The Darjeeling Limited

[tpfkabi]

the character is also very Dignan because he is a leader who has very detailed plans.

in BR you had the handwritten notebook
in DL you had the laminated schedules

as far as production design - i think it mainly had to do with money and experience.
BR was his first film. after finishing it, plus getting more money, he had the opportunity and greater confidence to do something like Rushmore.

i think he purposely scaled back Darjeeling because it is mentioned in all the reviews and the fact that the 3 writers were trying to write things based on what they experienced themselves when checking out India.

after reading all these interviews and articles posted here, it is very obvious he reads his reviews throughly. he's constantly wondering if he's rehashing something he's already done.

[Pozer]

i grew tired of the uncountable slow-mo bits but did enjoy it. 

is this a spoiler?

also, bill murray = pointless =    has this been discussed?

[B.C. Long]

The flashback sequence at the garage is the best thing Wes has ever done (so far).

Absolutely, it was the most poignant part of the film for me. The rest was....eh. I need a 2nd viewing though.

and yeah Pozer, having Bill Murray was completely pointless and distracting.

[Sleepless]

having Bill Murray was completely pointless and distracting.

Do I still need to warn about what some might consider spoilers?

I think you miss the point. Or am I being too positive and optimistic? Okay, sure it's possible that Wes just threw in Bill for the sake of a star cameo, but I really don't think that's the case. For me, it reasserts the whole idea of detatchment which I harped on about in my review a couple of pages back. By kicking off with the businessman racing for the train we are led to believe that his is the story we will be following. It certainly looks like it's going to be an interesting one. Then suddenly, someone else races past him and catches the train. The focus switches, and we focus on this other story instead. But the businessman still has his own story, and that's reasserted when he shows up later on in the movie. Sure, it could have been any random actor do it, but by having Bill Murray play the part it emphasises these points, but ensures the audience recognise him and make the connection during the train sequence. That's what I think.

[Pozer]

wow.  i really like your thoughts on that.  i was REALLY tired when i saw this and fought to keep my eyes open toward the middle/end.  when i view it again, i will look at it that way.  but just sitting here thinking about your view on that opening sequence and how he appears in the montage of all the characters in the end has turned my rolling eyes into

[tpfkabi]

SPOILERS

Wes has said multiple times in the interviews that he asked Bill to play a symbol, so he could represent the father. They go on a trip to deal with the father, and by the end they have parted with the father, this time represented by the luggage.

What did everyone think of that train/box car bit at the end when the brothers and mother are praying or whatever? I'm not sure exactly what that is meant to represent. If it's purely the thoughts of the people I'm not sure what Bill or the tiger mean, unless the mom is thinking tiger and adrien, bill.

[modage]

he's said playing a symbol, but i don't believe he ever said it was symbol for their father. 

[tpfkabi]

he's said playing a symbol, but i don't believe he ever said it was symbol for their father. 

true.
what this proposes is..........maybe he didn't quite say it, but meant it?
not my original observance either, i read it somewhere else.

check this from Ebert's review (he must not recognize Kumar):

"Anderson uses India not in a touristy way, but as a backdrop that is very, very there. Consider a lengthy scene where the three brothers share a table in the diner with an Indian man who is a stranger. Observe the performance of the stranger. As an Indian traveling in first class, he undoubtedly speaks English, but they do not exchange a word. He reads his paper. The brothers talk urgently and openly about intimacies and differences. He does not "react" in any obvious way. His unperturbed presence is a reaction in itself. There is a concealed level of performance: They probably know he can understand them, and he probably knows they know this. There he sits, a passive witness to their lives. It is impossible to imagine this role played any better. He raises the level of the scene to another dimension."

[modage]

ebert is nuts.  it was clearly just a kumar cameo for the hardcores.

[MacGuffin]

Didn't feel a connection with this one. The metaphors felt very on-the-nose. Never felt that either of the brothers were anything more than just two-dimentional. I liked it better when the story got serious (after they get kicked off the train), but overall the film seemed to just pass over me with only memorable moments rather than a memorable film as a whole.

[polkablues]

Wes Anderson and Sofia Coppola are gradually becoming the same filmmaker.  Three or four years down the line from now, they'll both release movies at the same time, and they will turn out to be the exact same movie.  I will feign surprise.

[Pubrick]

Wes Anderson and Sofia Coppola are gradually becoming the same filmmaker.

already happened.

[last days of gerry the elephant]

ebert is nuts.  it was clearly just a kumar cameo for the hardcores.

haha I like your justification way better than Ebert's.

[MacGuffin]

Wes Interview:

http://media.movies.ign.com/media/848/848865/vid_2211673.html

[MacGuffin]

On February 26, 2008, Fox Home Entertainment will release The Darjeeling Limited on DVD. The Wes Anderson film revolves around three brothers who travel to India in search of enlightenment, or at least to reunite as brothers should. The film stars Owen Wilson, Adrien Brody, and Jason Schwartzman. It will contain several currently unnamed featurettes, including the spotlighted "Hotel Chevalier" starring Natalie Portman, and will be available for the MSRP of $29.98. No Blu-ray version is slated.