Scott pans “Darjeeling”
N.Y. Times critic A.O. Scott has taken a fountain pen and more or less stabbed Wes Anderson right through the heart in his Darjeeling Limited review.
He’s calling the film “precious, unstintingly fussy, vain and self-regarding,” and says that the “humanism” of Jean Renoir or Satyajit Ray “lies either beyond [Anderson's] grasp or outside the range of his interests.
“His stated debt to The River, Renoir’s film about Indian village life, and his use of music from Ray’s films represent both an earnest tribute to those filmmakers and an admission of his own limitations. They were great directors because they extended the capacity of the art form to comprehend the world that exists. He is an intriguing and amusing director because he tirelessly elaborates on a world of his own making.”
And yet Scott also calls Darjeeling “a treasure: an odd, flawed, but nonetheless beautifully handmade object as apt to win affection as to provoke annoyance. You might say that it has sentimental value.”
Sentimental walue. I’ve heard of that.
Burma, you might want to leave room.
That short by Wes, Hotel Chauvinist, was unbearable.
Satyajit Ray is a mediocre director, if that. Pather Panchali is a tedious affair, benefiting from the same myopic bourgeois tendencies that make Eastern religion so enthralling upon first discovery; that is, the viewer equates his lack of understanding the largely vague and nonsensical thoughts that are presented as being deep, when in fact there simply is nothing there.
But this is just what the dilettante desires: something that is as vague and nonsensical as his existence, but for which he, too, also feels is very, very important, and people just don’t “get”.
Some of Uncle Satyajit’s films are heavy going, especially for devotees of le cinema du Ronnie Howard, but World of Apu and Charulata are masterpieces.
A.O. Scott was far too kind.
God, if the short film is supposed to be better than the feature film, I’m not looking forward to it.
How could there be 13 minute film featuring a naked Natalie Portman that I could hate? Congrats, Wes. You’ve done it.
Not sure if this has been remarked upon before, but Anderson’s continual descent into an insular, mentally hermetic world puts me in mind of “Barton Fink”, particularly the title character. There are obvious dissimilarities, but in general, Barton’s also an intellectual writer seemingly locked into a mental existence (symbolized by his dusty, drab old hotel room).
Then, of course, John Goodman’s murderous, portly self sets the hotel on fire, running down the corridor screaming “I’ll show you the life of the mind!”
That’s what Wes needs. Someone to John Goodman his ass and burn down his “life of the mind”, if only temporarily. As previously suggested, prison or a blue-collar existence would make good John Goodmans, I think.
I dunno — Scott’s review (which Metacritic interpreted as an “80″) reads like a qualified rave to me.
I wouldn’t say “rave,” but Scott’s review is much more positive than Wells’ selective quoting suggests. Interesting considering that Wells still hasn’t delivered his own verdict on the film. I believe this is what’s known as passive-aggressive behavior.
“That’s what Wes needs. Someone to John Goodman his ass and burn down his “life of the mind”, if only temporarily. As previously suggested, prison or a blue-collar existence would make good John Goodmans, I think.”
Another words, Wes needs to crawl out of his own precious, unstintingly fussy ass.
gatsby, i think you’ve nailed it. as for scott’s critique, i’d say one man’s “stabbing” is another man’s co-enabling.
Wes Anderson has created his own aesthetic, and for that, at least, he deserves some artistic respect. The way he moves the camera perfectly compliments his subject matter. However, I found Hotel Chevalier to be the absolute worst thing he has ever done, akin to a deleted scene from the Special Edition of The Darjeeling LTD that will be hitting the stores some time around next X-mas. For someone who tries to present himself as a worldly auteur, I don’t understand what his thinking was behind how he shot and posed Natalie Portman, who, considering how short Jason Schwartzman is, should have been standing on a box to heighten the sense of the absurd, nor did the dialogue have any of the warmth and humanity that Wes is always praised for. I hope Wes Anderson is not about to reach the phase of his career where every spurt from his filmic ding-a-ling is going to be put on display for public consumption. Wes would serve himself best by taking heed of these three words: Silence, cunning, and exile.
“Satyajit Ray is a mediocre director, if that”
Please watch all of the Apu Trilogy, The Chess Players, and The Home and the World, then explain how you could come to that conclusion.
Strange how A.O. Scott praises Hotel Chevalier as a “small gem” while Darjeeling is an “overstuffed suitcase.”
That’s probably the most damning praise of all, since I felt absolutely nothing from Hotel.
How do you feel nothing from Hotel Chevalier? It seems like people need their hand held to get anything out of a movie these days. All anyone ever comments on is the most surface aspects of Anderson’s work. Dig a little deeper, people.
my only problem so far with the film is the title, which derails on the tongue.
It’s all been downhill since Rushmore…
Scott’s review reads like someone who’s afraid to say what he really thinks because he doesn’t want to blatantly piss all over the opening night film of the NYFF.
I didn’t read the whole review, but there’s nothing in what Wells has pulled that makes not want to see it.
JD:
Obviously, since you and I appear to be the big HE defenders of this very polarizing, and very misunderstood, director, I’ll come out and say that I loved Hotel Chevalier. Found it evocative and mysterious, like a great short story, and thought it demonstrated a clear step away from the fantasia of Aquatic toward something simpler and more character-focused.
Totally agreed, gatsby1040. Most readers of this site are stalwarts of Hollywood narrative cinema — a tradition I admire and Wes Anderson is certainly a part of — but they’re really hostile toward the less functional, more overtly artistic sensibilities found in European (and in this case American) art cinema. As far as I can tell, they respond to the most juvenile sitcom ideas in Bottle Rocket and Rushmore, not the more challenging and inventive ones. This is understandable, I guess, but I don’t see how anyone can look down their nose at a guy who clearly has an incredible command of the medium, whether they like his films or not. At least show a little respect. He’s not Brett Ratner, for God’s sake.
JD:
“All anyone ever comments on is the most surface aspects of Anderson’s work.”
As far as I can see, that’s where he puts most of his focus too. Meaningless details that fill time instead of enhancing characters.
Although I will say that the ending of “Tenenbaums” played better with the proper music.
You’ve got a guy with a strong and deeply personal sensibility. Some people appreciate that for its own sake and other people just think it’s pretentious nonsense. I appreciate it.
If Anderson is still hitting the same beats in 5 years, maybe I’ll admit that there really is no there there, but somehow I don’t think he will. His style has already strengthened from movie to movie as evidenced by the people who want him to go back and keep doing Rushmore.
Everyone is asking Anderson to be something he doesn’t appear to want to be nor that he’s ever promised he’d be. The guy is an artist, like him or not, and I’m happy to let him do what he does.
I’ve said this already, but the thing that got me about Hotel Chevalier was Natalie Portman. She felt like something real pushed into Anderson’s artificial universe. I don’t know if or how that plays out in Darjeeling, but I still can’t wait to see it.
what cj said.
but i refuse to watch that short until it’s outta apple’s greedy hooks.
So hitting the same beats for 10 years is being an artist, but 15 years is unforgivable?
That’s interesting.
“You’ve got a guy with a strong and deeply personal sensibility.”
I would argue that it’s not the sensibility that’s the problem, it’s the style. More specifically, many of us would seemingly agree, the style (repetitive after several movies of it) replaces any substance (which is also pretty much the *same* substance in every movie).
The thing is, I can’t speak for everybody, but I *want* to like Anderson. It just seems like he continues to dig the same hole deeper and deeper, instead of wider and wider, and now he is so deep into his own Wes-hole that he can’t see the real world over the edges.
See, I don’t think he’s been doing the same thing for 10 years. You do. That’s cool.
I think he’s been refining his style. Of course, if you think the style supercedes the substance, I can see how that would be a huge turn off.
I find substance beneath the style and I find a style that is slowly morphing. I want to see where he goes with it.
Christian Louboutin Christian Loubotuin Leather Butterfly Bootie shoes are some of the most Louboutin Sale extravagant and wanted shoes on the market today. Christian Louboutin shoes are now available online for discounted prices. For the cool low price of just $200, you can now own yourself a pair of his boots, pumps, stilettos and all of his merchandise.Christian Louboutin shoes Christian Loubotuin Leather Butterfly Bootie have become most Christian Louboutin UK popular due to the celebrity sightings. You will see A-list celebrities of all kinds wearing these fabulous designer shoes. Just pick up any fashion magazine and see for yourself the beautiful people like Naomi Watts, Janet Jackson and Nicole Kidman wearing them. You will even find the younger actresses wearing them also. I guess if your foot is big enough, then age doesn’t matter.Since 1992, these glamorous shoes were conceived in Christian Loubotuin Leather Butterfly Bootie a boutique in Paris. Since its conception, the Louboutin shoe has been produced into a variety of Christian Loubotuin Leather Butterfly Bootie designs, colors, shapes, and styles that have won top pick of millions of women the world over. With such success, his shoes are sure to be seen worn by women of all types and backgrounds. Especially, since now that they are available online for less than retail prices. From Los Angeles to Hong Kong, these shoes for Christian Louboutin Lady Glitter Slingback Gold
women will definitely be a top-pick for any woman who has fine taste in clothes and design. His merchandise can also Christian Louboutin Mater Claude Nude be found in some boutiques in uptown and downtown New York, London.There are even outlets for his shoes Christian Louboutin No Prive Slingback Metallic Fabric, handbags and all of his Christian Louboutin Rolando Hidden Platform Pump other items. Many of the listed items found in the main stores or department stores can be found in the outlets, so everyone gets a chance to shop for Louboutin products. A great place to shop Christian Louboutin Simple Pump Nude
for these gorgeous shoes or handbags is online. Shopping online will save you up to 70% on all of the latest styles.A great place to find his and other famous designers is through eBay online auctions.Christian Louboutin Very Prive black suede You can find great buys and save big. For instance, the Marpoil wedge can be bought online for less than $300.Christian Louboutin Very Prive Satin Platform Or, the Paris Stiletto boot. Also, found online for less than $500. Searching for the perfect sexy evening shoe? Look for the Very Prive pump online for Christian Louboutin Very Prive Patent Pump
$100.These and so many other Christian Louboutin shoes can be found online for $200-$500. That’s a huge savings. For the price conscience that should sound like music to your ears.