A while ago, I promised in a nameless thread I was going to bash this movie coming up. Well, for the most part, I will. I saw the movie when it first came out on video and not again til recently. I liked it on first viewing, but felt the movie took too many easy way outs in its ending and how far it wanted to push the material. Now, the movie seems like an exercise in obcession with useless things and a typical story only behind it all, resulting in cute fluff.
I've heard it said that the movie plays out like a comic book, but the thing is, comics book are not really the most satisfying thing in showing a subject. They skirt the stories on its outside objectification and run on the motors of style more than anything. This is not to say RT is doomed from the beginning in using this style, because it is not. RT just doesn't tell a story that excels in this format at all. It's a typical story all the way. The comic book aspect in no way speaks for a truth to this movie that no other way of filmmaking can, it just only glosses the outside details and hardly touches the characters. The characters are defined not by who they are, but what they are wearing. They stand around, look without expression and let their looks say all they have to really say. Even more amazing, this film is jammed with known names in its cast, but it has attention to maybe carry two of them at most. Danny Glover, as good as can be, is in a role that results in the doing of nothing but showing up. Normally, an unkown actor would have been given a role of no importance. There is actually a lot of wasted talent here, all being jammed into a story because Anderson wants to decorate this world as much as he can with hood ornaments (characters). By the end, the movie tries to pay off where a deeper inspection of characters would have been fitting and the final scenes would have been more rewarding. This movie is way too cute and Anderson trying to stylize beyond any good measure that leads more to a coloring effect than anything purposeful for the story.
I liked the movie a lot when I first saw it, but the second viewing was way too much to handle because the pleasure was only that first viewing pleasure. Too much cuteness and too much Anderson that is being run with a story and purpose that excels at nothing. The result is execution that is cute but nothing else.
~rougerum
Shoo... Wow... Thanks... That's just what this place needed.
'Scuse me while I throw myself in front of a lawnmower.
One of my favorites.
I think 'comic book' is wrong, and 'fairy tale' is correct. And I think that would explain many of your criticisms towards over-stylization.
I think we all know that to do justice to 8+ characters requires 3 hours and 15 minutes. I also think that you could still be enjoying this movie like you did the first time if you didnt apply such a critical mind set to it. Thats mainly what I think.
One of my favourites too. Its a joy to watch.
On first suggestion, fairy tale doesn't seem right. It really does feel more like a comic book, especially with how it is filmed. Straight shots of the character looking back, with a colorful background to suggest their own personality. That's how they are introduced. But much of the movie seems made on that picture to picture kind of filmmaking, more like a comic book where you get images that seem to correlate together as an edit is made to show a different angle, but the main point is that it feels connecting like a comic book would in keeping with one situation, but having the characters keep in poses to suggest that things are moving forward them, but you also know where it is coming from. Also, the dialogue is very bitey and sharp, as in a comic book. It's all very packaged and quotable. Fairy tales seem to go out of reality and into its own world of imagination, while comic books seem at both times to be unrealistic in story but grounded in realism to where it can't go off in mythical odysseys to other worlds.
Also, I don't purposely put a critical mind to these movies, its just how I am in viewing them. Sometimes a movie can be so much fun and entertaining I will completely forget to analyze on any level, like The Mummy or some other good action film.
~rougerum
GT, I would just like to say that I respect you for keeping your own opinion amidst a lot of negative feedback (not in this thread). I don't agree with you much, but you are neat
Those sure are a lot of words. :(
I love the Royal Tenenbaums.
I thought the style was one of the movie's biggest charms. And even if the movie had a comic book 'feel', it was still very entertaining to watch. And in response to your Danny Glover crack, a no name playing that part would have been dissappointing. Glover was perfect for that role, and no one else could have played it better. And as posted earlier, the amount of characters Wes wrote into the story would have taken the movie to Magnolia length, and would not have been nearly as interesting as in its present form.
In conclusion, Royal Tennenbaums kicks some fucking ass. :)
Punchdrunk,
I agree it is entertaining to watch through how it executes its style, but that isn't the best of things to really have. The second time I watched it, the fluff of that entertainment quality began to lose appeal and I went looking for more and really didn't find it. It's entertainment value on first viewing seems to be the only thing really with the film.
How would it have been dissapointing in a no name was playing Glover's role? Sure, with already seen a known name playing it, it may be, but what importance did his character really hold in structure to the movie? His character was the man Anjelica Huston fell in love, but in the minimal time he got on screen, Glover stood around and talked. Glover's role was so small, and actually, it was a tool role, a role basically of the importance to drive Hackman's character into jealousy and wanting to gain back his family. That's it. You didn't reason out why said he was perfect so your disagreement was hard me to defend in the first place. I don't mind disagreement, but give me a fair shot.
Actually, the problem with so many characters didn't need to extend to Magnolia length or stay at its present form and give less time to each character, but really just needed some characters taken out completely. And even though a gasp may come from some fans of Anderson, don't worry. This has been done before. Olivier took out some characters when he filmed Hamlet not to just do so, but so he could have a sharper focus on Hamlet in order to deepen the power of his struggle. This movie has too many loose ends in its story and focus but refuses to get rid of it for fear it will lose its charm of cuteness when actually it has so much more to gain by doing so.
~rougerum
what did you think of Rushmore?
Come on, its a fairy tale, I think I even recollect Wes Anderson saying so himself. Starting with the flagged tower at the very beginning of the Hey Jude montage. He tried to give the film a feel, that wasnt quite recognisable, but seemed like it could be a distant memory. The Taxi Cabs for example werent the traditional bright yellow, despite being in New York. I think its a hard thing to take anything out of beyond entertainment though, because the characters are hard to relate to. Not because they are badly developed though, but for the plain fact that they're ex-geniuses, whose father only wants them for their money, a scenario we dont come across that often. Agreed, perhaps this would not be the case if more time was available to devote to a character, but then it wouldn't be the movie it is. I think Stillers character carried the thread of the most value, because he had experienced and was still experiencing a loss that happens to a lot of people.
QuoteThis movie has too many loose ends in its story and focus but refuses to get rid of it for fear it will lose its charm of cuteness when actually it has so much more to gain by doing so.
Its a movie about
family, how can you not have it about all the characters? I see it so that the father, the mother, and the three children all have prominance in the film. The only people you can take away the limelight from are Eli, and Danny Glovers character. They're both brilliant parts of the story, and serve some of the main-five characters so well.
Dont you think 'cuteness' is a very harsh criticism, in light of the efforts went to, to create the Tenenbaum world. I know you think that too much emphasis was put on it in the film but very rarely do people go to these lengths. The result of these efforts is that we've (well I've) never seen anything like the Tenenbaums before. Whats wrong with enjoying that? Its 'light-hearted' - maybe its a new form of the 'feel-good' movie.
Out of interest how do you rank Wes Anderson's film, personally, I would say RTs is my least favourite. 1)Bottle Rocket 2)Rushmore 3)Royal Tenenbaums.
You know I have great respect for your knowledge and love of film.
Also, you dont analyse The Mummy and the like because there's no reason to, they are purely entertaiment movies, not grounded in reality at all.
redlum,
Well, if you say Anderson described it as a fairy tale, then fine, but when I put this film down, people slammed me by saying it was like a comic book and that Anderson said it himself. For this, I'm not sure who to believe so I won't say anything further. But there is a dreamlike quality that the film never really seems to go for, because the film is so much about cutting between images and very rarely lets the camera move around for much periods of time. I'm arguing that all the contexts out of reality the movie takes itself out can be completely attributed to what a comic book does and the framing through out much of the movie is near identical to a feel of comic book. Even more so how each character is identified through a specific clothing, which is common place in comics so the reader can always distinguish and identify characters for a certain look and behavior that seems to come out of what they wear. Fairy tales really seem to speak more on the dream like senses, where the camera can roam around and get a feel for the world that way.
But if they are hard to relate to, then wouldn't the film try to investigate each of them more to make them more sympathetic to us? I'm not buying that the movie acts the way it does for the uniqueness of the story and the characters it is showing. The movie really is a typical story about a family, its just the ex genuises thing is the coloring for this family. I can understand it is doing for the portrait of the entire family, but I'm not sure if the film really believes it is doing it for that at all. The great reliance upon the world it has created and bringing up main characters like Glovers characters, Owen Wilson's, and Bill Muarry's. The film seems to be investigating them mainly at some standstill, so the world behind it and their whole look can get noticed. But instead of this world just being a minor character on first viewing and getting more interesting with each viewing as the viewer looks farther to the edges of the frame, it announces itself as the most interesting thing while the characters operate within that system.
I didn't like Rushmore, not for the same reasons as on RT, but mainly because the film ended on romantic idealizations even when the film was pure black humor for the rest of the film. The ending just seemed to be a take away from the promise of what could happen because of the rest of the film. I wish that film would have gotten some more balls.
~rougerum
Ok GT. I know what you're saying, maybe I have lower expectations than you. Having said that, I quite often find myself wishing a movie would have had more balls at the end. Signs being one of these (the fact that he became a priest again really annoyed me, surely the existence of ET's would have thrown his faith into further dismay).
As I said, I think Anderson is almost making a new type of 'feel good' movie, and I like that style.
Quote from: The Gold Trumpetthe dialogue is very bitey
I'm going to steal that.
GT, will you make you next analysis a spoken one so I can get your rhythm? I want to hear you deliver real bad.
I'd enjoy hearing that myself. I once tried to read one of these out loud and I found that there was no possible way to not make it sound like a broken robot (no GT, I'm not calling you a broken robot, you just post funky).
Where do you come from, GT? I keep thinking if I could get the accent, I could hear the meaning.
I'm from Michigan and my accent is that I don't have one. My voice would be dissapointing nonetheless. But if I had to give an example to the way I speak, I would prolly say watch Die Hard and see how Willis talks during that movie and try to imagine him giving an argument but saying it in way that was trying to piss someone else off. I'm a master of that arrogant speaking voice that is pissing the other person off while I am having fun with it. So really, watch that movie and apply that voice to my words and imagine a sly grin on my face. I also have that cocky look Willis has too, so it matches well. But I'm a nice guy too.
~rougerum
Quote from: The Gold Trumpetwatch that movie and apply that voice to my words and imagine a sly grin on my face. I also have that cocky look Willis has too, so it matches well. But I'm a nice guy too.
Yippee-ki-yay, motherfucker! (https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imdb.com%2FPhotos%2FSs%2F0095016%2FDHscan10.jpg&hash=97ffa25bc24111851cc39b5baad42c9200108723)
haha, shit that was quick.
~rougerum
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetI'm from Michigan and my accent is that I don't have one.
Everyone has an accent. I have an American accent, with just a twist of Oklahoma
Quote from: The Gold Trumpetif I had to give an example to the way I speak, I would prolly say watch Die Hard and see how Willis talks during that movie
Okay... if you say so.
I imagine one of the agents from the Matrix, if they were a little kid.
But Oklahoma is towards the south, which is filled with an accent. It may be just me, but the general northern accent feels like there is just none at all. Most actors try to get that kind of non-placeable accent.
And really, I do sound that way, but maybe more low key though. Maybe it just seems lost when I get into discussing something, but it really is there.
~rougerum
okay... so you sound like you're tired all the time.
Trust me, it doesn't sound like an accent to you, but there is one... everyone has an accent, but I do know what you mean.
i met a guy from MI once whose voice could have landed a lead role in Fargo, dontha know.
THE ROYAL TENNENBAUMS is great. And it would be accurate to call it a "fairy tale." The word Wes Anderson used to was actually "fable."
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetPunchdrunk,
I agree it is entertaining to watch through how it executes its style, but that isn't the best of things to really have. The second time I watched it, the fluff of that entertainment quality began to lose appeal and I went looking for more and really didn't find it. It's entertainment value on first viewing seems to be the only thing really with the film.
How would it have been dissapointing in a no name was playing Glover's role? Sure, with already seen a known name playing it, it may be, but what importance did his character really hold in structure to the movie? His character was the man Anjelica Huston fell in love, but in the minimal time he got on screen, Glover stood around and talked. Glover's role was so small, and actually, it was a tool role, a role basically of the importance to drive Hackman's character into jealousy and wanting to gain back his family. That's it. You didn't reason out why said he was perfect so your disagreement was hard me to defend in the first place. I don't mind disagreement, but give me a fair shot.
Actually, the problem with so many characters didn't need to extend to Magnolia length or stay at its present form and give less time to each character, but really just needed some characters taken out completely. And even though a gasp may come from some fans of Anderson, don't worry. This has been done before. Olivier took out some characters when he filmed Hamlet not to just do so, but so he could have a sharper focus on Hamlet in order to deepen the power of his struggle. This movie has too many loose ends in its story and focus but refuses to get rid of it for fear it will lose its charm of cuteness when actually it has so much more to gain by doing so.
~rougerum
Trumpet,
First, the fact that you said Glover's character drove Royal to get his family back (or at least win back Huston's character) makes his character important enough to be in the film. Glover's character (in McKee's terms :( ) was the
inciting incident.....
Secondly, I suppose what it boils down to is whether you went to this movie looking for an astounding story. I'll agree with you that it doesn't have the
greatest story, but I found the characters so colorful and funny, that I let the lack of story slide. The combination of lack of story/abundance of character made the movie palatable for me.
Anyway, enough of my ranting. We all have our own opinions man. :)
PD,
I'm not sure if he is really the inciting character, or really the character that holds the excuse for the jealousy of Hackman's character. Nonetheless, time given to his build up and situation is minimal at best. The movie does not even identify why Anjelica Huston considers his marriage proposal and not any of the other suitors she met up with earlier when Glover does so. I did also let a lot slide, because it was entertaining to watch, but that can only go so far after trying to watch the movie all the time.
~rougerum
If the movie sucks, why do you watch it all the time??? :-D
It's quite apparent why Angelica Huston's character decides to marry Glover's character. He's a sweet, gentle accountant. Look at the husbands she'd had in the past....she's obviously ready for a quiet, unassuming gentleman instead of the standard fare of egomaniacs (i.e. Royal)....
I think we're starting to split hairs, although I do love spirited discussions :)
As insane as it may sound, I never really ever get mad during discussions focusing on a certain subject in depth. I love them and search out for them all the time here.
I think your assessment of Glover's character in importance to Huston really isn't all that clarifying. First off, in the montage detailing all the potential suitors, it can be reasonably said their were nice men among that crowd, even if rich, that didn't share the mean spirited qualities of Hackman. And second, I think you are trying to find answers more so here than really give them. I think since their is hardly any little reason given why Glover holds so true to Huston, people try to search for answers of interpretation to why he does as he stands there looking at her sincerely and being patient with her. Yes, those qualities can definitely be said to be of good ones for Huston in wanting to marry them, but they don't really stand though on her actually wanting to marry someone. There's more and whatever that more is, this movie won't say. Actually, it is a great idea to try to make a love story out of just actions and no explanation to why one sees so much in another, but this movie isn't searching for those mysteries, but showing this relationship as an example to forward another story. Glover acts like he is standing around for the conveniance of being in the shot while Huston talks to other members of her family. Of course I know that isn't true, but it feels like considering all he does.
~rougerum
Well, to lay to rest this whole Huston/Glover 'dilemma', let me just say this: perhaps Anderson wanted us to have our own opinion on why they got together. And as for the flashbacks to all the suitors, they were assholes man. Sorry, no ifs ands or buts.
Since I'm not in Wes's noggin, all I can really do is look for answers. Right? :)
OK, I will give to the montage. But to sum my opinion up, the idea of why Huston goes for Glover is obvious, and that is because he is true and honest. That's just a general idea though in a relationship with very very little importance to the movie.
~rougerum
Have to say The Royal Tenenbaums was my favorite film of 2001. I even viewed it three times in the theatre.
I agree... It seems as though some people found the film overstylized, but that's all very subjective. I think Anderson nicely employed lots of visuals to attain a certain tone- the same tone you might get reading one of J.D. Salinger's New York stories, or if you were to combine the sensibilities of Woody Allen and Ed Gorey.
I think the film is not intimate, but it still manages to be warm, despite (and maybe in part because) of its detachment and its objective stance. I don't think "objective" in this case means cold; this seems to be the objectivity of a child or childlike person for whom all the conventional labels of the world haven't necessarily been matched up to their "proper" object/place/person yet.
I thought the movie was charming, unsentimental, and very beautiful. The difference between this movie and a movie that might be warmer is that we're always aware that we're watching a movie- that this is an artificial recreation of the world around us. But then, so is every movie- I'd say Anderson's artificial recreation has much more whimsy and tenderness than most, which is a lot of what makes his vision unique.
Godardian,
I agree with you in many ways about the good qualities that Anderson in his approach to filmmaking, and even if I wasn't maybe able to get my points across clearly according to my thoughts, I still disagree in ways. I never had a problem with Anderson's style, my main problem is the story he is trying to operate it under. He feels like Fellini post 8 1/2 with his style fully intact and making daring films, but then trying to make a very typicle comedy or story out of that style. Instead of being able to fully explore, he is confined to the boundaries of the text and has to wrap up the movie in ways that seems unfufilling considering the style that is being used. The style is not there to make for those reasons of tidiness in a comedy, but to explore and be more about the feeling than anything else. I like Wes Anderson, but he seems way too indebted to the comedies of old yesterday and should instead honor them by the feeling instead of the structure. I think Igby Goes Down is able to succeed though because it is less about an apparent style and more about the story. The style for the most part is removed and when the movie finishes on a feeling of goodness, it does so with better execution because it embraces the characters more in its own way.
Also, if no one has done this yet, let me welcome you to the boards. You've said a lot of great things so far and hopefully we can disagree more in the future. This board has too much idealization on it thinking it is talking about movies. I think there is too much random talk about things not so interesting and there needs to be more challenging of points and discussion that can go beyond something two sentence fitting.
~rougerum
That's interesting... my main Igby Goes Down criticism was just what you mentioned, the out-of-place bits of too much manipulation. I thought there was a level of consistency and an even application of the style in Tenenbaums made it seem a very whole, very complete piece of work. I guess that makes my stance,"If you're gonna do it, do it, but don't just interject it in little dollops into an otherwise straightforward movie." 'Cos I liked Igby for the most part, but then every once in a while, out of step with the rest of it, the music would start blaring and he'd be running in slow motion, etc. Otherwise, a nice little movie.
Tennenbaums is amazingly consistent in its approach, but thats not the point. The point is that the movie, unlike Igby for the most part, is wrapped in its style and approach but is working in a story that has a pay off feel good moment at the end with the reuniting of the family. Tennebaums had better welcome with just showing the world in its own interesting vision and being introspective. Going for the very common pay off is not fitting to the distance the movie has to its character. It works on the level of more common films, but Igby Goes Down is able to approach its characters straight forward and also be amazingly smart in style at the same time to pull this pay off. Anderson blew it at the end of Rushmore with this easy way out that seemed like it was bringing the rest of the movie down one notch in creativity. Anderson needs to start exploring more in his writing and able to be for the purpose of displaying the feeling his style can utilize. I agree moments of Igby went too far, but I never felt that much intrusion because there was a lot of talent in the film.
~rougerum
I don't think he can get emotion across as PTA such as in PDL. But he manages to be colorful and innovative while keeping it fresh. Though it is dangerous going out on a ledge with characters and wackiness if you can't bring the plot up. He tries to be emotional, but it truly remains so comical. Which is a beautiful thing, but does it show a weakness? I think more a grand blending. I mean, the suicide scene. Great and powerful, and just then, concomitantly, the stretcher is being pushed down with Bill Murray and it has a humerous appeal with Murray the way he bounces and the motion of the shot. I mean - I think it's a happy mix. Some amazing shots however, especially Margot coming off the Greenline (which is used centrally in the suicide flashback). Now that was PTA beautiful. Anderson seems to borrow from a bit of PTA in that respect. Also, it's similiar during the TV interview with Eli Cash when he zooms in and there is so much underlying pain and that...silent slow zoom such as in Magnolia (here PTA probably is going back to Network though). Between plot and emotionally making it real, Anderson does a greater job though in the direction of esoteric and innovative, not so much conveying emotion in the plot. But hell, he does balance it. I was happy :-D
i think i like tenenbaums more than PDL.
I like Tenenbaums WAY more than PDL.
Quote from: SoNowThenI like Tenenbaums WAY more than PDL.
You do like PDL though, right?
By the way man, check out the avatar...isn't it beautiful? It's going to compliment GW really really well.
Yeah, that is a rockin' avatar. I can't wait for that release.
I liked PDL. It took me a couple watching, and some thought and discussion, but I like it. It's cute. Like I've said before, I'm kinda repulsed by Emily Watson, so I can't get into it, per se, like some. But it makes me laugh. :)
I found PDL to be marvelous. I think Royal Tenenbaums is more extensive and broad, such as Magnolia, though I would not rate one film above the other. They each reach out into their own areas, hard to compare.
Quote from: ebeamanBy the way man, check out the avatar...isn't it beautiful? It's going to compliment GW really really well.
i don't like this dvd cover art. it looks too contemporary and modern where the film had a more grounded feel to it. plus, i like the ATRG logo, that was badass and that's not on there. too bad.
Don't like it so much either...the poster was better
http://i.imdb.com/Photos/Ss/0299458/poster.jpg
Luke Wilson Skeptical About Returning To 'Royal Tenenbaums' Character
Source: MTV
Last year, director Wes Anderson told MTV News that he always thought of his characters as all existing in the same universe, making it possible, if not probable, that they could cross-over "in a very natural way," he said.
"It would be great to see [all the characters] meet," Jason Schwartzman added.
The whole thing was wildly hypothetical, of course, but still, it got us wondering if there could ever be a "Rushmore" or "Tenenbaums" sequel. What's not to like about that?
"I don't know if you can revisit any of those [characters]," Luke Wilson, who starred in Anderson's "The Royal Tenenbaums," "Rushmore," and "Bottle Rocket," told MTV News. "Something like 'Old School' could be more of a sequel or something like that – and that's one I've heard mentioned.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.harpersbazaar.com%2Fcm%2Fharpersbazaar%2Fimages%2FHBZ0908WR006-de-88182799.jpg&hash=9b69764a832be5589b1c715ae43e0e26babb1cce)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.harpersbazaar.com%2Fcm%2Fharpersbazaar%2Fimages%2FHBZ0908WR001-de.jpg&hash=9209f930ddec65a7918d2f1f2e361124e1499913)
The Royal Ronsons Lookbook
Check out the stylish siblings Mark, Samantha, and Charlotte Ronson in their first family photo shoot. Read the full-length article here (http://www.harpersbazaar.com/magazine/feature-articles/the-royal-ronsons-0908).
The one who's going as Richie is ridiculously good looking.
Yeah, I wish I was that riduculously good looking....sigh....
I watched this last night and I had forgotten how great it is.
I've been steadily losing interest in movies so I felt it was time to put something on that I hadn't seen in awhile and that I remember enjoying. It worked. There was a period from about 1999-2005 where I was watching everything but in the last few years I seem to only watch stuff that gets talked about at length here or stuff that is a must see like a new PTA flick. I've lost that passion that I once had for film and I don't know if it's just that I'm growing up and my interests are changing and with the added responsibility of being an adult, I just don't have time for movies like I used to or if it's just that movies these days just aren't what they were in the beginning of this decade. Whatever it is, I'm going to try my darndest to get my passion back and this was the first step. Tonight I watch something else I really enjoyed from that era. Either Talk to Her or maybe Soderbergh's Solaris which I really enjoyed when it came out but I'm curious to see how it holds up.
Anyways, Paltrow is really awesome in this. I think she gives the best performance out of everyone. Of course, she does have a lot to work with, but she is really fantastic in this.
My main beef with the film is how Royal seems to just change overnight. He goes from conniving, manipulative asshole to kind, caring individual all in the span of a 10 minute ark or so. It's like as soon as he has to take the job as the elevator doorman, he realizes what he needs to change and that's fine, but I just thought the whole transformation was a little too fast tracked since we spend the whole film seeing him a certain way.
It is over stylized, but in a good way. It has a lot of substance so the style is something that compliments everything so well. All the little details are so much fun. The dalmatian mice, Margot's missing finger, Richie's breakdown on the court, which I'm SO glad they filmed.
At times it ventures towards the brink of being over sentimental but it seems to stop just short of going over the edge. I really like when Mr. Sherman is getting ready for his wedding and Chas says, "You were married?" and Mr. Sherman says, "Yes, I'm a widower." and then Chas says, "I'm a widower, too" and Mr. Sherman puts his hand on Chas's shoulder and says, "I know you are, Chas" I found that very sweet without being manipulative.
The Eli Cash drug problem is something that I felt didn't add much to the film. I don't know if his addiction story arc was one that wasn't handled very well due to editing or if it turned out the way Wes wanted it too, but I really felt they could have gotten rid of the whole drug addiction thing and just made Eli the type of character who always wanted to be a Tenebaum and keeps reminding everyone about how he too can be considered a genius.
The pros of the film far outweigh the cons.
I'll give this a 9.1.
This film ages so well. I now love it even more than Rushmore. It's strange how very few of the ''film people'' I know dig this one. Anyways.
I too am losing a lot of interest in films, and it's strange because I'm known to my friends and family as the guy who sees everything. For the last couple years I've been reading a lot of synopsis in the paper juste so I can know what people are talking to me about.
I haven't even seen Inglorious Basterds yet, and I think I'll probably see it on on DVD(rip) in like 2 years.
Quote from: Stefen on June 03, 2009, 10:00:48 AM
The Eli Cash drug problem is something that I felt didn't add much to the film.
In a weird way, Eli is the catalyst for certain changes in the family's relationship dynamic. I don't think it was meant to add ALOT to the film, although Eli's involvement with Margot kind of unhinged some aspects of the world all the characters were living in.
The Tenenbaums were famous, rich, and smart, and a bit different from Eli on the outside. He tried so hard to fit in to a family where people were barely getting along with each other, and you have to wonder why. He is a prime example of an outsider, maybe the "fan of Wes Anderson", trying hard to fit into that world.
I think that if Chas hadn't gone crazy on Eli at the end, maybe Chas wouldn't have realized what kind of help he himself needed.
So anyways I'm late for work and over-analyzing a point. Hope you like my Eli take!!
Was just reading the imdb Trivia for this and came across this:
Fellow filmmaker Paul Thomas Anderson collaborated with Wes Anderson on the soundtrack.
Never heard anything like this before, has anyone heard a possible source for this?
no one's ever mentioned anything like that before, not wes not pt none of the producers.
Figured it was bullshit but a pretty random thing to make up.
i think a lot of people goto pta for input on their work. judd apatow does it a lot from what i've read.
In response to the losing interest in movies - I think there was a mini-Golden Age just a few years ago for 5 or 6 years - which was probably when a lot of us cut our teeth. Think of all those films coming out around that time. Now all those directors have moved on to mostly more mature themes and subjects or are taking very long between projects.
I'm thinking of Wes, PT, QT, Mendes, David O, Spike, Michel, and probably forgetting some (not to mention some more seasoned directors putting out some good works). A post Kubrick death surge perhaps?
Quote from: bigideas on November 16, 2009, 09:10:43 AM
A post Kubrick death surge perhaps?
naw, nice sentiment, but the majority of the best films by those you mention were completed or in the shooting stage when kubrick died. all their best films were in 1999
My theory, well if you know about film distribution you will probably agree, about the reason why there aren't good indie films coming out like the end of the 90s, very early 2000s.
Basicaly the huge indie hits of this period created a surge in indie film pre-sales to distributors etc. So that created a situation where you got people with almost no experience and a really not-so-great script-but-kinda-similar-to-the-hits getting money (not that much but a couple millions) to make terribly lame stuff with a face actor only to lose all or almost all the investment. So there's no indie pre-sales or almost anymore. Also, actors aren't as interested in joining indie crews as they were because so many got burnt by clueless directors. It's just gotten harder for everybody, talented or not.
Quote from: Pas Rap on November 16, 2009, 11:50:11 AM
My theory, well if you know about film distribution you will probably agree, about the reason why there aren't good indie films coming out like the end of the 90s, very early 2000s.
Basicaly the huge indie hits of this period created a surge in indie film pre-sales to distributors etc. So that created a situation where you got people with almost no experience and a really not-so-great script-but-kinda-similar-to-the-hits getting money (not that much but a couple millions) to make terribly lame stuff with a face actor only to lose all or almost all the investment. So there's no indie pre-sales or almost anymore. Also, actors aren't as interested in joining indie crews as they were because so many got burnt by clueless directors. It's just gotten harder for everybody, talented or not.
what are some examples of the movies/directors who burnt people?
indie pre-sales? I was not under the impression that it was a popular thing. a lot of big hit movies were without buyers until the festivals and markets. I might be wrong though.
movies like royal tenenbaums weren't really indie films though; they were funded by the studios. in fact, none of the people you mentioned made indie films. some of them made modestly budgeted studio films distributed by the studios' "indie wings" such as Focus, Fox Searchlight, Paramount Vantage...etc. and most of them have closed or re-consolidated or been gutted out in the past 2-3 years, except for Focus.
the money's just not there anymore. indie films started booming when Pulp Fiction came out, as producers realized that huge profit can be gained from low budget films, and this was also when VHS and DVDs were booming. the model for indie films kinda got appropriated by the bigger studios' indie wings, the audience became fickle, the market shrunk, and as the outlets become more and more complicated, the ticket and home video sales weren't half of what they used to be, so the directors that were doing very well 10 years ago now have a much harder time putting together their projects and the newcomers really aren't given shots like that anymore.
but still you're not talking about indie films. very few indie studios are making any money right now, and most of the new indie filmmakers work on a much lower budget (that annoying mumblecore movement, for example) and are creating a new system for outlets. but anyways, the short version is that, like any genre, the director-centric genre has its cycles and right now it's not doing so well.
ghostboy knows much more about this, I'm just babbling now.
indie was not part of my statement.
Quote from: bigideas on November 16, 2009, 01:54:59 PM
what are some examples of the movies/directors who burnt people?
Well of course by definition if a movie by a first time director with a 2 million budget made 50k we won't know anything about it.
Pete you're right though about these films not being ''indie'' per se... yes.
As for indie pre-sales, I haven't experienced it myself as you do in the US because here in Canada everything goes straight through the government first (funds all movie/TV made here...as soon as you get your gov financing you're gonna get private money and distribution...without gov money you might as well forget it (except recent exceptions like ''How I killed my mother'' that was 100% private and won a bunch of awards in Cannes). I worked in movie finance for a year in HSBC Bank Canada and saw a few really noname indie guys having a good enough script to get gov. interest and then pre-sales. But really rare stuff. We wouldn't even loan to anyone without Gov funding AND presales.
Maybe in the US it's another game though