comment #1

gatsby1040 says ...

Oh yeah, like Hemingway's persona wasn't any more constructed and insular than Wes'. This is the worst advice I've ever heard. Wes just needs to grow up. Give him time. Every filmmaker - hell every ARTIST - goes through growing pains. Remember Scorsese in the early 80s? How about Coppola anytime after Apocalypse Now? Tarantino between Jackie Brown and Death Proof? Fuckin' Howard Hawks before Rio Bravo? David Lynch between Twin Peaks and Mulholland Drive?

comment #2

JD says ...

What a superficial reading of Anderson's life and work. You're basically telling Anderson to abandon his own, very clearly thought-out philosophies -- if I'm not mistaking, he was a philosophy major in college -- and embrace yours. Because, what, you're churning out better work and a better quality-of-life than Anderson?

His movies have a child-like surface because that makes for a more potent, dynamic juxtaposition with the films' darker undercurrents. His films are subversive for precisely this reason: the characters (like Anderson himself... and possibly his audience) are trying to hide from their very real, adult pain in the surface comforts and curiosities of childhood... but it doesn't work. In all of his films, Anderson calls himself on his love of all things innocent and youthful, creating a conflict of substance and style that's tremendously rich and rewarding.

In essence, he makes children's movies and/or fairy tales for adults with an interest in art films, literature, and rock 'n' roll. If you ask me, that's an incredibly bold and original approach and one that is certainly worth revisiting in different genres/narrative contexts.

comment #3

MilkMan says ...

Wes Anderson should make himself the star of his own movies, like Woody Allen. The only thing left for Wes Anderson to do is make Wes Anderson the subject and object of Wes Anderson's desire. That being said, Wes Anderson, and personality types like him, make me feel a touch claustrophobic. For the rest of my time here I'm going to have to see him and hear about him and his persona is never going to change. In fifty years, assuming I haven't already dropped dead, he'll be wearing the same clothes and looking into the camera with the same affectless mask. Don't get me wrong, the man is a great filmmaker and one of the preeminent tastemakers of the current targeted demographic, but there is no there there. It's just the fact the he's so fixed and rigid that makes me kind of itchy. I feel the same way about Tarantino. Both of them are obviously madly in love with their calculated public images. But, in the end, it's not about them, or it shouldn't be. It's about the movies. And whether or not the movies can survive the endless self-love of the men who created them remains to be seen.

comment #4

christian says ...

what wes does have is a big heart. it's the texas in him. and he doesn't need to go killing bulls to prove himself. jeff writes a post on the inate conservatism of sports fans then writes that wes has to prove himself a tuff guy. huh?

comment #5

VoiceOfReason says ...

Alright, you've convinced me. Wes Anderson sucks. Let's move on.

comment #6

gatsby1040 says ...

"In essence, he makes children's movies and/or fairy tales for adults with an interest in art films, literature, and rock 'n' roll. If you ask me, that's an incredibly bold and original approach and one that is certainly worth revisiting in different genres/narrative contexts."

DING DING DING, JD hits the nail on the head. Couldn't have summed it up better myself. Something similar could be said for Tarantino, only substitute "children's movies" with "action movies" and you're there. Since I am "an adult with an interest in art films, literature, and rock 'n' roll" I love both of these filmmakers. And their work will outlast being out of fashion. They're building filmographies of astounding invention, an in fifty years, these will be the great directors of our time. In that sense, we can forgive them for their somewhat less successful films, just like we forget the weakest Woody Allen films, the weakest Scorsee films, the weakest Hawks and Orson Welles films. Artistic development takes time. Not every film has to be a Rushmore or a Pulp Fiction.

comment #7

sweet_billy says ...

riiiiiiggght.

coming from a guy who writes a movie blog.

get over yourself wells. what have you done? i know you haven't written a hit play, that's for sure.

comment #8

Michael says ...

regarding (d)

I think Anderson has the whole 'people of color have an inherent nobility' thing down pat...it doesn't need to be encouraged further.

Rushmore and Tenenbaums were absolute joys to watch...The Life Aquatic, I actually pulled a Wells and walked out. Wes hasn't used up all of his goodwill with me by a long shot...

comment #9

T. S. Idiot says ...

Maybe Wells and West could get together and watch some ESPN.

comment #10

T. S. Idiot says ...

Wes, that is.

comment #11

George Prager says ...

Tenenbaums was the work of someone who read the Glass family stories too many times. HATED IT!

comment #12

gruver1 says ...

Wells to Michael: I would never walk out of a Wes Anderson film...never. Wells to JD: I'm not suggesting that Wes should abandon his own, very clearly thought-out philosophies and embrace mine. Finding and then refining your own artistic voice is a hard-won process and worth its weight in diamonds. But over the last three films the quirky Wes-world element has become stronger and stronger, and, as Hirschhorn states, "the problem with quirk is that it can quickly go from an effective narrative tool to an end in itself." I'm only saying that since Wes has the paint, the brushes and the stroke, he needs to broaden the life experience element by allowing the deeper, heavier, more emotional aspects of existence on this sad planet of ours -- the unruly, untamed and unrefined stuff -- into his head and heart. The "New York" profile reconfirms that he is living a rarifed, cooler-than-cool hermetic existence. What did Joel MCrea do when he felt this syndrome coming on in Preston Sturges' "Sullivan's Travels"? He went out on the dusty road and tried to live the life of a hobo, and he did learn a little something from this at the end. I'm only suggesting that Wes consider a similar exercise as a way of shaking things up a bit.

comment #13

corey3rd says ...

odds are that if you looked under Wes Anderson's chidhood bed in Texas, he had worn copies of The New Yorker stashed away.

The problem is that if you create too much of an artifical universe with your signature crap, you suffocate the characters. Or just annoy the crap out of the audience (Talking about Spike Lee and his stupid "dolly walks.").

And how dare you scoff the greatness of Lynch's Straight Story. And Death Proof is far from "growing up." How do you stretch a 40 minute film into 2 hours? Have women blather. Crown International wouldn't have paid for that film. Corman would ask, "all those women and no showering?"

When will someone write "Wes and the Criterion Crowd?"

comment #14

buckzollo says ...

Julian Schnabel is also from Texas believe it or not.

comment #15

JD says ...

Now that you put it that way, I understand where you're coming form a little bit better, Jeff... but I still disagree, just as I disagree with people who think Tarantino needs to grow up. When people say filmmakers need more life experience, what they're really saying is filmmakers need more of other peoples' life experiences. I could be wrong, but I bet Wes has lived more life than several of us put together. Of all his films, The Life Aquatic appears to draw most heavily on his life experiences -- not in an entirely literal sense, but in a stylized, exagerrated, Fellini sense -- and yet that's his most reviled film.

As for Sullivan's Travels, I really love that film and have watched it many times, but the feel good ending (as touching as it is) is shameless pandering and expresses an anti-art, lowest common denominator sentiment I wholeheartedly disagree with. Some (not all) films should be strange, original, difficult and Wes is one of the few Hollywood filmmakers still embracing this. Why does every film have to appeal to everybody equally?

comment #16

Mark says ...

gatsby1040

in your first post, you imply no intervention is needed for Wes, and then give 6 primetime examples of why intervention should be demanded. Imagine if someone got a hold of Coppola's lapels during Rumble Fish and Cotton Club. He could have been saved.... instead we have black hole where no light can escape; only decent but overpriced red wine.

comment #17

gruver1 says ...

Wells to JD: If Wes had started out with "Tenenbaums" and then followed it up with "Aquatic" and "Darjeeling", he wouldn't enjoy the high regard that (still) surrounds him today. "Bottle Rocket", which was developed under the very tough, at times infuriating tutelage of Jim Brooks, and "Rushmore", the best parts of which sang with the whimsical spiritual voice of Owen Wilson, are the cornerstones of the Anderson oeuvre and mythology. I love what happened with these two films. Wes has to be Wes -- I accept and applaud that. I just don't want him to become Jacques Tati.

comment #18

RoyBatty says ...

Here's this weekend's top 10...

Resident Evil: Extinction
Good Luck Chuck
The Brave One
3:10 to Yuma
Eastern Promises
Sydney White
Mr. Woodcock
Superbad
The Bourne Ultimatum
Dragon Wars

Can someone ask Mr. Hirschorn to point out which ones are an example of us "drowning in quirk?"

As much as TENENBAUMS and AQUATIC left me wanting, I did enjoy the love-it-or-hate-it HUCKABEES so I think I can let Anderson enjoy his lifestyle as long as he keeps making films that aren't the usual shit coming out week after week.

At least he doesn't make a completely forgettable remake Western that critics "sip the Kool-aid" to praise for no reason other than it aspires to an adult audience.

comment #19

T. Holly says ...

.. or Michael Jackson.

comment #20

Geoff says ...

Owen Wilson truly needs to become his writing partner again.

comment #21

Sean says ...

"Every filmmaker - hell every ARTIST - goes through growing pains. Remember Scorsese in the early 80s?"

Scorsese's growing pains were in the late '70's when he was breaking his cocaine addiction and spitting out 'New York New York', or the early '70's, when he did 'Boxcar Bertha', not the early '80's when he did 'Raging Bull' and 'King of Comedy'.

"How about Coppola anytime after Apocalypse Now?"

That's not growing pains, that's just being washed up [although I disagree with your take on 'Tucker' and the two Hinton stories].

"Tarantino between Jackie Brown and Death Proof?"

He did 'Kill Bill', which is better than 'Death Proof'.

"Fuckin' Howard Hawks before Rio Bravo?"

If only more filmmakers' growing pains included 'Bringing Up Baby', 'Red River', 'His Girl Friday', 'Scarface', 'To Have and Have Not', 'The Thing', and 'Sergeant York'.

I think I forgot a few important ones, too, but you get the point.

"David Lynch between Twin Peaks and Mulholland Drive?"

'The Straight Story' is better than either of those.

comment #22

gatsby1040 says ...

Yeah, I have to say... I just don't really see the urgent need for Wes to change course. Aquatic wasn't Rushmore. So what? Did everybody freak out when Scorsese did Kundun? Or After Hours? Or Bringing out the Dead? Did critics suggest Hitchcock start acting like Hemingway after he made Dial M for Murder?
And what's wrong with Jacques Tati?

And Mark, Rumble Fish is awesome.

comment #23

Sean says ...

"if I'm not mistaking, he was a philosophy major in college"

Majoring in something in college does not actually mean that you've put that much thought into it, it just means to can regurgitate it successfully. But, if he did major in philosophy in college, that would certainly explain why his movies are so far removed from any sort of reality.

comment #24

George Prager says ...

What Anderson should do is direct other people's screenplays, novels, plays, power-point presentations, etc. since he shot his wad with RUSHMORE. He should adapt PNIN.

comment #25

RoyBatty says ...

Okay, so I'm an idiot - was rushing off the list and decided to add HUCKABEES at the last moment because of a brain fart.

comment #26

gatsby1040 says ...

Sean:
Pre-Rio Bravo -- I'm talking about Monkey Business, Land of the Pharoahs, and The Big Sky, all of which were middling at best. Hawks took 3 years off and came back with Bravo, his best film.

Straight Story is wonderful, but its minor, transitional Lynch, whereas Mulholland is a mature major statement.

Scorsese had major growing pains after Raging Bull. Every movie he made until Goodfellas was a search for new material, new challenges, new inspriation. Some are better than others.

Coppola is washed up, fair enough.

But Kill Bill is an indulgent mess, whereas Death Proof is much more focused and entertaining. Even if it aint perfect, it shows that he learned some new tricks while he was tripping his balls off at the great wall of China.

My larger point is that you can't hold Wes to the "Rushmore" standard every time out. He's got to try something different, take on new challenges. Tenenbaums (huge ensemble cast) and Aquatic (massive special effect heavy production filmed abroad) fit that bill, and it sure seems like Darjeeling (India! Trains!) does this too. Let him explore. Criticize the picture if you want, but don't criticize the man. Even Kubrick lived in his own world. Do you wish he'd socialized with the rest of the directors, attended premieres, and cranked out formulaic shit like Richard Donner? Do the films suffer from his solipsism? Maybe, but they are pure and unique, and each one is interesting and challenging in its own way.

comment #27

JD says ...

"Majoring in something in college does not actually mean that you've put that much thought into it, it just means to can regurgitate it successfully."

I wasn't talking about all philosophy majors, I was talking about a philosophy major who also happens to be a successful, motivated writer-director who had a flourishing career in said profession by the age of 25 or 26. I'd give him a bit more credit than you. At the very least, philosophy major or not, I think it's safe to say that someone so precise about every aspect of his life and work put some serious thought into these things.

comment #28

Gaydos says ...

Just so's I'm not missing something here: some of youse folks are comparing Wes to Howard Hawks? Boy howdy!!!!

comment #29

Chris Willman says ...

I know P.T. Anderson is the type of filmmaker who gets accused of getting caught up in quirk. I don't really agree with that, but I can see the argument, based on "Punch Drunk" (which I loved). And that's why it was so heartening to see that 20-minute reel of "There Will Be Blood," a movie that looks so tough as to be quirk-free. Assuming that it does turn out to be a positive example, I hope this other Anderson turns out to have a "There Will Be Blood" in him, too.

comment #30

gruver1 says ...

Wells to Gatsby: Hawks' best film is "Red River," closely followed by "The Big Sleep," "Only Angels Have Wings," "Bringing Up Baby," "Ball of Fire," etc. "Rio Bravo" is a sturdy piece of work (the opening ten minutes are perfect), but Ricky Nelson's performance is too much of an irritant for it to be in the pantheon, and the villains lack dimension -- they're all TV actors standing around like ducks in a shooting gallery. As I said two or three months ago, "Once the Duke and Walter Brennan, Martin, Nelson and Angie Dickinson settle into their routines and the easy-going pace of the thing, Rio Bravo becomes, at best, a somewhat entertaining sit-around-and-talk-and-occasionally- shoot-a-bad-guy movie." "Rio Bravo" has been the prized favorite of fickle, hipper-than-thou film elitists ever since Jean-Luc Godard sang its praises almost 50 years ago, but it's time for that train to come to a halt. I explained it all in those "Rio Bravo" vs. "High Noon" piece: http://www.hollywood-elsewhere.com/archives/2007/07/high_noon_vs_ri.php

comment #31

Mark says ...

Two kinds of interventions exist. Intervention A is required when the excesses that need moderating lead to rock bottom. Intervention B is required when the excesses in question lead to seclusion.

Success of Intervention A is not time dependent. Intervention B, however, which is what Wes needs, is very time dependent. Talents that hit rock bottom like Scorsese or Robert Downey Jr. can be brought back. Secluded talents like Michael Jackson and George Lucas are gone forever.

The light in Coppola was not yet dead in Rumble Fish, but the quality of work, compared to his in the 70's, was quickly deteriorating and that's the time for an intervention. 3 years later and it was too late.

Soon, without intervention, Wes will be gone forever.

comment #32

gatsby1040 says ...

Now this is actually a debate worth having, Wells. Rio Bravo is arguably his best film, but Baby, Friday, Sleep and River are all worthy candidates. Rio Bravo has a few minor flaws - Ricky Nelson is a little green, and Angie Dickinson, while striking, gets on my nerves.
But your mistake is in criticizing its lack of action, or refusal to give us a love-to-hate-'im baddie. In this manner, High Noon - full of gunfights, suspense, villainy, etc - has it all over Rio Bravo. However, Rio Bravo is not a western, but a comedy conversation piece, interrupted by bouts of action. It's a remarkably sophisticated film about male friendship. Godard and Bogdanovich praise it so because it transcends the genre to reveal a work of remarkable psychological depth and mature sophistication. It's all about the way Brennan, Martin, and Wayne hang out -- that's not the problem with the film -- that's the POINT.

I'm not gonna waste words trashing it, but High Noon is badly dated, and rather silly. The whole movie Cooper is running all over town, desperately looking for people to help him, when in the end, he does the job himself (with the help of his Quaker (!) wife). Hawks felt that this is cowardly and unprofessional, and that a real sheriff would protect the townspeople, not ask them to help him. Rio Bravo is the sophisticated, mature response to the slick, empty High Noon (and yes, HUAC, yadda yadda).

comment #33

Craig Kennedy says ...

"Did everybody freak out when Scorsese did Kundun? Or After Hours? Or Bringing out the Dead?" Yeah, they kinda did. They were wrong as they're wrong now, but they still freaked out.

Me? I'm happy to let Wes be Wes.

comment #34

BurmaShave says ...

BRINGING OUT THE DEAD is one of Scorsese's best films.

comment #35

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Here, here gatsby re: Rio Bravo. Holds up wonderfully today. Still not sure where Wells is coming from dissing it, and comparing it fruitlessly to High Noon. They both may be filed under the "western" section in a video store or library, but boy, is that where the similarities end. Two very different films who happen to share a genre.

comment #36

bmcintire says ...

RoyBatty's "brain fart" in including I HEART HUCKABEES is indicative of the "drowning in quirk" comment made in the original article. Wes is not (solely) to blame, but the formula has become a staple of indie-flavored film. The dysfunctional family story of the late 80's evolved to the quirky dysfunctional family story of the '90s. And that one has stuck. THE ROYAL TENNENBAUMS, RUNNING WITH SCISSORS, LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE, PIECES OF APRIL, IGBY GOES DOWN, THUMBSUCKER, THE CHUMSCRUBBER . . . wildly divergent in quality, but essentially cut from the same cloth. There may not be enough of these to drown in, but seeing more than three of them in a short enough timespan can make you feel like you're suffocating.

comment #37

corey3rd says ...

an episode of Soap has more dysfunction and quirk than any of those films.

comment #38

christian says ...

just watched the trailer for JUNO and my "quirk alert" went off like a power keg!

comment #39

JD says ...

You're mis-characterizing the phenomenon, bmcintire. Absurdist humor is just as viable as any brand of comedy, but it usually comes with a healthy dose of drama. The films listed above vary dramatically in a) their dramatic credibility and b) their... well, funniness. Wes Anderson has a really light, good-natured touch and, as a result, his films never veer into the bland, cynical mean-spiritedness of, say, Igby Goes Down. Also, there is a wealth of ideas, personality, and insight into character in Anderson's films that is particularly evident when you consider them alongside an utterly dull, lifeless film like Thumbsucker. Plus, unlike most of these movies, Anderson's movies are genuinely funny. In any case, lumping all these films together is short-sighted and simplistic.

comment #40

JD says ...

By the way, "the bland, cynical mean-spiritedness" of Igby Goes Down is also plentiful in Juno. Whereas Anderson celebrates his characters and their quirks, Jason Reitman and Diablo Cody mock theirs.

comment #41

bmcintire says ...

JD, I thought I made it clear that the list was wildly divergent in quality - and maybe half of them strike me as having a mildly absurdist bent. What they do have in common is an unrelentingly quirky cast of familial characters. If phony = absurd in your book, then I guess you're right.

comment #42

Craig Kennedy says ...

bmcintire. Disfunctional family theme or no, I wouldn't include Royal Tenenbaums with any of those other supposedly quirky films. I kind of see where you're going, but if anything it shows Anderson is miles ahead of anyone who might be trying to capture his flavor.

BurmaShave. I loved Bringing Out the Dead.

comment #43

otakuhouse says ...

This is the funniest fucking thing Jeff's ever written. When you can't even get inner city youths who need the college tuition to join the military these days given the total clusterfuck... How about instead we convince him to join Blackwater as a combat photographer?

comment #44

Gaydos says ...

Somewhere, east of Eden, in the land post "sex, lies & videotape," american cinema wandered into a vast netherworld where irony triumphed over insight, where the forces of gravity were replaced by the mysterious pleasures of abject quirkiness.

a few filmmakers escaped the gee-whiz force of this cultural phenomenon, but sadly, many perished. and continued to release films, many to happy audiences and critical acclaim. so at least they've got that going for them.

shall we dance to celebrate the alternatives to feathery filmmaking, from "four months" which won cannes (it's romanian, not american, but deserves a big "merci") and "into the wild" which should win something, for chrissakes?

oh, and I'm with wells on "bravo." never got it. and never bothered to think seriously about "high noon," so don't get that contest either.

but hawks is a movie god. and we could use a good zinneman these days.

comment #45

Hallick says ...

JD's summation of Anderson's work was so good, I'm even looking at that picture of Wes with all of the taxidermy differently. Well done sir.

comment #46

Ju-osh says ...

Gatsby:
Have you seen Hawks' Only Angels Have Wings? Cuz if you love Rio Bravo, I think you'd dig this one, too. It actually comes closer to the fun, 'hangin' out' spirit of Rio Bravo than any other Hawks pic, (and does so without being a blatant remake like El Dorado).

comment #47

dangovich says ...

Some of the same complaints are echoed in this story about Brooklyn writers:

http://www.theamericanscholar.org/au07/wonder-bukiet.html

comment #48

malibugigolo says ...

Another Anderson affectation study. Nothing to get worked up about.

As for for the Brooklyn writers. Only third person plotless is being published in fiction these days.

Anyone with any skill in telling an actual story, is a screenwriter.

Read the Paris Review lately?- its pure self parody.

comment #49

christian says ...

ONLY ANGELS HAVE WINGS is my favorite hawks film. it seems underseen and underappreciated but it's the purest hawks film to me in terms of his themes and coded relationships.

comment #50

Nicanor says ...

Thought you chaps might like to read this:

"Hotel Chevalier," meanwhile, is a prequel of sorts that was made a year before "Darjeeling" even began filming. It takes place entirely in the Paris hotel room of Mr. Schwartzman's character and includes information that later becomes relevant in "Darjeeling." The short film's premiere will be Tuesday night at Apple stores in New York, Chicago, San Francisco and Santa Monica, Calif. Then, starting Wednesday, it will be available as a free download on Apple Inc.'s iTunes Web site.

WSJ

comment #51

Craig Kennedy says ...

Does anyone know if the 10/3 screening at The Aero will include Hotel Chevalier? It should, right?

Favorite Howard Hawks: His Girl Friday. Why? Sometimes your first is always the best.

comment #52

Nike Free Shoes says ...

Thank you for this website. Thats all I can say. You most definitely have made this blog into something thats eye opening and important. You clearly know so much about the subject, youve covered so many bases. Great stuff from this part of the internet. Again, thank you for this website.
http://www.nikesportshoes.net/nike-6.0
http://www.nikesportshoes.net/nike-basketball

comment #53

Discount Christian Louboutin Shoes says ...

Each pair of
Christian Loubotuin Leather Butterfly Bootie
these amazing shoes is a true work of art, a unique fashion masterpiece, and they are manufactured only in limited series. That is why their price is sky high and many of us simply cannot Christian Louboutin sales afford them. Christian Louboutin shoes cost from $350 to over 2500. If you want to buy these shoes, even though they are out of your price range - do not be sad.Excellent top quality replicas can be found and purchased online, and they are so carefully crafted that you will be CL shoes completely satisfied; they are as good as the original ones - just few times cheaper. Our website offers you the latest range in Christian Louboutin replicas - excellent design, Christian Louboutin Banana Cork Heel top quality and more than reasonable prices. Here is why you should consider shopping on our web site!1. Our shoes are exactly the same as the original Louboutins. You can Christian Louboutin Fifi 85 patent even go to the official site, or discount Louboutin retail store and compare - they are a 1 on 1 replica!2. Original Louboutins are recognized for having the original designer's signature on the shoe sole, and our replicas also have this Christian Louboutin No Prive Slingback Metallic Fabric detail included. Same goes for the size print.3. If you are buying patent leather Christian Louboutin replicas, keep in mind that leather shoes do not stretch. Unlike them, suede shoes Christian Louboutin Lady Glitter Slingback Gold do stretch so if you are a size 7 1/2 for instance, buy size 8, that way you will have a shoe that fits perfectly. It is well known that Christian Louboutin shoes run half size or size smaller so keep that in mind while purchasing our replicas - they are Christian Louboutin Bianca Cork Pump BLACK exactly the same as the originals and that goes for the fit too. If you are pink Christian Louboutin pumps not sure about your shoe size, don't worry, everything is explained on our web site, and we Christian Louboutin Mater Claude Nude have also provided our users with a size conversion chart.4.Christian Louboutin Lady Glitter Slingback Gold Each pair you order from us comes with a unique, individual dustbag and the box,Tory Burch Coralee leather ballerina flats both with Louboutin logo. (they come in handy once you decide to put your shoes in the closet)5. The best thing about our top Christian Louboutin Sale quality Christian Louboutin replicas is Christian Louboutin Lady Glitter Slingback Nude that they can last as long as the original Christian Louboutin shoes. They are also equally comfortable, and great looking.6. The production cost is the same for the original Louboutins and our top class replicas. Our shoes cost less because we do not invest in marketing activities Christian Louboutin New Decoltissimo 85 patent pumps and stores with Christian Louboutin Very Prive Satin Platform expensive leases.7. Shoes you find on our web site are 100% leather made Christian Louboutin UK goods, and they are also lined with premium leather. We never die our shoes so you will not buy a bad smelling item, which is coloured badly.8. If you decide to Christian Louboutin Rolando Hidden-Platform Pump buy our limited editions for instance Python shoes, keep in mind that they are manufactured and made of premium leather that is embossed (to look like a original Python skin).Christian Louboutin Rolando Hidden Platform Pump Enjoy our top Christian Louboutin Very Prive Patent Pump quality offer and be fabulous without spending Christian Louboutin Very Prive Patent Pump a fortune!