The Darjeeling Limited

[martinthewarrior]

I was searching for the perfect adjective to describe what Wes Anderson's movies have become, and I've finally settled on "hackneyed", the definition of which is specifically "lacking significance through having been overused; unoriginal and trite".  He seems incapable of anything other than falling back on the same set of tropes and mannerisms over and over again:  Characters standing in rigid, geometrically-arranged groups of twos and threes staring straight into the camera with forlorn and melancholy expressions on their faces?  CHECK!  Brightly-colored, overly art-directed backgrounds filled with trinkets and kitschy props?  CHECK!  British Invasion-era pop songs?  CHECK!  Quirky facial hair and costumes?  CHECK!  Tracking shots in which the camera whip-pans back and forth, as if to mimic a bystander looking back and forth?  CHECK!  The presence of Owen Wilson or Jason Schwartzman? CHECK!  Stories about dysfunctional families attempting to reconcile and live with each other?  CHECK!  I really must say he's one of the most overrated filmmakers working right now.  I love Rushmore like most people, but this has become so tired...

I think it's far too early to call him "one of the most overrated filmmakers working right now". In my opinion, he didn't go off the track until The Life Aquatic. I don't think you can call his first three films 'overrated'. I think they stand up with just about anyone's first three. While I agree with alot of what you're saying, in my opinion, we need to see darjeeling before we can make the claim that he's wildly overrated.

[Alexandro]

Maybe it's a personal thing but Hackman is, to me, a joy to watch in Tenembaums. I remember when watching it on the big screen he was also the one getting the widest audience response, meaning people of all ages were laughing at his stuff, as opposed to the rest of the cast, whose dead pan expressions got enthusiasm mostly from the 20 something crowd.

Hackman is at the center of Tenembaums and I think that's why his approach works, as he seems to be the character everyone else revolves around. Although I like The Life Aquatic, sometimes Murray's performance is too contained for me. He's contained, Owen's contained, everyone is, so it becomes kind of slow after a while.

[pete]

man, fuck y'all.

[bonanzataz]

fuck y'all.

[essbe]

I wonder if this will end with a slow motion shot. 

[squints]

does the pope shit in the woods?

[hedwig]

SPOILERY PREDICTION

the slow motion shot in the trailer is probably the ending.

[SiliasRuby]

does the pope shit in the woods?

"Does the pope jerk off?"

"I can shit in the woods but I can't jerk off."

Kudos to anyone who knows what that movie is from...Mac probably knows.

[gob]

The Big Chill methinks.

I'm psyched about Darjeeling. Anything Mr Anderson does has my interest. Trailer got me more excited and the three seem great together. Don't usually like Adrien Brody but if the trailer's anything to go by I may be converted.

[pete]

to go back to my earlier comment...I know all of us over here think we're way past director's trademark stylistic bullshit now, and therefore it's really easy to attack someone like Wes Anderson who seems to have endless trademark bullshit shots to toss around, it's also might be true that maybe he's stopped "growing" as a filmmaker much earlier than most or whatever things people like to say about him and his sameness. 

however, those are great movies. it seems like it'll be as funny and as heartbreaking as it's always been.  I can definitely see his progression even when others don't see it and I think the effortlessness that comes with his films makes his challenges less visible.  I have been reluctant to compare schmucky criticisms of him to schmucky criticism of Woody Allen (or maybe I've already done it but forgot about it) but fuck it, I see him as a guy trying to work out his problems and insecurities in life that result in very personal films with enough accessibility for whoever else interested.  He seems to come from a very privileged, elitist, and comfortable world, but, unlike that Sophia "Full of Shit" Coppola, his films have much more compassion and soul, which is all I ask for in going to the movies.
it's also very easy to get cynical about him the same way people are about Tarantino - 'cause we also tend to blame the dozens of shabby knock off films over the years on them.  chill out with that too, ty'all.

[john]

Goddamn right, Pete.

Well, save for the Sofia Coppola dig... to each their own, I suppose.

I just watched the Life Aquatic again at the Castro only to be reminded how sweet, slight, and occasionally affecting that film is. I can acknowledge that people believe Wes Anderson has fallen into a certain predictable, redundant, but I don't see it that way.

It reminds me of a Fellini quote, "At bottom, I am always making the same film, I am telling the story of characters in search of themselves, in search of a more authentic source of life, of conduct, of behavior, that will more closely relate to the true roots of their individuality"

Which, I guess, can be applied to many directors. The degree to which they vary their continuing themes changes, certainly.... but at least with Anderson he doesn't seem passive about his cinematic obsessives.

You could even argue the same about David Lynch. He works with the same themes, and often variances on the same images.... perhaps just expanding them.

I think Anderson has expanded his view. I think, in pacing and in tone, he has become more daring and more experimental.

And I certainly don't think he's just playing it safe. Sure, there's always an audience there just for his quirks and soundtracks.... almost like a hipster version of Kevin Smith's audience... but those fuckers don't bring up the box office receipts. Life Aquatic didn't do well financially and critically, for that matter. It probably even ended his relationship with Touchstone... so, to make a film like Darjeeling (or what I imagine Darjeeling to be like, based on the bit of script I've read and the trailer), isn't the case of a director coasting at all.

I'm sure he knows there are critics and a good portion of the audience that are already sharpening their knives over this one. Yet he proceeded anyway, and made the film he wanted to make.

That's the kind of filmmaker I'm interested in.

[tpfkabi]

i said earlier that he prob won't change much unless he adapts a book or takes on someone else's screenplay (and prob doesn't cast Owen) but i didn't say that that bothered me.

i love all his films and will be there opening day if possible.

(i saw TLA 3 times in the theater)

[MacGuffin]

[Pubrick]

weird shoes. dude must look horrible naked.

i may also have said this before, but it was obvious since the time Scorsese labelled him the next scorsese, there was a reason he did that. scorsese had been telling the same story in almost the same way his whole career until this millennium, with superficial exceptions like yeah the dalai lama is not the same as herny hill, but whatever. pta practically remade boogie nights with magnolia, you know? i can't even think of a good director who i WOULDN'T want to see remake his best films. except hitchcock, he needs to shut the hell up. fiiivve dollaauurs? gettouttaheerre,...//

[matt35mm]

i may also have said this before, but it was obvious since the time Scorsese labelled him the next scorsese, there was a reason he did that. scorsese had been telling the same story in almost the same way his whole career until this millennium, with superficial exceptions like yeah the dalai lama is not the same as herny hill, but whatever. pta practically remade boogie nights with magnolia, you know? i can't even think of a good director who i WOULDN'T want to see remake his best films. except hitchcock, he needs to shut the hell up. fiiivve dollaauurs? gettouttaheerre,...//

Wow, the side of Pubrick I haven't seen.