Wes Anderson in general - "The Grand Budapest Hotel" specifically

[Billy Dat]

Wes Anderson is my favorite director. That hasn't always been true. He and I are roughly the same age so his films didn't start coming out until I was already an adult, and by then he was competing with Scorsese, Spielberg, Spike Lee, Woody Allen, Richard Linklater, Pedro Almodovar, Hitchcock and many others for my affections. In fact, I don't think I declared him to be my favorite until recently, and that could change with time, but right now I look forward to one of his new movies the way I used to look forward to Christmas Day.

I know he is a polarizing figure in that there are a lot of ways to criticize his approach. Most of those criticisms are reasons why fans like me love everything he does:

-The "let's create a world" dollhouse, diorama unreal yet minutely detailed quality of his productions
-The perceived emotionless intellectuality
-The odd, sudden bursts of violence
-The 19th Century British Empire-esque colonization of foreign lands (read - its made for and about white people, even when the story involves non white people)

I am sure there are more. On the surface, it seems like a very insular, preppy fraternity, right down to the fact that he employs something of a repertory company of actors (The Wilson Brothers, Bill Murray, Jason Schwartzman, Angelica Huston, etc.)

But, I can't help but sit with a huge, bemused wide smile, interrupted by belly laughs, every time I watch one of his films.

I saw his latest, "The Grand Budapest Hotel", last night and think its awesome. It is one of his funniest and raciest yet. It contains all the usual Anderson touches, and I think big fans will be very satisfied.

For fans, I also recommend Matt Zoller Seitz recent coffee table Anderson investigation, made with Anderson's cooperation and active participation:
http://www.amazon.com/Anderson-Colle.../dp/081099741X

For the record, and I am interested in everyone else' list, here's my Anderson filmography ranked from favorite to least favorite, with the understanding that there isn't much difference in how much I like them all:

Favorite
1. The Royal Tennenbaums
2. Rushmore
3. The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou
4. The Grand Budapest Hotel
5. The Darjeeling Limited
6. Moonrise Kingdom
7. Fantastic Mr. Fox
8. Bottle Rocket

Note, as I read the Seitz book, I am going back and watching them all again so some of this order is impacted by the recency effect. I haven't seen the Darjeeling Limited since it came out so it may move up or down when it watch it again next week.

Any other huge Anderson fans out there?

[Jim3k]

But, I can't help but sit with a huge, bemused wide smile, interrupted by belly laughs, every time I watch one of his films.

I saw his latest, "The Grand Budapest Hotel", last night and think its awesome. It is one of his funniest and raciest yet. It contains all the usual Anderson touches, and I think big fans will be very satisfied.

I saw this over the weekend. I think, despite all my moviegoing experience, this is the first Anderson film I have seen.

First, let me say that it is very funny and worth seeing for that reason alone.

Nevertheless, it is fair to observe that Anderson has created a reality which is off-center in an irregular elliptical way. (Heck, I don't even understand what I just said. ) Yet, it's not like a science fiction world, where things make sense in a futuristic way. This film takes place in the 1930s where the world was beginning, particularly in eastern Europe where this is set, to spin out of control. So the fact that this film doesn't have a realistic center of gravity is actually consistent with its time.

Ralph Fiennes is terrific as the concierge of this period grand hotel. As such he is king of the hill. But the hill begins to collapse and he begins to slide into another reality, that of hanging on to his grand values as they slip away.

Anderson is nothing if not droll. He even labels props and scenery to explain to the audience what is happening. The gimmick enters the territory of the cartoonist--and I think that aptly describes what you get here. When did you ever hear of "Lobby Boy" as a job description, much less embroidered on a bellman cap.

It's worth seeing. R for language and a nude painting which might be inappropriate for preteens, but teens will not be shocked.

[Billy Dat]

It's worth seeing. R for language and a nude painting which might be inappropriate for preteens, but teens will not be shocked.

I am glad you liked it, and I would caution that there are also two very quick sex scenes in a montage that feature brief nudity and "sexual situations" - so be warned.

Jim3k - I think you should check out some of the back catalog. I think you've got the right take on Anderson. i think a lot of critics fail to recognize that pretty much all his films are comedies. I was laughing out loud at this one, especially some of the violence.

[Olympic Fan]

I'll probably see Anderson's latest ... I've seen all his previous films and while I think they are okay, I've never been all that impressed. Moonrise Kingdom was probably my favorite, but I can think of 10 Coen Brothers, two dozen Woody Allen films and every Quentin Tarantino movie that I liked better.

[johnb]

I love Wes Anderson's movies as well, and agree with Billy Dat's take on his strengths and weaknesses (though I wouldn't have been able to summarize them so well).

One thought about his worldview. I haven't studied him carefully, but his early experience might have colored his perspective. He went to a very academically strong private school in Houston (current average SAT's almost 2200 with 36% of the class being named Natl Merit SemiFinalist). He became friends with the Wilson brothers in college; they went to an all boys school in Dallas that was the closest approximation of Anderson's high school. Those schools had historically been virtually all white and reserved for the very smart children of privilege. Rushmore's manic interest in extra curricular activities is only a small exaggeration of the enthusiasm with which EC's are enjoyed at those schools. I'd guess that the hyper-intensity of focus, the energy required to create a new world, etc, is only a small step from his adolescent experience. And while every American city has similar such schools, most of them are not located in Texas, a place with a particular and culturally embedded sense of world domination.

Those schools have, interestingly, changed a lot in the last 20 years, with both places (St. John's and St. Mark's) now boasting relatively high percentages of students of color and of kids on scholarship. And both places make a clear effort to hire more varied speakers and teachers. If someone currently at one of those schools eventually becomes a filmmaker (or actor), he or she is likely to both look very different from, say, Wes Anderson or Owen Wilson, and see the world differently.

Oh, and while multi culturalism is definitely a good thing, and makes life more interesting, I kinda want my filmmaker to inhabit a very specific point of view--and it's not like Wes Anderson is the only filmmaker whose films reflect him very specifically; the same can be said for Billy's other favorite directors. Woody Allen, Spike Lee, Hitchcock, Scorsese, Speilberg... they all have a coherent sand unique worldview that consistently comes through in all of their films regardless of the ostensible topic.

[El_Diablo]

Wes Anderson's next film looks promising:

[Billy Dat]

Oh, and while multi culturalism is definitely a good thing, and makes life more interesting, I kinda want my filmmaker to inhabit a very specific point of view--and it's not like Wes Anderson is the only filmmaker whose films reflect him very specifically; the same can be said for Billy's other favorite directors. Woody Allen, Spike Lee, Hitchcock, Scorsese, Speilberg... they all have a coherent sand unique worldview that consistently comes through in all of their films regardless of the ostensible topic.

johnb - I appreciate all the context about Anderson's background - very interesting and helpful.

I highlighted your last paragraph because I think you make an interesting comparison. I watched Anderson discuss "Grand Budapest" on Charlie Rose, and Rose asked if he will always want to write his own films. Anderson answered that he is interested in writing his own films as long as he is inspired to write them. BUT, as someone who loves to make films, if the day comes when he "runs out of ideas", he'd be happy to make something that someone else wrote.

Its a bit of a cliche, but many artists do their best original work when they are on the young side. In the case of many of the directors in the list above, I think that there were all lot of stories they wanted to tell based on their formative experiences. Spike Lee did tons of "written, driector and produced" joints based in and around Brooklyn before "Malcolm X", and in later years has gone to the "one for you, one for me" formula of big Hollywood script or adaptation ("Oldboy") written by others and then one of his own personal movies ("Red Hook Summer"). Both Lee and Scorsese are also big into doing documentaries. Allen did tons of NYC-based stuff, aside from his comedies in other genres and time periods, until he branched out in his current European phase). I think that's what the critics are waiting for from Anderson - does he need to show other sides to be considered truly great? Personally, I could care less if he ever moves on from his current style. Tarantino, for example, only makes a film when he really feels it - so we don't get that many! I hope Anderson follows the Allen formula (not in his personal life!) of continually cranking them out. Obviously, it isn't a simple matter to get these things financed, especially these days.

[Billy Dat]

I love Wes Anderson's movies as well, and agree with Billy Dat's take on his strengths and weaknesses (though I wouldn't have been able to summarize them so well).

I appreciate the praise, but it certainly helps that I have been engrossed in the aforementioned Matt Zoller Seitz coffee table book!!!!!!!!

[OldPhiKap]

johnb - I appreciate all the context about Anderson's background - very interesting and helpful.

I highlighted your last paragraph because I think you make an interesting comparison. I watched Anderson discuss "Grand Budapest" on Charlie Rose, and Rose asked if he will always want to write his own films. Anderson answered that he is interested in writing his own films as long as he is inspired to write them. BUT, as someone who loves to make films, if the day comes when he "runs out of ideas", he'd be happy to make something that someone else wrote.

Its a bit of a cliche, but many artists do their best original work when they are on the young side. In the case of many of the directors in the list above, I think that there were all lot of stories they wanted to tell based on their formative experiences. Spike Lee did tons of "written, driector and produced" joints based in and around Brooklyn before "Malcolm X", and in later years has gone to the "one for you, one for me" formula of big Hollywood script or adaptation ("Oldboy") written by others and then one of his own personal movies ("Red Hook Summer"). Both Lee and Scorsese are also big into doing documentaries. Allen did tons of NYC-based stuff, aside from his comedies in other genres and time periods, until he branched out in his current European phase). I think that's what the critics are waiting for from Anderson - does he need to show other sides to be considered truly great? Personally, I could care less if he ever moves on from his current style. Tarantino, for example, only makes a film when he really feels it - so we don't get that many! I hope Anderson follows the Allen formula (not in his personal life!) of continually cranking them out. Obviously, it isn't a simple matter to get these things financed, especially these days.

Ccohen Brothers doing No Country For Old Men was extremely interesting, in that they put thier own unique stamp on a movie which is incredibly faithful to the book. (Other than they switched the focus from the sheriff to the story of Llewelen and Shagur). Certainly a departure from their typical original screenplay base.

[Billy Dat]

Ccohen Brothers doing No Country For Old Men was extremely interesting, in that they put thier own unique stamp on a movie which is incredibly faithful to the book. (Other than they switched the focus from the sheriff to the story of Llewelen and Shagur). Certainly a departure from their typical original screenplay base.

The Coen's are a great comparison for Anderson. At the comparable stage as Anderson, they had only directed their own original work...I think.

Maybe we can have a related conversation of The Auteur Theory?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auteur_theory

Who are the best current examples of auteurs working today? I think Anderson and the Coen's qualify. Almodovar, certainly. Lars Von Trier would be, too, although I don't really dig his stuff. Woody Allen is probably the definition at this point. Tarantino, certainly. Who else?

[OldPhiKap]

The Coen's are a great comparison for Anderson. At the comparable stage as Anderson, they had only directed their own original work...I think.

Maybe we can have a related conversation of The Auteur Theory?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auteur_theory

Who are the best current examples of auteurs working today? I think Anderson and the Coen's qualify. Almodovar, certainly. Lars Von Trier would be, too, although I don't really dig his stuff. Woody Allen is probably the definition at this point. Tarantino, certainly. Who else?

Spike Lee, although I do not know if he has done anything in a long time.

In an odd way, even though his work is never original, Clint Eastwood's directing has that quality at times (from, say, Bird forward). He does some industrial palp, sure, but his less-commercial works are pretty impressive. (I still think Unforgiven is a moderrn classic). But very different than say the Coens'.

[Billy Dat]

Spike Lee, although I do not know if he has done anything in a long time.

In an odd way, even though his work is never original, Clint Eastwood's directing has that quality at times (from, say, Bird forward). He does some industrial palp, sure, but his less-commercial works are pretty impressive. (I still think Unforgiven is a moderrn classic). But very different than say the Coens'.

Spike certainly was, and now is selectively. I honestly think the second part of his career has been highlighted by his documentaries rather than his original films or his direction of other's screenplays.

I think Clint has been auteur-like at times, but he's been so prolific and varied that it's tough to call him a classic auteur.

Here are some currently working directors we haven't mentioned that I think qualify:
Darren Aronofsky, Paul Thomas Anderson

I also feel like the following directors are auteur-ish in that their films always seem to be identifiable as directed by them and they often work from original screenplays:
Alexander Payne, Sofia Copolla, Spike Jonze

[OldPhiKap]

Spike certainly was, and now is selectively. I honestly think the second part of his career has been highlighted by his documentaries rather than his original films or his direction of other's screenplays.

I think Clint has been auteur-like at times, but he's been so prolific and varied that it's tough to call him a classic auteur.

Here are some currently working directors we haven't mentioned that I think qualify:
Darren Aronofsky, Paul Thomas Anderson

I also feel like the following directors are auteur-ish in that their films always seem to be identifiable as directed by them and they often work from original screenplays:
Alexander Payne, Sofia Copolla, Spike Jonze

To totally foul up or stretch the definition:

Ken Burns directs pieces that are based on facts derived by others, but woven into a unique and identifiable story all of his own. Original historical epics?

[Billy Dat]

To totally foul up or stretch the definition:

Ken Burns directs pieces that are based on facts derived by others, but woven into a unique and identifiable story all of his own. Original historical epics?

Nice - we need a new category - Auteurist documentarian. Burns is definitely one. The greatest is, perhaps, Errol Morris. The greatest for nefarious purposes was probably Leni Riefenstahl!

We should start a thread of auteurist DBR posters defined as, "you would know it was them even if the post was made anonymously" Greybeard certainly qualifies, as would Wheat.

[johnb]

Wes Anderson's next film looks promising:

.. ha!

[SoCalDukeFan]

I saw Grand Budapest Hotel on DVD.

I really do not know what all the fuss is about. Also my first Wes Anderson movie.

I thought is was clever but just never got into it.

Theory of Everything was the movie I liked the best this year.

SoCal

[gurufrisbee]

I liked Grand Budapest a lot. It was really good. Easily the best Anderson movie for me. I liked Moonrise and Darjeeling. Most of the rest of his have just been meh for me.

I don't know if he exactly fits everyone's definition of auteur, but my money the most creative director in Hollywood is Nolan and has been for a while now.

[Bostondevil]

I love The Grand Budapest Hotel. I think Ralph Fiennes is a tour de force. To borrow from Bill Simmons when discussing great performances, if anybody else had played the role, the movie would not have worked. I believe that.

And the movie itself has been in heavy rotation on HBO lately, I find myself turning to it for a few minutes at least, almost every time I notice that it is on.

[allenmurray]

Moonrise Kingdom may be one of the most charming movies I've ever seen.

[CameronBornAndBred]

We started watching GBH last night; we never have two hours to spend so we almost always watch in 2 nights. So far, I'm enjoying it a lot, but, I don't have that "oooh man I gotta know what happens next" feeling. Halfway through the movie, I was much more into MK, The Life Aquatic, and Rushmore. I'm still looking forward to the second half, and I am completely enjoying the characters. Besides his visual style, one of the things I enjoy most about Anderson's movies is his ability to create characters that are always flat and expressionless, and yet the most interesting people at the same time. It's like watching a morgue come to life as all the dead stiffs tell their amazing stories.