Mike:

Well, Jeffrey, a second viewing of Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou has neither inflamed my internationally envied hatred nor has it blossomed into that shameful love that comes with finally understanding something previously misunderstood. Your thoughtful, well-reasoned analysis/review/mash letter makes me wish I can retroactively enjoy a film that I don’t really enjoy that much. Instead it just highlights how appreciation of certain films (particularly those of Wes Anderson) is 50% the responsibility of the filmmaker and 50% the responsibility of the viewer (unlike something like, say, The Wizard of Oz, which only the biggest, droolingest dumbos would ever admit to disliking). I for one have an odd disconnect when it comes to Wes Anderson. I always recall liking his movies more than I actually do. This is probably because all of the essential Anderson trademarks are spot on: the guy has a strong visual style brimming with personality, an effective sense of humor, and great taste in music and actors. If his films are whimsical, as many critics contend (obviously Mr. Dinsmore is not among them), they are not whimsical to the point where they just become tedious exercises in glib preciousness, like Zach Braff’s vomit-inducing Garden State, a movie that surely would not have existed without Anderson’s influence.

Hey, Zach Braff, I can still see your head and upper arms. Next time make all of it go away.

At the risk of sounding like one of the Wes-bashers that Jeffrey rails against in his half of this piece, my problem with Anderson is still his approach to story and tone; the cat is all over the place and most of his films leave me wondering what the hell it was that I just watched. Take Rushmore, a picture that is fabulously, cynically hilarious for about three-quarters before it takes a baffling shift into morose introspection then switches gears yet again for a cheery, hand-holding conclusion that couldn’t be more antithetical to the movie’s brilliant beginning. It’s all very stylish, but what’s the point? At his worst, Anderson can allow an entire picture to be subsumed by style, which happened to the infuriating Darjeeling Limited (also known as Three Assholes Run in Slow Motion for 90 Minutes while Kinks Songs Play on the Soundtrack).

"I’m not dumb but I can’t understand why she walks like a woman and talks like a man…"

At the other end of the spectrum is The Royal Tenenbaums, Anderson’s first picture to indicate that he is actually capable of putting together a strong script before working up his wacky visuals and compiling an awesome mix tape for the soundtrack. The Royal Tenenbaums is not just great because it has a cast of compelling characters and a coherent story, but because there are no jarring tonal shifts. Unlike the oil and water structure of Rushmore, The Royal Tenebaums strikes a fully blended combination of daffy comedy and elegiac reflection throughout. Just as important is Gene Hackman’s exuberant performance, which provides a nice contrast to the somewhat monotone acting that is another trademark of Anderson’s films. It’s a great picture, and I highly recommend you check it out.

Message to Wes Anderson: More Hackmans, fewer Adrien Brodys…

One of the reasons I’m giving all of this background on Wes Anderson is because I think it’s necessary in understanding why his films work when they do and why they don’t when they don’t. Another is because I don’t have much to say about The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, and I wanted this review to be longer than four sentences. For me this film doesn’t really work; its silliness and solemnity never quite gelling, even though these elements are more integrated here than they are in Rushmore (which is still a considerably better film). Because it’s a Wes Anderson movie that isn’t The Darjeeling Limited, The Life Aquatic has its funny moments (the zany shoot-out with Philippine pirates, which is funny because it’s so out of place), a fabulous cast (Cate Blanchett, Willem Dafoe, Jeff Goldblum, and Bud Cort are all impressive additions to Anderson’s stock troupe), good music, and great visual style (Anderson adds animation to his bag of tricks, which he recently perfected with the very good Fantastic Mr. Fox). But again the movie leaves me a bit bewildered and unsatisfied. It’s entertaining but not edifying; tasty but far from nutritious, like a slice of pecan pie. At least it doesn’t give me the shits like pecan pie does. So I guess my summation is: “The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou: Doesn’t give me the shits. Watch The Royal Tenenbaums instead.”

Mike gives The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou… two-and-a-half Royal Tenenbaums!

Pages: 1 2