular basis. This is not the issue.

In my opinion, the most ludicrous aspect of TRANSFORMERS is that this woman:

ends up making out with this guy:

and we’re just supposed to buy it. Everything else in the film is entirely plausible.

The best thing about TRANSFORMERS is Roger Ebert’s glowing review for it.

DISTURBIA:

Hey look, it’s Shia the Beouf again. My least favorite new movie star. And once again, he’s making out with a woman who is ten-times better looking than him. Like self-delusion, I also harbor unrealistic male fantasies. Yes, Scarlett Johansson totally digs on me and as soon as she gets over her whole movie star nonsense she’s going to come to my apartment and lick my face. I know that this is a fact of our universe but that doesn’t make it any less nauseating to anyone who is not me.

More importantly, I was tricked into watching this dog by the fact that people I knew told me to, by it’s solid reviews and surprising success at the box office. I’ll be polite here and call the plot a strange homage to REAR WINDOW, which is one of my favorite films. I saw REAR WINDOW when I was a kid and that’s when I found out that I love film. However, neighborhood husband who murders his wife is horrific and real, a charming new neighbor who is actually a serial killer(oh noes!) is the very definition of lame.

What’s worse than a finale with two dudes wrestling for a gun? Absolutely nothing. Maybe testicular cancer. You know the set up. One of the dudes almost has the gun, his fingers are just brushing the barrel… but… other dude does some thing or another and the wrestling continues for another five minutes. Maybe the building is on fire or there are cops on the way but certainly there is a very stupid woman standing nearby who could possibly just pick up the gun and shoot either dude but we all know that women are mostly just good for making babies and dinner. Shooting people is men’s work. This phenomenon happens in good movies too but I’m pretty god damn sick of it.

My second least favorite film cliche is the notion that the world is jam-packed with serial killers. People who are evil just because they are. How uninteresting is this? As uninteresting as the face of Shia the Beouf.

We’re going to play a little game now. Here’s a brief recap of a key scene in DISTURBIA that I lifted from Wikipedia. Count the cliches in this sequence and e-mail that number to me.

Turner knocks out Kale’s mother and seems to kill Ronnie by hitting him on the head with an aluminum baseball bat. He then reveals his plan to frame Kale for the murder of his mother, supposedly due to grief over his father and Ronnie, before supposedly killing himself. Turner reveals that he had wanted privacy, and it was Kale’s persistence that forced him to kill once more. As Turner has Kale writing a suicide letter to Ashley, she enters his bedroom, surprising the killer. Kale knocks Turner down, allowing him and Ashley a chance to escape.

The winner gets an autographed dvd copy of DISTURBIA. And by autographed, I mean that I will first pee on it.

BLADE RUNNER (THE FINAL CUT):

OK, I love BLADE RUNNER too. It’s a great but deeply flawed movie. Yes, it’s so much better without the ham-fisted narration, however, I do not understand why we need yet another release of BLADE RUNNER. I’ve seen this film several thousand times and while I do love it, it is not CITIZEN KANE. There is nothing special enough about it for them to have re-released it in theaters for a third time. Yes, Joanna Cassidy no longer turns into a drag queen as she’s falling through plate glass windows. Whatever. Ridley Scott and George Lucas are gonna have to live with the fact that the movie making process was not perfect in the late-70′s/early-80′s. The both of them have had far more glaring lapses of judgment than allowing any one imperfect shot into the movie theaters of over twenty years ago. HANNIBAL, anyone? ATTACK OF THE CLONES, people? CITIZEN KANE is considered one of the greatest American films of the twentieth-century, and yet, it had flubs. Oh well. Life goes on. Why can’t you two do like Orson Welles did and drink yourselves into a paupers grave like a real artist?

Also, if you think the greatest flaw in BLADE RUNNER was that the voice sync was off when Harrison Ford was manhandling the snake dealer then you are full-on deluding yourself. Go back and add some sensible motivation for your characters. Go back and make it surprising that Sean Young is a robot. Go back and re-shoot Rutger Hauer’s laughable dialogue in the final cat-and-mouse sequence. Or, even better, leave it the hell alone and make better movies than GLADIATOR. As for the added “unicorn sequence”… You take any movie that exists where a person is just staring off into the distance and interpose shots of a unicorn running through the forest, however, this will not result in a better movie and it will not deserve nine more of my dollars any more than it deserves two more hours of my precious attention.

Let’s just hope the next few decades don’t bring about a self-indulgent re-release of G.I. JANE.

300:

SPARTANS! TONIGHT WE DINE IN TINY LITTLE PANTS!

Tune in next week for mediocrity week! Yay, mediocrity!

Update!- I’m abandoning this project as everyone already knows NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN was the best film of 2007 and you probably don’t need to hear this here. God bless, America.

30 Days Of Night

Vampires lol

“I’m a bloodsucking fiend. Look at my outfit!”
–Willow from the Buffy show

Oh, vampires… How you must hate the metaphors. Over the centuries you’ve moved from unspeakable bloodsucking horror to a parable for Brad Pitt’s latent homosexuality. So, thank god for a movie that allows the vampires to just be vampires again. 30 DAYS OF NIGHT sets the vampires loose on a small arctic village for a month-long orgy of ghastly, pale-faced, vaguely-Eurotrash, trench-coated, blood spattering villainy and as someone who’s gotten a chill from the vampire legend since I was a kid, it’s as liberating for me as it must be for the vampires. Vampires are undead, soulless ghouls that float through the night and then rip out some throats with their teeth to drink human blood. Why is it so hard to make that scary? That 30 DAYS simply chooses to do that is enough to earn five stars on the Smog-O-Meter.

Beyond the fine decision to let the scary monsters simply be scary monsters, the movie built around that conceit is decent enough; it’s well-paced, nice-looking, and almost entirely satisfying. The city of Barrow, Alaska is nicely rendered and believable and if it weren’t infested with vampires, it’s arctic charm would seem pretty inviting. I especially enjoyed how efficiently the film sets the vampire “rules” and allows the characters the realization that what they’re dealing with is indeed vampires, thus fulfilling the best parts of the vampire genre, but the problems arrive when the film turns it’s attentions back to it’s human characters. This is something that I just don’t get: much like in the TRANSFORMERS movie, a film can be entirely believable when presenting giant, ass-stomping robots or supernatural beasties chasing down speeding trucks, so why is a film, presumably written by humans, so awkward and false when it comes to presenting the human aspects of it’s story? One character choses to deal with the horror by brutally murdering his family, thus disproving the otherwise sensible notion that it is impossible to over-react to a vampire holocaust.

The highlight of the source comic is the wonderfully evocative, Ralph Steadman-like illustrations of Ben Templesmith and unfortunately, beyond the blood spatters in the snow, there isn’t much a film can do to capture his ink-blot style and much like watching a grown man dress up in a bat costume to fight crime, there are just certain things that make more sense when left in their comic book venue. While I enjoy both the concept of the comic and, as I’ve said, the vampires it presents, the story inside the concepts just works better when left to broader strokes.

When tightened into a film what we’re left with is the worst of the horror film conventions, which is the characters being just stupid enough to advance the plot but mystically lucky enough to evade their supposedly inescapable tormentors. I’ll admit that if I were in a situation, heaven forbid, where Eurotrash vampires ate my city then it’s entirely possible that I wouldn’t be at my peak of decision making abilities but I am almost entirely certain that I would make better decisions than the people in this vampire movie. There are just way too many “WHY ARE YOU STILL STANDING THERE” moments to not be distracting and the film ultimately suffers for them. It seems to me that there has to be a better motivation for Josh Hartnett to go to the next building other than “he’s blisteringly stupid” and I’ve never made a film, so it’s easy for me to say but couldn’t some of these plotting problems be solved over a cup of coffee?

But, it isn’t the stupidity that bothers me so much as the poor etiquette. I don’t wanna get all Miss Manners on anyone, but, if a loved one ever sacrifices their self to a vampire mob so you can escape safely then I consider it the height of bad manners to just stand around and watch the grisly carnage. People, if we can’t maintain our etiquette then the vampires have already won.

Ultimately, the most distracting element of the film is Josh Hartnett’s inability to grow facial hair. Special effects can make you believe that a jet fighter can turn into a robot who then pounds hell of asses in an urban city place, but apparently the limit of both technology and credulity is pretending that Josh Hartnett is masculine. I don’t dislike the fella and like all of the actors in 30 DAYS he gives a better performance than most horror films would care to do, so if I mock him I’m probably just venting a bit at how jaw-droppingly stupid his character is.

Mad Max

Australians are barbecuing whole lambs over the fossilised bones of a fifteen-hundred pound paleolithic ant. The keg? An ice silo of lager.
–Raymond Smuckles

It’s difficult to distinguish between a dystopian Australian outback and just the regular Australian outback, and as both are presumably just as stuffed with funnel spiders and great white sharks, and as I am a giant coward, I’ll almost certainly never see either version. But, according to director George Miller’s MAD MAX, the major difference is that the dystopian version of the outback is ruled by gangs of psychotic new wave bikers, which is actually how I pictured the regular Australian outback, but I’m just kind of a romantic that way.

Set in the not-too-distant-future of the late-1970′s, we find a society on the brink of a collapse for no discernible reason beyond that it is the late-1970′s. It is presumed there is some larger troubles somewhere out in this world, and it’s a rare bit of restraint and artistry that keeps Miller from this tantalizing chance for world building through any of the standard, hackneyed apocalyptic cliches.

When we meet our first villainous thug, The Night Rider, he’s engaged in a fun and well-paced car chase with the local interceptor squad (dystopian highway patrol). “I am the Night Rider! I’m a fuel injected suicide machine! I am a rocker, I am a roller, I am the out-of-controller,” he belts into the CB radio with all the PCP-fueled coherence of a 1980′s era James Brown interview. But, and naturally, none of the interceptors are man enough to corral the wild essence of pure 1970′s-style punk-thug-rockery. None, that is, until “Mad” Max Rockatansky (Mel Gibson… duh) slides down his aviator sunglasses.

It only takes the gentlest nudge of Max’s fender to reduce the “fuel injected suicide machine” to a big blubbery baby. Does the Night Rider know who Max is? Does Max have some legendary reputation? Or, is Max just so insanely masculine that any man who dares cross him merely collapses due to their comparatively minuscule genitals? The world may never know, as the grease smear that was the Night Rider is in no condition to explain.

Despite the fiery bluster of the ad campaign, MAD MAX is more a movie about characters than cars. The stunt scenes are great and in a low-budget film like this one seem insanely dangerous (during one glorious wipe-out, a stunt man takes a speeding motorcycle to the head), but there are far fewer of them than you would probably like or expect if, like the rest of the world, you saw the sequel, THE ROAD WARRIOR, first.

So, while it’s sad that there isn’t more carnage, we do get a more thoughtful film than you’d expect, and happily this allows Miller to avoid one of the more tiring aspects of the 70′s and 80′s revenge movies: the fascist, right-wing finger wagging at those pussy-assed liberals who are more concerned with a thug‘s civil rights than giving our heroes the bloody vengeance they clearly deserve. But, being the man who wrote and directed both BABE and BABE 2, there is no way that George Miller is a fascist. Max stops his cohort, Goose (Steve Bisley), from brutalizing a gang rapist because it’s more than civilization that Max defends: it’s the human part of himself that he’s defending from the baser, more violent instincts that seem to be destroying his world. As Goose’s pursuit of vengeance leads to his eventual destruction and dehumanization, a horrified Max quits the interceptor squad before following the same path and instead chooses to live in the more human world of his wife and child.

In films like this, you don’t expect much of a character from the loved ones, but Jessie Rockatansky (Joanne Samuel) is actually allowed some screen time and is equally as charismatic as Max. The time the film allows them to spend together is far less tedious than you would imagine; in fact, it’s downright enjoyable to watch this young family trekking around the outback, eating ice cream and visiting relatives. But, of course, as the revenge genre goes, such a thing cannot last and the good things in life turn very, very bad. As viscerally satisfying as it may be once Max goes on his kill-crazy rampage, that he turns into the promised feral highway psychopath is part of Max’s tragedy. After his wife’s attack, Max doesn’t head straight for the gun closet to ammo up Charles Bronson style; instead, we see him sitting at his home gripping a monster mask and wrestling with what he wants to do and what that will mean. Also, there may have been some spoilers in that last sentence, but in my defense this film is almost thirty years old.

And Gibson is really good in this, whether he’s the steely-eyed interceptor, the good natured friend/father/husband, or the tortured man wrestling with his conscience, it’s good fun to remember the non-psychotic Gibson of previous years and that once upon a time the man had some of that charisma.

The Darjeeling Limited

Young Chas Tenenbaum: Well, did you at least think the characters were well developed?
Royal Tenenbaum: What characters? There’s a bunch of little kids dressed up in animal costumes.

I was a bit nervous about returning to Wes Anderson’s world and watching more wonderfully dressed yet emotionally retarded characters trek out across the globe in an equally funky and dilapidated conveyance to learn something about themselves and to look fabulous doing it. As much as I enjoyed THE LIFE AQUATIC and disagree with the criticisms that it was too precious and empty, I do think it was a bit sloppy and self-congratulatory and is a soft spot in Anderson’s otherwise excellent body of work. I was worried that I’d find one of my favorite film-makers slipping further into lazy self-worship but, happily, THE DARJEELING LIMITED is not only far better crafted than AQUATIC it thankfully sidesteps all of my concerns about laziness with ease.

Boldly, DARJEELING is an obvious but well mixed interfusion of THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS and THE LIFE AQUATIC. While Anderson gets to keep and expand upon his deeply quirky aesthetics, we get a return to the darkly humorous explorations of the angst of maturity and family. There’s also a nice reference to BOTTLE ROCKET via Francis’s (Owen Wilson) over-planning and fanatical exuberance, though here it’s a tiresome character flaw, which feels more accurate but, like in RUSHMORE, all character flaws are eventually put in their perspective where the attached character finds some redemption as the film advances.

Perhaps because of the complaints against AQUATIC’s slightness, it’s pretty much impossible to miss the metaphors here, as Anderson douses them with spotlights. It doesn’t take a dang ol’ grad student to decipher the three brothers dragging their designer baggage (with their father’s initials on them) all over the world. But, I’m no elitist. Metaphors don’t necessarily need to be complicated to be enjoyable. Like Francis ludicrously beaming over his personal assistant’s explanation “We haven’t found us yet,” when translating for the train navigator, there is some intentional humor and insight in the obvious, easy metaphors.

And it would be monstrously stupid to suspect that someone as literate as Anderson is guilty of the same faults he’s so clearly lampooning. That Francis suggests that the mere fact that they’re in India would be enough to illicit some sort of spiritual awakening even if they smoke while meditating or spend the majority of their “spiritual journey” in their pajamas is deeply funny. Unless you actually believe that one can have a spiritual quest by hiding out in a train compartment drinking cough syrup, then it’s probably safe to assume that Anderson is poking some subtle fun at his characters and the same clueless, rich American overseas presence they so clearly represent. And it would be absolutely inane to suggest that Jack (Jason Schwartzman) so fervently pursues Rita (Amara Karan) because she represents Eastern wisdom, but instead, he pursues her the way any adolescent imagines that the love of another will complete them, in the same seemingly arbitrary way that anyone decides what will or will not add much needed meaning to their lives.

Like the film’s themes (death, mourning, men’s fashion accessories and the brothers who steal them) the subtext is there to delve into if the viewer chooses to, and hopefully will, but the whole presentation is so rich and sumptuously presented that one’s attention can wander off and into the gorgeously textured scenery and it’s a comforting sensation. The film is like Anderson digging through an enormous box of toys and his job as a director is to focus your attention on one item at a time and it’s a pretty goddamn cool toy box. You’ll take a moment to appreciate the loneliness of one of the characters, laugh at Peter’s (Adrian Brody) impassive, hangdog face, move on to another great Stones song, to a passionate yet humorously misguided monologue, to dreamily gazing at dreamy train hostess Rita, etc…

In general, I’m less than interested in the daddy issues of angsty hipsters, but I certainly enjoy Anderson’s take on family. As a brother, I appreciate how Anderson presents “the brothers” as a single entity and how each brother is like a different aspect of the same twisted personality.”I wonder if the three of us would’ve been friends in real life,” wonders Jack. “Not as brothers, but as people.” A great line that encompasses not only the subtle humor of the film but the sense of unreality and non-specific nostalgia that one finds both in family reunions and in an Anderson film.

In a key scene toward the end of the second act, the brothers are trudging along, struggling with their baggage, when they encounter a group of Indian boys crossing a river. Their initial reaction is more funny, ironic detachment but the scene immediately shifts into an urgency that not only pulls them out of their pampered comfort and into action, but forces them to fulfill their lame, half-hearted oath to “say yes to everything.” Beyond that, the scene is a miniature of Anderson’s greatest quality as a director as he shifts the scene from humor to despair and handles both with the same delicate subtlety.

It’s very easy to look at the clothes, or obscure European pop music and dismiss Anderson as a shallow hipster but I’d say it’s inaccurate. Not that he isn’t hip, which he clearly is, but it’s the shallow dismissal that I have a problem with. True, no one likes the evil hipsters but I’d say Anderson is arguing that these people’s carefully constructed worlds, their controlling tendencies, and their desire to define themselves through their possessions (their father’s glasses for example) are extensions of their root problem, the brothers’ deeply misguided concepts of themselves and the world around them. One of Anderson’s talents is to sympathize with and to find the humor in such existential idiocy. Added bonus? Fun to look at.

Hotel Chevalier

“You don’t have to do nothing,” Nelson said to me. “You just sit there and drink your drink and listen to the music. Good music.”
–Raymond Carver, Vitamins

Every short story that I wrote in college was exactly two things: first, a story about a man and a woman in a room who have a complicated relationship, and second, a total rip-off of Raymond Carver. Which gets as tiring to write as it does to read. So, for awhile the things I wrote started to get goddamn weird. Buddhist monks, re-incarnation, alternate universes, etc… But I’m still nostalgic for that first taste I had of real literature, Raymond Carver and Ernest Hemingway, who both predominantly wrote stories of men and women with complicated relationships who inhabit rooms together.

And now, free on iTunes comes the latest little piece of work by director Wes Anderson. It’s a sort of short film prequel to his upcoming THE DARJEELING LIMITED (which has the TSMFR all a-buzz) but mostly it’s about a man in a room and then a woman comes in that he’s having a complicated relationship with. The man is Jason Schwartzman and the woman is Natalie Portman. The exact nature of their relationship is uncertain but clearly troubled. They’re not in a good place right now but still quite affectionate, both emotionally and physically. He’s been hiding in an expensive hotel room in Paris while she’s out doing questionable things and is covered with strange bruises.

Anderson’s little film is basically what my college self thought art was about and life should be like. Which means it’s pretty much perfect.

Short film. Short review.