“I can’t argue against
anything you’re saying. But then again, I don’t have to. Because you’re twelve
years old.”
Because
of Wes Anderson’s distinctive style, many have tried to imitate it, often in
comedic ways. They make videos of normal activities or films or even film
credits, and describe them as ‘In the style of Wes Anderson’. People comment on
these videos, and describe them as perfectly imitating the style. The problem I
have with this is that Wes Anderson’s style is so distinct, that it’s near impossible to imitate. And that’s a
problem I also have with this film in a way: it feels like an imitation. It
doesn’t feel fully Wesian. A big part of Anderson’s style is the quirks and the
odd, comedic dialogue. All this film seems to really have down about the style
is the camera moves (and in some scenes it doesn’t even have that). So, for me,
this, not Bottle Rocket, is the least
Andersony of Wes Anderson’s films. It’s difficult for me to fully describe what
makes this my least favorite of Wes Anderson’s films, yet still a masterpiece
of some kind, but that’s what I’ll aim to do here.
Moonrise Kingdom certainly has some
charm, visible from the very opening. It starts powerfully, and continues on
tenderly. But there’s really something valuable to Wes Anderson’s films that’s
missing here. It feels like an independent or foreign film, with some Wes
Anderson inspiration. I used to believe that it was quirky but not stylistic, but
it’s really quite the opposite. The imaginative, creative quirks that energized
his previous films (especially The Life
Aquatic) are absent here. It has some laughs and oddities, but when one
tries to think of the film that would bridge a gap between Fantastic Mr. Fox and The
Grand Budapest Hotel, this film does not fit. In fact, it would seem more
logical for one to come directly after the other than have this film in
between. A minor cause of this could be the fact that it’s the first Anderson
film without a Rolling Stones song.
As
for my opinion that it is still a masterpiece, it is now even more difficult to
describe in the context of what I’ve already written. I’ll begin by expanding
on the style but focusing on the positives. Like I said, it’s stylistic to be
sure, but there are very few quirks to be found. The camera style is heavily
evident and often traditionally Andersonian, with a large use of symmetry,
lateral whip-pans and close-up inserts of handwritten letters. Among the few
quirks to be found, are a character named Social Services, an enormously tall
treehouse, and binoculars that are a magical power. These do contribute to it,
but the style is where we truly feel the most absence.
Another
element that thrives is the soundtrack. The film opens brilliantly with
Benjamin Britten’s ‘Young Person’s Guide to the Orchestra’. It continues with a
score from Alexandre Desplat, his second contribution to Anderson’s
filmography. It’s far more classical and symphonic than his previous score,
delicate yet playful. I noted earlier, also, the missing element of a Rolling
Stones song. It could be said that Desplat makes up for that.
The
cast has a large number of child actors, including the main two: Kara Hayward
and Jared Gilman. They are absolutely excellent and are among the finest child
actors I've seen in a film. Edward Norton and Tilda Swinton are also great
additions to the Wes Anderson cast that carries on into The Grand Budapest
Hotel. We also have some tremendous cameos from Jason Schwartzman and Eric
Chase Anderson in the film.
Also this film is absolutely filled, like never before, with heavily
depressed characters all around. It seems like in this film, children act like
adults and adults act like children, a theme that echoes Rushmore. Sam Shakusky
seems to miss his biological parents a lot, especially his mother, as he keeps
a pin that she gave him. He's very misunderstood by his foster parents. Suzy is
also misunderstood, but seems oddly unaffected by the wreckage of her parents'
marriage. This is possibly because she wishes to be an orphan. When the two,
Sam and Suzy, finally 'elope', it gives them both freedom and escape. They're
able to relate to each other in many ways, and that is where their genuine love
springs up. But the other primary relationship in the film only seems to be
collapsing: that of Suzy's parents, the Bishops. The reason for their disconnection
never seems to be explained, and is somewhat perplexing. One would at first
blame it on Mrs. Bishop's affair with Captain Sharp, the 'sad, dumb police
man', but it seems as if that would be more of an effect than a cause.
Scout Master Ward, on the other hand, seems to be forming a relationship
with an unnamed lady on the side. The relationship is seen subtly developing in
the background of several scenes throughout the film, starting with the offer
of a cigarette, and being confirmed at the end with a picture of her on Ward's
desk. Hardly any dialogue is exchanged between the two, but it's an entertaining
and encouraging sub-plot.
Unfortunately, it seems through all these comments I've only made points
for and against the film, and never had them confront each other. So I will
here. Though the quirks are rather lacking and the style doesn't seem fully
developed, the emotional importance and moral message of the film, which seems
to be that love can be found even by children, some of which today think
thoughts as deep as the children in this film, and can be resolved, makes up
for the films lacking areas. The characters are what really make this film.
Roman Coppola and Wes Anderson have made a script about a childhood romance that
is, on the surface, Anderson's most depressing work but is on a deeper level,
greatly inspiring. Though the road to the end of the film is dark and
depressing and suicide is likely contemplated by more than only the two main
characters, everything ends happily. Beautiful relationships have developed,
and the adults and children have learned a lesson. Rather stereotypical
sounding for a Wes Anderson film, but the delivery is just different enough for
it to be unique.
No comments:
Post a Comment