tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4006231725501042931.post5247108120877757967..comments2023-11-02T05:10:17.211-07:00Comments on We Are Cursed to Live in Interesting Times: Moonrise KingdomMr. Subtletyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16243495225217139453noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4006231725501042931.post-71865493225541128672012-05-30T14:44:07.108-07:002012-05-30T14:44:07.108-07:00And then, maybe all it takes for me to like a movi...And then, maybe all it takes for me to like a movie is a point communicated beautifully. <br /><br />Though, I myself, for reasons probably incommunicable, didn't have trouble connecting with the characters as people, even if they were somewhat broad characters. I think this is sort of the fundamental disagreement of tastes that Dan and I face with some of our music preferences. I one time was trying to understand how he could have such a putrid distaste for Yonder Mountain String Band, a band I like, but not only that, a band that I didn't think sounded too different from bluegrass bands I have managed to get Dan into. He said, "I don't think I can communicate exactly what it is, but think of it like this: I think YMSB sounds, to me, like what the most inaccessible death metal sounds like to you: grating vocals, irritating sounds, etc. You just don't find it pleasant to listen to." I totally didn't have my sensibilities offended by DARJEELING, or by YMSB. You clearly did. I have no idea why, but I accept and respect that*.<br /><br />*that = your choice to be completely wrong**<br /><br />**kidding!***<br /><br />***mostlyShenanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01583975544502753710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4006231725501042931.post-38903231329587861012012-05-30T14:29:50.664-07:002012-05-30T14:29:50.664-07:00See, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you ...See, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you about the meaning of DARJEELING. Yes, it's about three brothers who have been deeply hurt by their childhood who are now trying to find some meaning in life (though the way they choose to do so differs). Yes, maybe Wilson's obsessive controlling has something to do with Anderson's role as a mover of events to manipulate emotions. <br /><br />But here's the thing, I don't give a shit about any of that because the whole thing is so dull and filled with irritating, whiny nerds. I mean, THE VILLAGE is about stuff too, and it also has Adrian Brody. But who cares because it's an unwatchable insult to the intellect, the senses, and the human soul. I only really care what a movie's about to the extent that I can tolerate listening to it. <br /><br />And even though Anderson's obviously trying to make a point about why these brothers are the way they are, they're so absurdly removed from anything which even remotely resembles actual human beings that it almost doesn't matter. It's like a movie detailing the biological function of unicorns. Although actually that's exactly what that movie TROLL HUNTER does, and I kinda liked that one, so maybe that's not a good example. Or maybe I only like movies about minutiae of unreal things if it involves 40-foot-tall monsters. Which probably would have saved DARJEELING, now that I think of it.<br /><br />I will say one nice thing about DARJEELING before I go. Obviously it's a very gorgeous movie, that much is evident from even a cursory glance. But I also give Anderson mad props for including a role for Irrfan Khan (the father of the kids who drowns) who is so spectacular in THE NAMESAKE but hasn't seemed to find much traction in American cinema otherwise. I'm glad he got a little screen time here (even though its a tiny role) because I want him to play Seagal's Mulsim sidekick in the Steven Seagal Yeti Poacher action thriller I'm currently working on. And Martin Kove is the evil Australian Yeti Poacher/Buddhist Monk Antagonist villain. It's gonna be glorious, and that's something we can all agree on.Mr. Subtletyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16243495225217139453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4006231725501042931.post-89461275196397946472012-05-30T14:17:32.081-07:002012-05-30T14:17:32.081-07:00Okay, I've got WAY more to add to both Shenan&...Okay, I've got WAY more to add to both Shenan's comments and the post at hand - but first things first, while I am thinking of it - and because it will not be related to anything else I have to say - I have to go on the record as vehemently supporting Shenan's final point RE: Adrian Brody. Really, that is a crucial element to every one of Anderson's films -- unexpectedly lustworthy male actors; and generally not so lustworthy female characters (Gwyneth Paltrow as Margot Tenenbaum and Natalie Portman in Hotel Chevalier as notable exceptions).Alex Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12350753931999235058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4006231725501042931.post-82530490574993907682012-05-30T13:31:35.892-07:002012-05-30T13:31:35.892-07:00Even the flat way in which they deliver their line...Even the flat way in which they deliver their lines, while maybe seeming needlessly quirky on the surface, is perfect for the emotional resonance the film is going for. So many of their lines sound disconnected, like they’re doing line-readings of their own life, which in a way, they all are: they’re all feeling disconnected after being shaken up by their father’s death, if only because a change like that shook other elements of their life into closer focus. And much in the way that many people do after a tragedy or other event of enormity in their lives, they have no energy anymore for pretense, for engaging in the subtle dramatics of communication. They’re all blunt, they all cut to the chase, and if they’re all feeling numb and disconnected, they don’t have any desire to fake connectedness or affect. Except maybe Owen Wilson’s more flamboyant character.<br /><br />Beyond that, two more minor points: first, the mother is almost a hilariously exaggerated caricature of a disaffected and self-absorbed non-mother-figure that the whole thing with her and the tiger on the loose and all adds a funny dose of surrealism beyond the level of the rest of the film. Second, “I love you, but I’m going to mace you in the face right now!” is one of the funniest lines ever from one brother to another.<br /><br />And finally, Adrian Brody is really handsome. How can you besmirch a movie where he wears fantastic aviator glasses and walks in typical Anderson slow-mo? That’s at least a +20 it’s got going for it off the bat.<br /><br />(and no, I won't be offended if you don't read all of this. Wow. That got long)Shenanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01583975544502753710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4006231725501042931.post-24451822282946910322012-05-30T13:31:00.798-07:002012-05-30T13:31:00.798-07:00OK, so I know that the comments on Dan's post ...OK, so I know that the comments on Dan's post on DARJEELING LIMITED ended up as a really big debate on whether or not LIFE AQUATIC sucked. So, though I know a series of blog comments probably won't change your mind on it, I think it's only natural that I now take your post on MOONRISE KINGDOM and turn it into a debate on whether or not DARJEELING LIMITED sucks. Sorry in advance for the tl;dr, as this wouldn't even fit in one comment, but…<br /><br />I posit it doesn't suck, and here's why: in describing the reasons you tired of Anderson, you said, "...my problem is that once you get past the quirky trappings and arch performances, you often find that there’s not really much else there" and that he "made such smarmy, self-satisfied pap and acted as if he was saying something deep." Might be true in some ways; I didn't care for ROYAL TENENBAUMS. But I sort of feel like DARJEELING was almost a self-aware commentary on this, and on his characters—commenting on themselves through the vehicle of themselves, you might say. Granted, it’s been a little while since I’ve seen the movie, but I always got the sense that it was commenting on the characters’ efforts to try to force meaning into everything at every turn: Owen Wilson’s character (I don’t remember any of their names) trying to force all the brothers to have deep, spiritual, bond-inducing experiences most obviously, but also all three of them trying to make sense of their father’s death and trying to figure out what it means to them, and maybe trying to force it, and their father himself, to mean something, as all of them (the failed writer and the guy with the wife and baby on the way) are adrift in their lives, feeling ambivalent about thing they can’t explain...feeling ambivalent about ambivalence, even.<br /><br /> And you could even make the case that Wilson controlling every aspect of the trip, down to the minute-by-minute itinerary and his habit of ordering everyone else’s meals for them, is also an attempt to engineer a perfect scenario for spiritual bonding from its surface details, sort of like Anderson can try to engineer a deep movie from surface details, giving a much deeper weight to otherwise meaningless idiosyncrasies. That’s almost all he does throughout the movie: try to engineer meaning by engineering idiosyncrasies. And it’s all done pretty comically, but with a sadness bubbling beneath that none of them are doing a good job of addressing out of their discomfort, inconvenience, and annoyance. The scene where they get thrown off the train and then, wandering in the desert, all agree to perform one of Wilson’s stupid spiritual rituals is both hilarious and sad in its emptiness, but moving in the way that they’re reaching for something at all, if bumblingly.Shenanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01583975544502753710noreply@blogger.com