The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou

[tpfkabi]

go back to one of my other posts for talk about some clever editing.

the theatre i went must not have been projecting it quite right because when there were some titles in the bottom left i couldn't quite read them.

[Pozer]

This just isn't good. It's in the realm of Hudson Hawk.

This statement is completely false by the way.
Why did you think it was so bad? And did you dig any of the humor or any of it aside from production design?
People keep saying things like "it doesn't work" but how so? I thought it worked just fine and was in tune with it's format and what it was trying to achieve and all that.

[samsong]

So much to love here that I'm upset about not having noticed the first time.  There are few things as endearing, funny, and beautiful as Bill Murray holding a model saying, "Let me tell you about my boat" (by the way that shot reminded me of the picture Buster Keaton gives his girlfriend in The General), or when he goes on talking about it and says that he thought up one of its feautres in a dream.  The innocence I've appreciated in his previous films is here in full force, not as accesible or even as subtle but more potent and beautiful than ever.  The jaguar shark scene just might be my favorite moment in any Wes Anderson film ever.

Seeing this a second time proved to be a solution to what I've been wondering about the film ever since I saw it last month, and that was whether or not his departure from his normal style was good or not.  The Life Aquatic is an undeniably lesser film than his previous works in terms of structure; it's his most uneven film.  The middle section does drag and yes, it does meander, does get overly whimsical, is a little too clever for its own good, and isn't as tightly constructed as his other films, which I was expecting from this one.  His other three films all benefit from a sense of great preparation, where every shot and every cut was calculated beforehand resulting in meticulousy crafted, fine pieced of cinema.  

As obvious as a parallel as this may be, Wes is, at this point, like Zissou in the film; through cinema he is trying to show us something that has, until this point been exclusive to him.  There's Robert Bresson quote ("Make visible what, without you, might perhaps never have been seen.") that I think Anderson is now striving to do as an artist.  Zissou in the film is the only one who had seen the jaguar shark and spends the film in pursuit of it, at first to kill it but you get the sense by the time they see the shark that he never wanted to kill it, just see it again and show it to other people, that his tenacity and all the trouble he went through was founded in a desire to share something.  Why else make a film about it?

Zissou isn't perfect in his pursuit for the shark and neither is Anderson, but in making such an uneven, flawed film, the poem "Delight in Disorder" by Robert Herrick comes to mind; Anderson breaking away from his own conventions and the expectations of just about everyone is exciting, a brave search for self and expanding his capabilities as a filmmaker.  That or it just seems that way.  For all I know this was an easier film to make than his previous three works because it's so personal (this is his most personal film).  What I was once unsure about I am now confident -- Wes Anderson's departure is without a doubt a good, if not great thing resulting in what I honestly think is his best film despite its flaws.  Those who stick around and dilligently follow Anderson with his imperfections like I did the second time watching this will be greatly rewarded.  The climax that I once found strangely poignant is now one of the most deeply resonant and moving moments in all of the films I've seen this year and it left me in tears.

What this all comes down to is that I was wrong the first time and absolute adore this movie with every fiber of my being.

[pete]

This just isn't good. It's in the realm of Hudson Hawk.

This statement is completely false by the way.
Why did you think it was so bad? And did you dig any of the humor or any of it aside from production design?
People keep saying things like "it doesn't work" but how so? I thought it worked just fine and was in tune with it's format and what it was trying to achieve and all that.

he won't be able to answer you anymore; he's done with this board.

[AntiDumbFrogQuestion]

Hudson Hawk Schmudson Schmawk.  

Despite the tightness of Tenenbaums and Rushmore, I think that led to their emotions not hitting home for me.  Real life is slower and more freed up, and there was so much unexpected stuff in this movie.  Great!!! I love alot of moments in Wes Anderson films, but this is the first one I almost cried watching.  And the



MAJOR FUCKING END-OF-THE-MOVIE TYPE-SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS!!!!




part with Klaus' nephew and the uniform "joining the team" was such a surprise even though it's in the previews.
The red and white full screen during the copter crash was pretty visually brilliant if you ask me, almost like Kubrick.
And maybe this is a movie about Wes Anderson not always going to do the same thing over and over again.  I mean, when all the Wes Fans saw the slow-mo and thought "no way! this can't be IT!" we soon found out there was MORE! A regularly-paced ending.  Yah, that's new!
After all, "This is the Adventure."





END O' SPOILAHS!!!!



So Far, I like Bottle Rocket and The Life Aquatic the best.  They're worlds apart but I think they're Wes Anderson's freshest works.
Shoot me with your Rushmore/Tenenbaum arrows and watch them bounce off me!


Now just wait for the next PT Anderson movie to come out and watch me write praise all over that board.

[ThurstonPowell]

ENDING SPOILERS AHEAD:

No one's pointed this out yet, but I thought it was funny how the ending credit sequence, with everyone stepping in behind/alongside Steve as they walk to the Belafonte, was an "Buckaroo Bonzai" homage (minus the choreography, plus Jeff Goldblum).  First time that's happened.

[RegularKarate]

Of course... Buckaroo Bonzai... good catch

I really liked this one, not much to say that hasn't been said... I feel it's the weakest of his films (yes, including Bottle Rocket whoever just said that!), but still great.

It does worry me that he's losening the connection between stylistic tricks like the music cues and the actual story.

Spoils:

Ned is dead, they weren't filming his death and we watched him die.

[Jeremy Blackman]

I loved the movie, because it had as much Wes Anderson as any of his other movies, but...



LOTS OF EXTREME SPOILERS



Guns and CGI in a Wes Anderson movie is just wrong. I felt like those scenes should have been more theatrical (and less cinematic) like Max Fischer's Serpico production or something. The CGI creatures really took me out of the movie. At least they looked like claymation instead of George Lucas animation, but in the end I'd rather not see fake invented fishes in a Wes Anderson movie. The shark is enough.

But I still loved the movie. I thought it was going to end for the last 45 minutes. This movie is possibly the least predictable Wes Anderson movie, which is really amazing when you think about it, because it's a revenge movie, it's a father/son movie, it's a mid-life crisis movie, and it's a washed-up idol movie. It should be predictable.

I think this is the kind of movie you have to see twice, because it needs to be seen with the plot out of the way.

There were definitely shades of Royal Tenenbaum in Steve Zissou. Do Gene Hackman and Bill Murray have just different interpretations of the same character? (remember the "sinking battleship" thing?)

The scene with the coffin sinking in front of Angelica Houston is the greatest moment of the movie... I almost cried when I saw that.

[pete]

but there were guns in both bottle rocket and rushmore!  plus, it wasn't CGI, it was claymation or something, right?
I met Owen Wilson's aunt today.  She came into my movie theater.  I commended Owen's performance in Pluto Nash and Shanghai Knights, ESPECIALLY Shanghai Knights.  she laughed.  sorry for the lame story.

[russiasusha]

There is no CGI in this film.  It is all stop-motion provided by the guy that did Nightmare Before Christmas and James and the Giant Peach.

*Spoilers*










My favorite shot was the stockfootage, shown after Ned's death, of wilson and murrey pointing their fingers to the left of the screen, Bottle Rocket cover style (it's weird b/c I have always hated that cover.)

[Jeremy Blackman]

SPOILERS

but there were guns in both bottle rocket and rushmore!

But they were like theatrical props. There wasn't like death and murder and stuff or serious cinematic violent action. Like the moment when Jeff Goldblum was shot... that was disturbing. And I'm not saying it's a bad thing, it's just different. Actually I would love to see a really violent Wes Anderson movie... it would be mindblowingly surreal.

plus, it wasn't CGI, it was claymation or something, right?

Alright, let's call it animation. It had about half the feeling of CGI, which was enough to take me out of the movie. But really, all the silly fish they created, it's just not worth it (aside from the shark).

[Pozer]

Alright, let's call it animation. It had about half the feeling of CGI, which was enough to take me out of the movie. But really, all the silly fish they created, it's just not worth it (aside from the shark).

Really? I thought they were nice touches. It worked with this type of movie and I found myself smiling everytime it appeared.

[samsong]

Alright, let's call it animation. It had about half the feeling of CGI, which was enough to take me out of the movie. But really, all the silly fish they created, it's just not worth it (aside from the shark).

Really? I thought they were nice touches. It worked with this type of movie and I found myself smiling everytime it appeared.

I liked them too.  They put an emphasis on the childlike sense of innocence and imagination that Anderson seemed to be going for.  That and they were just amusing in and of themselves not to mention visually pleasing... not in a distracting way, either.  They're like visual details that serve the same purpose as Zissou saying, "Let me tell you about my boat" as if it were show-and-tell.

[tpfkabi]

SPOILER



was the mating crab thing supposed to be a joke? it looked to me like one killed the other.

[AntiDumbFrogQuestion]

SPOILERS HERE TOO!!!!

SPOILERS

but there were guns in both bottle rocket and rushmore!

But they were like theatrical props. There wasn't like death and murder and stuff or serious cinematic violent action. Like the moment when Jeff Goldblum was shot... that was disturbing. And I'm not saying it's a bad thing, it's just different. Actually I would love to see a really violent Wes Anderson movie... it would be mindblowingly surreal.

I read an article somewhere in which Anderson said people ask him why he doesn't go for anything violent in his movies, and he responded by saying he's seen enough of those movies and just wasn't interested in doin it at the time.  I have to say that the violence seemed quite effective in genuinely scaring people during the movie.

My friend said that he would rather the Jag Shark pick up and eat people during the course of the movie, and I told him that would have made the movie S-U-C-K.  We've seen that kind of shit enough!!!
And besides, that's not what the movie was about.

Speaking of surreal, and mindblowingly...I kinda think this movie WAS =D

As for theCrabThing  I think it was supposed to be a little symbolic of what was happening between Eleanor and Steve.  There's alot of looking to nature in this film as something simple and amazing and relatable.
I reallly love that swimming lizard =D


Again, Bravo, Loved Every Second of This Movie, Hope I Will Again The End