Anderson-Seitz Reboot

email this story
read comments (65)
post a comment

"With just five features in 13 years, Wes Anderson has established himself as the most influential American filmmaker of the post-Baby Boom generation," says Matt Zoller Seitz in the first of a five-part narrated video series (along with a printed essay) that will run over the next five weeks.

(The video is very nicely done, Matt -- hats off. But the automatic play-reboot function is impossible. Send me a code without it and I'll put it up again.)

Publishing a pro-Anderson manifesto is, at the very least, an idiosysncratic if not brave thing for Seitz to have done. I mean, is it not the prevailing view that Anderson pretty much shot his wad with Bottle Rocket and Rushmore? And that he's been slipping more and more into WesWorld and getting more and more caught up in Wes-aesthetics-for-their-own-sake ever since?

Apart from his brilliant '06 American Express commercial and that Jason Schwartzman and Natalie Portman Hotel Chevalier short that accompanied The Darjeeling Limited, Anderson's post-Rushmore features have come to symbolize an approach to filmmaking that is so poised, precious and fussed over that the primal dramatic stuff doesn't come through like it needs to.

As David Amsden wrote in a New York profile of Anderson in late September of '07, "Pepper in some resurrected classic-rock songs; deadpan dialogue; themes of failure, nostalgia, and fractured families; and the result, at its best, is a world unto itself."

The other prevailing view is that former collaborator Owen Wilson provided an influence that kept Anderson from getting too Wessy. Like the also-faltering M. Night Shyamalan, Anderson needs to find a way to write his screenplays with (i.e., trust) a bright somebody or other with anti-foo-foo roots and convictions who can save him from himself.

The beginning of the fall-off wasThe Royal Tenenbaums. The first big uh-oh was The Life Aquatic. The Darjeeling Limited, for me, was the Big Thud. And yet Seitz's essay, I have to say, is great stuff. The passion is right there. It made me fall in love with Rushmore all over again, and feel hope for Anderson's future works. One hopes in particular that The Fantastic Mr. Fox (which had a test screening in New Jersey a little while ago) will pan out.

"What makes Wes Anderson distinctive is the sheer range of art that has fed his imagination," Seitz writes. "Nnot just recent American and foreign films, but films from 30, 50, even 70 years ago, plus newspaper comics, illustrations, and fiction. The spectrum of influence gives his work a diversity of tone that his imitators typically lack. It is a style of substance.

"Anderson's scavenger-hunt aesthetic stands him in good company, alongside Quentin Tarantino, David Gordon Green, James Gray, and the other Anderson, P.T. This series may incidentally illuminate why Anderson-esque movies -- from Garden State to Son of Rambow -- can seem, no matter what their virtues or pleasures, a weak substitute for the real thing."

On 9.24.07 I posted a short list of "career-saving suggestions for Anderson to consider: (a) Do a T.E. Lawrence and join the Army or Marines as a raw recruit with a fake name, and serve in Iraq for a year; (b) get a job in Iraq as an ambulance driver, and have an affair with a nurse if he gets sent to the hospital if and when he gets maimed by an I.E.D.; (c) do a T.E. Lawrence and take a low-level job in some blue-collar industry in Missouri or Mississippi for a year, again under a fake name; (d) do a John Pierson and run a repertory movie theatre in some far-off territory for a year -- soak up the exotic atmosphere, get to know the locals, etc."

Joined At Hip<< previous | next >>Cimino's Epitaph

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on March 31, 2009 at 6:47 AM

comment #1

Alan Cerny says ...

I can agree with you somewhat on ZISSOU ans DARJEELING, but not TENENBAUMS. TENENBAUMS, although not my personal favorite of his - that would be RUSHMORE, is damn, damn great, it's got Ben Stiller's best acting moment ever in it ("I've had a rough year, dad" makes me tear up every time), it's so beautifully shot, so funny, and well acted by everyone. It's just magnificent. Or maybe it's because my grandparents had a game room in their attic JUST LIKE THAT.

Posted by Alan Cerny at March 31, 2009 10:09 AM

comment #2

Alan Cerny says ...

Sorry, meant to say LIFE AQUATIC, not ZISSOU.

Posted by Alan Cerny at March 31, 2009 10:11 AM

comment #3

actionman says ...

The Royal Tenenbaums is a masterpiece (much like Rushmore) and is his best, most complete effort to date. The Magnificent Amberson's tone that he pulled off was miraculous. And it has one of Gene Hackman's best performances.

I still laugh my ass off with Life Aquatic. That film has a stony vibe that few other flick possess.

I was underwhelmed by Darjeeling but still enjoyed it.

Posted by actionman at March 31, 2009 10:16 AM

comment #4

raygo says ...

I love Rushmore. Can't really warm up to Bottle Rocket after two viewings. That was a disappointment after reading so many positive things here. I enjoyed The Royal Tenebaums a lot more than I expected.

Calling him "the most influential American filmmaker of the post-Baby Boom generation" is a major stretch. Major.

Posted by raygo at March 31, 2009 10:17 AM

comment #5

ZayTonday says ...

Wait, Royal Tenenbaums, Life Aquatic and Darjeeling Limited were bad?

Posted by ZayTonday at March 31, 2009 10:17 AM

comment #6

Gaydos says ...

I sit in terror, pondering that Seitz might be rights.

Posted by Gaydos at March 31, 2009 10:21 AM

comment #7

Sabina E says ...

I love the Royal Tenenbaums as well. I haven't seen Darjeeling Limited (but it will arrive tomorrow in the mail, thanks Netflix). I just think Anderson needs to be careful and not fall into a cliched, gimmicky trap, like Tim Burton has, unfortunately.

Posted by Sabina E at March 31, 2009 10:22 AM

comment #8

Flosh says ...

The Life Aquatic and Tennenbaums are wonderful films. Darjeeling feels like it misses the mark, but having rewatched it lately I think that feeling is at least partly the point.

Posted by Flosh at March 31, 2009 10:36 AM

comment #9

Gabriel says ...

Historically, he won't even end up being the most influential ANDERSON filmmaker of his generation. But as of right now, other than maybe the Wachowskis, there's nobody who gets ripped off more these days.

And I say this as a Wes fan who hasn't disliked a single one of his films yet.

Posted by Gabriel at March 31, 2009 10:42 AM

comment #10

lonniechung says ...

I think it says more about Wes Anderson as a filmmaker that each of his films are measured against each other. If any of his last three had been his first, he'd still be seen as visionary. I thought Aquatic and Darjeeling were his two most personal and heartbreaking films. It just seems like he's penalized for having a particular style to how he shoots and writes. All of the "quirky" shit is lazy journalism. The father-son story of Aquatic, the brothers story of Darjeeling, the family story of Tennenbaums, the friendship story of Bottle Rocket are all unique to themselves. Just because the characters he puts on screen tend to show their flaws more than their strengths, it doesn't mean he's repeating himself. And Jeff, really, to even put his name in the same line as a hack like M. Night who cashed in on a cheap gimmick and has proven his true worth ever since (cheap gimmicks of diminishing return), is preposterous.

Posted by lonniechung at March 31, 2009 10:49 AM

comment #11

The Playlist says ...

Tenebaums being called a "masterpiece" is ridiculous. But yes Wells you are correct WA blew his wad after BR and Rushmore. It's basically been diminishing returns ever since with the few light, small exceptions you've noticed. That should really be case closed.

Posted by The Playlist at March 31, 2009 10:51 AM

comment #12

YND says ...

RUSHMORE is a perfect film and he'll have a hard time topping it. That said, I've found LIFE AQUATIC and DARJEELING to have enormous growing/staying power. I felt let down by AQUATIC the first time I saw it, but when I revisited it a few years later I had no clue what the hell I'd been thinking. Now it's very near the top of the heap in my opinion. And DARJEELING's right there with it (and is possibly the most emotionally resonant thing he's done).

Surprisingly, the only one that hasn't aged well for me is TENENBAUMS, which just feels a little overstuffed and too Salingery... Both of which may be intended, but it doesn't quite work for me.

But yeah, AQUATIC haters who haven't given it a second chance owe it to themselves. It's wonderful.

Posted by YND at March 31, 2009 10:53 AM

comment #13

MAGGA says ...

I like Anderson but he has not "established himself" as the most influential post-babyboomer director. Loading yout films with references was seen as a wildly inventive thing when Tarantino did it, when Goddard did it and many other times. It's the well critics go to when trying to establish someone as an auteur, something Anderson is, but also something that is not synonymous with greatness. It would also be a terrible tragedy if the "most influential" modern director used so many baby-boomer hits on his soundtrack without new context. In many ways The Graduate was a Wes Anderson film before Wes Anderson, only superior. He may yet be one of the greats, but he's yet to completely prove himself, in my opinion. And as much as I hate to admit this, Michael Bay has had a much more visible influence on modern film than Anderson, in terms of lighting, tone, the rapid-fire editing, the bone-head ideology... It's everywhere, from blockbusters to commercials to music videos.

Still an interesting clip.

Posted by MAGGA at March 31, 2009 10:53 AM

comment #14

actionman says ...

why is it ridiculous? the film is perfect. what gives?

Posted by actionman at March 31, 2009 10:53 AM

comment #15

JT says ...

"With just five features in 13 years, Wes Anderson has established himself as the most influential American filmmaker of the post-Baby Boom generation,"

Ummm...WTF?

Posted by JT at March 31, 2009 10:54 AM

comment #16

actionman says ...

"And as much as I hate to admit this, Michael Bay has had a much more visible influence on modern film than Anderson, in terms of lighting, tone, the rapid-fire editing, the bone-head ideology... It's everywhere, from blockbusters to commercials to music videos."

Mmmm-hmmmm. Very true. Very astute.

Posted by actionman at March 31, 2009 10:54 AM

comment #17

DarthCorleone says ...

The Royal Tenebaums is one my top twenty favorite films. Period.

However, the "most influential" moniker is hyperbole.

Posted by DarthCorleone at March 31, 2009 10:59 AM

comment #18

MilkMan says ...

QT is a baby boomer?

PTA is just as influential as Wes. He's also a better writer.

Something that has always confused me is that Wes is treated like a Writer-Director, and he's not. Owen Wilson is just as responsible for the charms of Bottle Rocket, Rushmore and Tenenbaums as Wes is. I know people don't like to hear that, but it's true.

Zissou is a bomb. Nice costumes and that's about it. Bill Murray was so wrong for the role that I'm surprised more people don't mention it.

I really really enjoyed Darjeeling, though. Not really looking forward to his Mr. Fox. Wes needs to do the hard thing, the scary thing, which is ditch his aesthetic for one film and start from scratch. Let's see if he had something else to offer besides quirky, colorful, fussy, center-framed dioramic compositions. Let's see if he has something interesting to say. His heavy handed luggage metaphor from Darjeeling leads me to believe that he might not.

Posted by MilkMan at March 31, 2009 11:09 AM

comment #19

MikeSchaeferSF says ...

Tenenbaums is my favorite film of the last 10 years, I've seen it countless times (IFC is showing it repeatedly this month on cable) and it never gets old. And Hackman was robbed at Oscar time that year.

Posted by MikeSchaeferSF at March 31, 2009 11:09 AM

comment #20

MilkMan says ...

Oh, and Zoller Seitz is the most overrated film critic currently working. And he's a shitty filmmaker to boot.

Posted by MilkMan at March 31, 2009 11:12 AM

comment #21

JT says ...

PTA is a better writer, more talented and not so full of himself that every frame of his films has to be "cute."

Will people ever be able to appreciate what an evolutionary jump TWBB is in his work?

Posted by JT at March 31, 2009 11:15 AM

comment #22

JD says ...

Jeff is falling into the same trap he always falls into: dismissing any work by a filmmaker that doesn't fall squarely into his preferred taste/subject matter. When Steven Soderbergh made Out of Sight/The Limey/Traffic, Wells thought he was great because Wells likes gritty crime films. Once Soderbergh changed directions, Wells dismissed his work, even though it was just as sophisticated (if not more so) than that earlier work... simply because he's less interested in philosophical sci-fi (Solaris), deconstructionist studies in narcissism (Full Frontal), etc.

Same goes for Wes. What do you think he should do, keep making films about troubled teens? Sure, Rushmore synched up with your personal tastes more than Anderson's subsequent films, but why do I know so many people (myself included) who see a maturation in his filmmaking? Cinema is about more than just information/storytelling, Jeff, and Anderson understands that. You don't connect with his work on a personal level, but on a strictly formal level, it's grown leaps and bounds beyond Rushmore and Bottle Rocket.

As for this argument that Wes is getting lost in his own aesthetic, may I remind you of Federico Fellini, Jean-Luc Godard, Ingmar Bergman, Terrence Malick, Luis Bunuel, etc. etc. It's called being an auteur. Like all of these filmmakers, his ultra-personal, uber-stylized approach prevents his films from winning over a broad audience, but -- and this is very important -- it also means his films hit his admirers harder than any other films out there. Thus, the Seitz piece.

Posted by JD at March 31, 2009 11:21 AM

comment #23

BurmaShave says ...

JT, probably after his next film, especially if it continues to be on that level. I was not aware that anyone thought Wes Anderson was the best modern filmmaker, but ROYAL TENENBAUMS is his masterpiece.

Posted by BurmaShave at March 31, 2009 11:23 AM

comment #24

Wrecktem says ...

Royal Tenenbaums is obnoxious and I want to punch every character in that movie. Except Danny Glover.

Posted by Wrecktem at March 31, 2009 11:28 AM

comment #25

MilkMan says ...

And another thing: PTA clearly loves the act of filmmaking. He could have adopted the style he used for Boogie Nights and Magnolia and ridden that into the ground. But he too curious to maintain one style. Sometimes I think Wes Anderson is more interested in being "Wes Anderson" that evolving as a filmmaker.

Posted by MilkMan at March 31, 2009 11:32 AM

comment #26

George Prager says ...

Tannenbaums is shit. I took a shit during the movie (in the restroom) confident that I wasn't going miss anything. A film for gaywads and dorkwads who still have a J.D. Salinger prominently displayed on their bookshelf.

Posted by George Prager at March 31, 2009 11:33 AM

comment #27

rr3333 says ...

I'm in the minority since I didnt like 'Rushmore' (mostly because of Schwartzman, who annoyed the shit out of me).

Bottle Rocket and Tennenbaums were great, Zissou so-so, and Darjeeling was solid.

Lets not put Anderson on Mount 'Rushmore' just yet ...

Posted by rr3333 at March 31, 2009 11:34 AM

comment #28

115thDreamer says ...

I didn't go that nuts over 'Tennenbaums' when it came out, but it's really grown on me over the years. It's one of those movies I get roped in by whenever it comes on TV. It's very funny, for one thing..."Can the boy tell time?"..."Oh, my no..."

I prefer to look at Wes' career as a line graph....line starts out fairly high for "Bottle Rocket",, ascends sharply for "Rushmore", descends only slightly for "Tennenbaums", then unfortunately descends dramatically for "Aquatic", then begins to ascend again for "Darjeeling", which was no masterpiece, but was certainly worthwhile. The trick is the right balance of whimsy and gravitas. I think Wes' problem so far has been achieving that balance - "Rushmore" got it right, in that it was quirky and funny, but you also cared about Max (and Herman, and so on). In "Aqautic" however, it was just nuttiness for the sake of being nutty, and I didn't give one shit about the relationship between Murray and Wilson's "long lost son". Again, I think "Darjeeling" has him going in the right direction again - it was "quirky" and all, but I did care about the brothers by the time it was all over.

Posted by 115thDreamer at March 31, 2009 11:37 AM

comment #29

BurmaShave says ...

The criticism of TENENBAUMS is so uniformly articulate and mature, I am persuaded.

Posted by BurmaShave at March 31, 2009 11:50 AM

comment #30

BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey says ...

Tenenbaums is hilarious. "That's a hell of grave. Wish it were mine."

Posted by BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey at March 31, 2009 11:52 AM

comment #31

Michael says ...

The lasting legacy of Wes Anderson should be the theme of adults overpowering small children in games of sport.

And Life Aquatic sucked balls.

Posted by Michael at March 31, 2009 12:09 PM

comment #32

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

"Like the also-faltering M. Night Shyamalan, Anderson needs to find a way to write his screenplays with (i.e., trust) a bright somebody or other"

Truer words could not have been written, especially M. Night who perhaps needs to give up writing altogether.

Posted by Deathtongue_Groupie at March 31, 2009 12:24 PM

comment #33

erniesouchak says ...

"Tenebaums" is not only Salinger-y, it's John Irving-y.

Posted by erniesouchak at March 31, 2009 1:15 PM

comment #34

pm123 says ...

Like many filmmakers these days, both Andersons seem to have a fatal problem with structure. Their films (apart from Bottle Rocket & Rushmore - Wes seems better ant this than P.T.) have no real structure. To their credit, hey both have a genius for creating rich, evocative, emotional images, and have great filmmaiking intuition. They know how to tell a story in pictures, and they deserve all the accolades they get as a result. Now what they need is stories with beginnings, middles and ends. Structure is so hopelessly out of fashion these days (thank you, Internets), though, that it would undoubtedly seem stuffy and retro to have such a an old fashioned thing as a climax, or catharsis, or even a third act...

Posted by pm123 at March 31, 2009 1:15 PM

comment #35

lonniechung says ...

What's with all of the PT Anderson love? Kind of a double standard if you're going to compare his films to Wes - Boogie Nights is a cliche after cliche; a well-worn adult after-school special. Magnolia is so full of shit, it's almost impossible to suffer through; pretentious, boring, Cruise. He didn't hit any kind of stride until the mediocrity of Punch Drunk Love, which served as a curiosity for non-Adam Sandler fans. There Will Be Blood is phenomenal, and hopefully bodes well for his future, but if you take that away, and put Hard Eight into perspective (more cliches), his body of work is much more miss than hit.

Posted by lonniechung at March 31, 2009 1:51 PM

comment #36

Gordon27 says ...

"Wes Anderson has established himself as the most influential American filmmaker of the post-Baby Boom generation"

I guess a thread that starts with a statement like this is bound to drown itself in hyperbole and subjectivity, huh?

Seems to me like the guy who mentioned Michael Bay is on point; I'd add that the guys who made 'Saw' seem to have had the most widespread influence on cinema of any filmmakers of the last ten years -- they even influenced Bay's horror productions.

"Influential" is such a bizarre thing to hold up as a positive, but especially when there hasn't been enough time for him to have had any significant cinematic influence. He has yet to be ripped off by any interesting filmmakers.

Posted by Gordon27 at March 31, 2009 2:03 PM

comment #37

YND says ...

PTA is a better writer, more talented and not so full of himself that every frame of his films has to be "cute."

Will people ever be able to appreciate what an evolutionary jump TWBB is in his work?

Don't they already? I mean, I think it's pretty widely acknowledged that THERE WILL BE BLOOD is a major major achievement. I'm confident that when the "Best of the Decade" lists start coming out in '10/late '09, they'll bear this out.

As for the Anderson vs. Anderson debate, they're stunningly different filmmakers and we're lucky to have both of them producing significant work.

Posted by YND at March 31, 2009 2:10 PM

comment #38

YND says ...

Correction:

PTA is a better writer, more talented and not so full of himself that every frame of his films has to be "cute."

Will people ever be able to appreciate what an evolutionary jump TWBB is in his work?

As for the Anderson vs. Anderson debate, they're stunningly different filmmakers and we're lucky to have both of them producing significant work.

Posted by YND at March 31, 2009 2:11 PM

comment #39

YND says ...

Motherfu--.... so apparently the html tags don't work across paras...

PTA is a better writer, more talented and not so full of himself that every frame of his films has to be "cute."

Will people ever be able to appreciate what an evolutionary jump TWBB is in his work?

As for the Anderson vs. Anderson debate, they're stunningly different filmmakers and we're lucky to have both of them producing significant work.

Posted by YND at March 31, 2009 2:13 PM

comment #40

lehigh says ...

PT Anderson is not a good writer. He is a good director, but someone should take away his Final Draft.

THERE WILL BE BLOOD was magnificent. For an hour. Then it went off the rails terribly. Choked on it's own self importance.

LIFE AQUATIC is the only WA misfire in my book. DARJEELING is his most underrated. I do think Wes ought to write with Owen again, or direct someone else's scripts for a while.

But then he wouldn't be an auteur.

Posted by lehigh at March 31, 2009 2:46 PM

comment #41

Gordon27 says ...

"But then he wouldn't be an auteur."

Don't anybody mention Alfred Hitchcock as one of the specific directors the auteur theory was developed in regard to.

Posted by Gordon27 at March 31, 2009 3:13 PM

comment #42

Gordon27 says ...

For whatever it's worth, I think PT's reach tends to exceed his grasp, but I am far more interested in watching his movies with all of their specific flaws than watching Wes Anderson dig the same hole every time, getting progressively narrower as it gets lower (had to avoid using the word "deeper" there, but deeper in the sense of a hole, as in "more empty").

Posted by Gordon27 at March 31, 2009 3:16 PM

comment #43

Glenn Kenny says ...

Why on earth should Seitz, or any other critic with a functioning brain, give a flying fuck about the "prevailing view" anyway, Jeff?

Posted by Glenn Kenny at March 31, 2009 3:19 PM

comment #44

Chase Kahn says ...

There is definitely a place for the Wes Anderson aesthetic ('Bottle Rocket' is great) and he's copied by a plethura of other filmmakers.

I think it has run its course, though, and the P.T. Anderson thing is a great comparison. He's not making 3-hour ensemble pieces with John C. Reily and Phillip Seymor Hoffman anymore and it's produced his best work, in my opinion ('There Will Be Blood').

Posted by Chase Kahn at March 31, 2009 4:15 PM

comment #45

JD says ...

lehigh, you are high. PT Anderson is the best working screenwriter in Hollywood! His scripts are brilliantly dense, suggestive, mysterious, subtle and layered... There Will Be Blood in particular. Having actually read that script many months before seeing the movie, I have to say, it was an incredibly economical (even at 160 pages or whatever it was), intense, vivid piece of writing. You could feel every aspect of the film that was eventually made in plain black and white on that paper. It gave me renewed faith that screenwriters are just as important as directors, which probably explains why most of the filmmakers we all revere are also writers.

Posted by JD at March 31, 2009 4:16 PM

comment #46

MilkMan says ...

I have to second JD's notion that PTA is the best screenwriter in Hollywood. Better than Tarantino, Kaufman, Mamet - all of them. His writing is what sets his movies apart, although I would argue that his direction on PDL is as good as TWBB. What he does with lens flares alone is enough to separate him from Wes Anderson. And you know what PTA does better than anyone writing wise? Monologues. The monologues he has written for Cruise, Jason Robards and Day-Lewis are magnificent. What has Anderson written that is so great other some memorable one-liners? I don't mean to pile on Wes, because I like all of his movies and I think he has a very singular vision, but PTA is THE talent of his generation. I guess you could make an argument otherwise. I just don't see why you would.

Posted by MilkMan at March 31, 2009 4:49 PM

comment #47

Gordon27 says ...

It's funny, the accusation that Wes Anderson, as a director, does too much cutesy "look at me" shit? I agree, and that's how I feel about PTA as a writer as well. (The quintessential example being that part in 'Punch Drunk Love' where PTA made a typo in his dialogue, and then wrote the next three lines of dialogue assuming Sandler really says that typo-line, and then leaving that in the movie.)

Posted by Gordon27 at March 31, 2009 5:09 PM

comment #48

Vennard says ...

What typo?

Posted by Vennard at March 31, 2009 6:29 PM

comment #49

dangovich says ...

Boogie Nights is a cliche after cliche; a well-worn adult after-school special.

How dare you lonnie, you take that back! BN is absolutely great.

But you're right, Magnolia was brutal..

Posted by dangovich at March 31, 2009 6:39 PM

comment #50

K. Bowen says ...

You know, Zissou, for all its faults, has a lot of damn funny moments. That's a pretty good film to have as a bad effort. Darjeeling was an interesting experiment for a man trying to break out of his shell.

Tennenbaums would be a triumph for most filmmakers whose previous effort didn't happen to be the most influential American comedy in recent years. And Bottle Rocket is tremendous, as well.

Posted by K. Bowen at March 31, 2009 7:10 PM

comment #51

K. Bowen says ...

There WIll Be Blood was brilliant filmmaking in the service of a so-so story.

Posted by K. Bowen at March 31, 2009 7:24 PM

comment #52

lehigh says ...

PT Anderson is not without talents, I just prefer him behind the camera than at the laptop. Or whatever he does.

The word that comes to mind is overkill. Why are there two dying tragic fathers in MAGNOLIA? Wouldn't one have gotten the point across?

Why spend an hour investing the audience in a pipeline and a church/business conflict in TWBB, only to swerve madly off course into a study of Plainview's disintegration? I have seen too many movies about hateful charismatics disintegrating, but the story he was telling in the first half was fascinating. Am I to assume that the first half was Upton Sinclair, and the second all PTA? It sure seemed that way, what with all Plainview's self righteous belly aching, and daddy issues, and the brother who wasn't a brother. That second half is something awful.

Anyhoo, I've always found Wes' vision to be more fresh. A relief from the angsty, self conscious, dourness that so often marred 90's indie films, PTA's included.

Posted by lehigh at March 31, 2009 7:49 PM

comment #53

lipranzer says ...

Okay, I like Wes Anderson, even though I can understand why others don't, and certainly to call him the most influential filmmaker of whatever generation is a bit much, to say the least. But how the fuck did this degenerate into a "if you like Wes Anderson, you can't like P.T. Anderson, or vice versa" argument? Has movie criticism really sunk this low, that everybody has become like the hero in HIGH FIDELITY, who tells his girlfriend liking both Marvin Gaye and Simon & Garfunkel is akin to rooting for both the Israelis and the Palestinians?

Posted by lipranzer at March 31, 2009 8:36 PM

comment #54

lehigh says ...

Fair point. I just happen to strongly prefer one Anderson over the other, and saw that the other view was more prevalent here.

Don't get me started on Brad Anderson!

Posted by lehigh at March 31, 2009 9:50 PM

comment #55

bluetide says ...

I love Wes Anderson. Life Aquatic and Darjeeling Limited both have their problems (moreso with Aquatic) but damn if I have enjoyed rewatching anything outside the Big Lebowski more than Rocket, Rushmore, and Royal Tenenbaums over the past few years. And anyone who's honest has to admit he's had a big influence on the ever growing middle class hipster set.

That said, I think it's time to break out of Wes World or at least bring some unexpected elements into Wes World. I love the place and I think he made some baby steps in Darjeeling but I want to see him stretch a bit as a filmmaker next go round.

Posted by bluetide at March 31, 2009 10:42 PM

comment #56

MAGGA says ...

I'm not going to jump into the PT v Wes argument, but since someone calles PTA out on his structure I have to mention that I thought the structure of Magnolia was a revelation. Sure the multi-character style was very Altman-esque, but since PTA is both writer and director of that movie he managed to build the thing like a musical piece. The mega-energy opening slows down to a more observational style before going into a sentimental tragedy before using surreal elements like the singing scene and the frog-scenes to create a climactic, funny and sad last act. All the characters' stories went through the same stylistic and atmospheric patterns at identical times, the writing and direction linking them as if it was all one big story, which it turns out to be even without the characters influencing each other as much as in the brilliant-but-deceptive opening urban-myth references. It's a melodrama, but a great and serious one, I think. I agree with anyone talking about how structure seems to be focused too little on these days, but there are other ways to structure a film than to go the three-act, Syd Field Old Hollywood route, even if there is something almost profound about how that works for so many different stories. I've liked the structure in all PTA's films, and if we're talking about quality and not influence, PTA, with his five-out-of-five batting average, is the young-ish filmmaker I most admire.

Posted by MAGGA at April 1, 2009 12:25 AM

comment #57

ElstonGunnAICN says ...

Anderson creates these easily digestible characters, much like the pop songs and production design he chooses, and puts them in a loose narrative to take or leave. That sounds like I can be talking about any factory made studio film but Anderson makes it feel less empty somehow, most likely because he's pulling from different places and playing with their ideas. Rushmore - Malle, Nichols, Ashby; Tenenbaums - Bunuel; Aquatic - Cousteau, Truffaut; Darjeeling - Satjayit Ray, etc. It was fun seeing a shot in Darjeeling cribbed from Black Narcissus. We know Scorsese turned Anderson on to Renoir's The River. If Anderson himself can return in kind and prompt his fans to find inspiration in the guys that inspired him, who otherwise might not, then what more can you ask for?

He's going to shake things up a bit for himself, I think, not just with an animated movie, but don't forget he's also doing a remake of Patrice Leconte's My Best Friend.

Posted by ElstonGunnAICN at April 1, 2009 7:26 AM

comment #58

wonderponypro says ...

His work may be "...at its best, is a world unto itself", but hell I love his world. Let's get Wessy!

Posted by wonderponypro at April 1, 2009 3:49 PM

comment #59

The Bandsaw Vigilante says ...

"Tenenbaums is hilarious. 'That's a hell of grave. Wish it were mine.' "

The other great line from that flick I always quote (typically, when playing GEARS OF WAR 2 or LEFT 4 DEAD) is, "I *SEE* you, asshole!!"

Speaking of which, am I the only one predicting that DARJEELING's about to get Criterion Blu-Ray treatment? I mean, just look at the disc that's out right now.

Posted by The Bandsaw Vigilante at April 2, 2009 10:05 AM

comment #60

Zachary M Glass says ...

Actionman is a man after my heart. As I was reading I was prepping to leave pretty much the exact same comment. Just as many Wes Anderson fans probably would have.

On another note, I don't know anyone who likes Anderson's films and does not think highly of The Royal Tenenbaums. Even the thought of it is very foreign to me.

Posted by Zachary M Glass at April 2, 2009 3:48 PM

Posted by dgnxcc at March 4, 2010 9:03 PM

comment #62

yokek says ...

I don't know anyone who likes Anderson's filmOfficial balenciaga handbags Online Shop - offering you balenciaga inspired fashion and lifestyle for women
balenciaga handbags

Posted by yokek at April 10, 2010 5:32 AM

comment #63