The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou

[ono]

Lots of people at Xixax have a bittersweet, appreciative-yet-let-down attitude towards the film.  On IMDb the film has a 7.4/10, which is around three out of four stars, considering the best films ever get roughly between 8.2-9.1.  That is the public's approval rating, mind you.

Film is about creating memorable images, realizing them, and capturing them.  Many successful filmmakers are artists (some who I love, some who I don't like much at all), but they still are incredibly skilled at manufacturing indelible images.  Stanley Kubrick, Luis Bunuel and Salvador Dali, Sergei Eisenstein, David Lynch, Peter Greenaway.  Many of these guys are love-'em-or-hate-'em.

That you simply don't understand why the crayon pony fish scene is more than just a gimmick simply shows where you're coming from.  We read movies differently, and obviously this one didn't meet your expectations.  You were lost in the details, yes.  Anderson has finally made a film where he really demands a lot of the audience.  Those who are lost in the demand will be left behind.  This is evident, considering the path his other three movies have taken.  Rushmore is his most conventional, most accessible, most universal.  (I would say Bottle Rocket is even more so, but I've only seen bits and pieces so I can't fully judge it.)  Tenenbaums first truly experimented with a style that would potentially alienate people.  And here is Life Aquatic, not giving a damn what anyone thinks, asking you to take what he says and accept it or not, on those terms.  It is the "how" that really matters.  The father/son/revenge-for-a-friend stories have been done so many times.  But never like this.

[tpfkabi]

many people say Eleanor is the brains behind team zissou.
what is steve?

He's da Zissou.

[Gold Trumpet]

Wes Anderson is the cult filmmaker of the moment. Criticizing his work is as useful as criticizing Star Wars. Sides really are chosen for everyone already. That being said, I enjoyed this film more than Royal Tennebaums and little less than Rushmore. That's it. The average criticism could be that Anderson indulged too much on this one. That the film, for me the combination of theme and storyline of Rushmore (revenge, blacker humor) and Royal Tennebaums (dysfunctional family tenderness), went past its 90 minute catchiness and just dragged on, resolving itself with less clarity and certainty than his last two previous works. I don't really believe that criticism, but its the main one that went through my head while watching it. Anderson has made a successful film for his audience. He's developed his unique taste to a story that broadens his filmmaking abilities. He's made the success he's wanted and I'm happy for him. And besides, a lot of worst filmmakers could have the privelge he has right now.

[meatball]

Wes Anderson a talented director, and I'm eagerly awaiting his next film. However, I still think Life Aquatic was a stinker. If I'm stuck on the details, I'm stuck on the film and the film alone, NOT Wes Anderson behind it. It seems that many who appreciated Life Aquatic would rather watch the making-of-Life Aquatic or a documentary on Wes Anderson then look at the film by itself and face the fact that it isn't that good.

[Redlum]

i imagine it would 50/50 or maybe slightly towards the negative side.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/life_aquatic/

50/50

I still think Bottle Rocket is his best. It seems that with one central character like Dignen in Bottle Rocket there is less emphasis on the "details". It's a given that his films have had progressively more lavish production designs (a long way from punctuality badges to a full size, cutaway boat set) but is this because of a bigger budget/or Anderson finding his style/or scripts that have gradually become more about the ensemble?

Looking at the latter: Bottle rocket was about three guys at the most. Then there was Rushmore that had a whole school of characters to play with (yes Max was the center, as was Dignen, but in Rushmore the support is larger and more varied), Tenebaums was a whole family and more, and Aquatic was a pack of strays.

Its interesting that Anderson was concerned with peoples criticisms of his attention to detail yet still went on to make Aquatic which is probably his most adventurous film to date, in this area. I think that this element of his style is just to be expected now. I don't think its a weakness like a reliance on special effects could be, as his stories are always worthy of the work. I think its strange that somone who goes to such lengths to transport an audience into another world/environment should be criticised for doing so. Especially in the manner that he does it.

Film history has shown that a film on the ocean is always going to be a huge undertaking. Particularly one involving pirates and dynamite. But even with its flaws I still love it, and just enjoy watching it, even if I do find it to be the saddest of all of Andersons films. And from a filmmaking perspective its extremely impressive.

[modage]

Wes Anderson is the cult filmmaker of the moment. Criticizing his work is as useful as criticizing Star Wars. Sides really are chosen for everyone already.

well not really.  you arent a fan and said you basically liked the movie and most of his biggest fans here have been disappointed.  so i guess, he can be discussed just like real filmmakers after all and not dismissed as a novelty before looking at the actual film.

[Two Lane Blacktop]

you arent a fan and said you basically liked the movie and most of his biggest fans here have been disappointed.  so i guess, he can be discussed just like real filmmakers after all and not dismissed as a novelty before looking at the actual film.

I know nothing about Wes Anderson EXCEPT his films,  minus Bottle Rocket which I haven't seen, and I think The Life Aquatic might be my most favorite of his films.

BTW, this isn't meant as a rebuttal or answer, modage,  your comment just put me in mind of something I wanted to say.  

It's a hard call...  if I went back and watched Tenenbaums or Rushmore right now, who knows...  I know I sure loved both of them (and I saw them in order, as they hit theaters) but at the moment, after seeing The Life Aquatic once, it feels like my favorite.  

I think the undercurrent of sadness may be what makes this a richer film to me...  it was there in Tenenbaums, but you could ignore it beneath all the noise of that big, busy household.  At the beginning of The Life Aquatic, there was never any doubt Steve Zissou was reaching the end...  he'd lost his soulmate (Esteban), people were no longer interested in his films, and his ship was on borrowed time from the first time we saw it.  His whole life as he'd imagined it was over...  now what?  

It's not that things go wrong, as you get older, it's just that they play out.  Early on, you think, "I'm going to do THIS, I'm going to be THIS person," and indeed you are, but after a decade or so, the thing you're doing or the person you are stops making sense.  You have to stay aware of the world around you, and you have to change.  That's where Zissou is...  he's being forced into a change, and he HATES it because he was so comfortable where he was before, that he doesn't want to leave it.  But leave it he does, and the results aren't comfortable; they're awkward, and painful...  yet he had no other choice.  

It's kind of like being born.  Zissou meets the circumstances that life throws at him, and while he overcomes most of them, he fumbles a few important ones.  Even at 50, he's awkward, and still learning how to deal with jealousy, with intimacy, and with something he THINKS he knows well, leadership.  I think that's part of what The Life Aquatic is about, and I'm impressed as hell that a guy Anderson's age has this kind of understanding, about what it's like to have led a very fulfilled life, and then you have to stop living that life because it just reaches its natural conclusion, and yet you're still alive and kicking, so you have to figure out where to go from there.

2LB

[picolas]

nice.

[Gold Trumpet]

Wes Anderson is the cult filmmaker of the moment. Criticizing his work is as useful as criticizing Star Wars. Sides really are chosen for everyone already.

well not really.  you arent a fan and said you basically liked the movie and most of his biggest fans here have been disappointed.  so i guess, he can be discussed just like real filmmakers after all and not dismissed as a novelty before looking at the actual film.

I never said his biggest fans have been dissapointed with this movie at all. My take on the average criticism of the film would be closer to me channeling Mutinyco's likely explanation. I am not a fan of Wes Anderson, but I'm not feeling angst toward him either. When Royal Tennebaums came out, it really just fell flat for me. There I felt angst because it was really agreed upon as being great. I'm thinking Life Aquatic isn't getting its deserved recognition. And also, I always liked Bottle Rocket and most of Rushmore.

And yes, maybe's there room to criticize Wes considering many of his fans are doing that right now. I still think this movie has as lovely moments as anything he's ever done though.

[private witt]

yo, golden trumpet, where's that thumb goin?  anyway, go out and buy(download) all the Harry Belefonte songs you can for the fun of it.  who do y'all think actually ownes that boat noW?  probably the most expensive chunk of movie memoribeelyaa yet?  maybe not pound for pound but shit...is that thing on ebay?  I've got some cash I was saving for a 1991 mazda 323 but, fuck, why not...

[Bethie]

Who else wishes this "private witt" stayed private?

[meatball]

nice.

[modage]

TAKE 5 WITH WES ANDERSON

With every film, Wes Anderson retreats farther into the world of his imagination, drawing audiences deeper into the curious menagerie of quirky characters and situations that stow away there. The jump from 'Bottle Rocket' to 'Rushmore' was rather easy for moviegoers, with each story retaining enough ties to the real world that Anderson was able to pass his vaguely off-kilter scenarios off as a heist movie and coming-of-age story, respectively. But 'The Royal Tenenbaums' was a different story, the big-screen equivalent of a drawing-room puppet show about an eccentric family of weirdos, each played by actors dressed in perfect little uniforms and shuffled about through dollhouse rooms. In 'The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou,' Anderson's universe has expanded, and yet the glimpse into his mind has grown still more intimate. You want to take in all the scenery and decipher the many obsessions (literary arcana, scientific ephemera and, of course, cinematic references) that explain it. For Anderson's fans, we offer a head start as the director describes five movies that influenced him.

Day for Night (1973)
(dir: François Truffaut; starring: Jacqueline Bisset, Valentina Cortese)
From the point of view of my career, [Federico] Fellini and [François] Truffaut are two of the filmmakers who have inspired me the most, and '8 1/2' and 'Day for Night' both inform this movie a lot. They're movies about a filmmaker, and although 'Life Aquatic' is the story of an oceanographer, it's also about a filmmaker. [Those movies capture] a lot of the things that somebody who's making a movie goes through. '8 1/2' is the most glamorous, romanticized vision of an artist trying to find himself, whereas 'Day for Night' is the most naturalistic, affectionate and microscopic version of that. It's filled with details that are instantly recognizable to anybody who's ever made a movie, like the scene in the hotel hallway where he says, "What about this vase? We could use this in the scene with such-and-such," so they steal the vase, or walking down the street on the set and having a props guy come up to ask which gun you want and all that kind of stuff. [In 'Day for Night,'] those connections are so tangible, and it also has a very romantic feeling.

The Day of the Dolphin (1973)
(dir: Mike Nichols; starring: George C. Scott, Trish Van Devere)
I saw 'The Day of the Dolphin' five or six years ago because it was a Mike Nichols movie. It's not one of my favorite of Nichols' movies by any means, but it is very beautiful. He's made so many movies that are tremendously influential on everybody, but that one influenced 'The Life Aquatic' in that George C. Scott's character has this compound on an island that inspired a whole setting for our film, the research island that [Steve Zissou] has. [The idea for 'Life Aquatic'] also comes from PBS documentaries and wildlife stuff from the '70s, like the show 'Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom,' where they would go out in Africa and film animals and stuff.

L'Avventura (1960)
(dir: Michelangelo Antonioni; starring: Gabriele Ferzetti, Monica Vitti)
We looked at Michelangelo Antonioni's 'L'Avventura' when we were writing, and my director of photography and I watched [it again later]. It was always something we kept in our repertoire of things we would refer to, just because of its graphic look and location. [I just love the way Antonioni captures] this very beautiful feeling of '60s Italy and the Mediterranean. Shortly into the movie, we're on a boat, and then we're on these volcanic islands, and the characters are all these beautiful, but disillusioned rich people. 'L'Avventura' is a very mysterious movie. It's very spare, and visually, it's unlike anything I'd seen before. [A major component of 'Life Aquatic'] is the connections among these characters, but there's also a certain amount of it that's about the way they don't connect, and Antonioni is all about people not connecting. [He creates] this space among his characters, this kind of deep-focus relationship between them. The images are very chic, but there's a tension in them, and the story is the slenderest thread, it's barely there at all. This girl disappears, and we never find her, but there's this great mystery and pain among the characters.

Tess (1979)
(dir: Roman Polanski; starring: Nastassja Kinski, Peter Firth)
Polanski influenced me more than anybody else in terms of how I shoot my movies. He is the most clear and refined filmmaker that I can think of. His shots have a simplicity that is just very beautiful and elegant in the way they photograph actors. Polanski also has a similar taste to mine in terms of lenses and things like that. He made a number of movies that use the anamorphic widescreen format in exactly the way that most appeals to me. One that I really love is 'Tess,' his [adaptation] of 'Tess of the d'Urbervilles' with Nastassja Kinski. Polanski uses the widescreen to get three characters in the frame at once, then he gets as close as he possibly can, so it's almost like you're looking at three [separate] closeups. The way he shoots, he tries to stage the action in continuous shots and saves the real close-ups for when they're going to have the most impact. The thing with Polanski is that he makes his movies according to the idea of filming them from a point of view, and I think that is a good way to approach things, because then the audience is like a character.

Melvin and Howard (1980)
(dir: Jonathan Demme; starring: Jason Robards, Paul Le Mat)
Jonathan Demme is one of my favorites, and of his films, I like 'Melvin & Howard' a lot. It's about the relationship between Howard Hughes and this crazy oddball that he meets. Demme's movies are always about these sort of oddball characters, who are often outsiders, but I always feel like he's very attached to them, and the warmth that he feels towards those characters is always an important part of his movies. For instance, Melvin a is very appealing character, and I like the way this guy's life is turned upside down and how he responds to it. Demme has also made movies that are very intense, like 'Something Wild,' which goes to a very dark place. In 'Silence of the Lambs' and some of his later films, like 'Philadelphia,' he will have people look right into the lens, which is a strange thing to do, but he uses that, and I feel influenced in that respect. I really like 'Beloved' also. It took me two viewings to really get with it, but that movie is this strange literary adaptation where you get a strong sense that you're coming from a book, but it's filled with these very palpable sensations.

[Gold Trumpet]

I can't believe I missed this....room for a sparring match!

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.

First, because I'm American, about the guns... The theatrical touch worked better for Rushmore. A major theme of the story was Max Fischer's desire to be something great. He just never was in the way that made him happy and so when a dose of actual violence hits in the movie, it is as artificial as being in one of his plays because he could never be the character he played in it. Life Aquatic, on the other hand, is full out cinematic and actually very realistic considering everything. I expected a film way more artificial considering he filmed at Cinecitta (where Fellini worked) and the one time Fellini had his studio double for the sea it looked as fake and artificial as it could. That was the entire theme of Fellini's film though! Anderson's still in the realm of fantasy, but its the way he relies on realistic props and keeps the humor dry that he has of way of keeping it grounded on earth. And besides, the gun fights in the film are hardly the showmanship ones of others. *Spoiler* The first one basically ends in Muarry scaring off the pirates by shooting and missing them so much. And the second is more about the search before and escape after. Also, as you pointed out about the theatrical nature of the guns in Rushmore, its all about context.  

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.

Was going to disagree, but I won't. I liked it was the one aspect that did look fake, but I kept thinking during the film they could have found a better fake representation of sea creatures than those 8th grade CGI attempts. I wish they would have just made actual model fish and shark - but not the Jaws type. Again, I would have liked something out of Fellini's And the Ship Sails on..... (movie I was referencing up top)

[modage]

Was going to disagree, but I won't. I liked it was the one aspect that did look fake, but I kept thinking during the film they could have found a better fake representation of sea creatures than those 8th grade CGI attempts.

for the millionth time...
www.imdb.com/name/nm0783139/