“I can’t
argue against anything you’re saying. But then again, I don’t have to. Because
you’re twelve years old.”
-Captain Sharp
Because
of Wes Anderson’s distinctive style, many people have tried to imitate it,
often attempting to use it in comedic ways. They make videos of normal everyday
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 Anderson’s visual trademarks. The problem that I have with
this is that Wes Anderson’s style is so immensely distinct that it is nearly
impossible for anyone to properly imitate. This is also a problem I have with
this film: it feels like an imitation. It does not feel fully Wesian. A big
part of Anderson’s style is the quirks, and the odd and comedic dialogue. All
of this film seems to really have down about Anderson’s style is the camera
setup, and in some scene is doesn’t even have that. So for me, this, and not Bottle Rocket, is the least Andersony of
Wes Anderson’s films. It’s difficult for me to fully describe what makes this
both my least favorite of Wes Anderson’s films and still a masterpiece of some
kind, but that is what I will aim to do here.
Moonrise Kingdom certainly does have at
least some charm, visible from the very opening of the film. It begins
powerfully and continues on tenderly. But there is really something valuable to
Anderson’s films that’s absent here. It really feels, in a way, like a simple
independent or foreign film, with some inspiration from Wes Anderson. I used to
believe that it was quirky but not stylistic, but really it’s quite the
opposite. The imaginative, creative quirks that energized his earlier film
(particularly The Life Aquatic) are
far fewer here. It has some laughs and occasional oddities, but when one tries
to think of the film that would potentially fill 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.
As
for my opinion that Moonrise Kingdom
is still some kind of masterpiece, it’s now even more difficult to describe in
the context of what I’ve already written here. I’ll begin by expanding on the
style but focusing on the positives.
Like I said, to be sure, it is stylistic, but there are very few quirks
to 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 unbelievably tall treehouse, and binoculars
which are a magic power. These do contribute to it, but the style is where we
truly feel the most missing.
Another
element that really thrives, along with the aforementioned visual style, is the
soundtrack. The film opens brilliantly and loudly 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 is a far more controlled, classical, and symphonic
composition than his previous score. It is delicate and reserved yet playful.
Unfortunately, there is a sad absence of a Rolling Stones song, which is
present in all of Wes’ previous films. It could be said that Desplat makes up
for that with this brilliant soundtrack.
This
cast has a large number of child actors, including the main two characters:
Kara Hayward and Jared Gilman. They are absolutely excellent, and are, to be honest,
among the finest child actors I’ve ever seen in a film. Edward Norton and Tilda
Swinton are great additions to the Wes Anderson cast that carries on into The Grand Budapest Hotel. We also have
some tremendous cameos from splendid actors like Jason Schwartzman, and a cameo
from Eric Chase Anderson.
Also,
this film is absolutely filled, like never before, with heavily, enormously
depressed characters all around. It seems like in this film, children act like
adults, and adults act a lot like children at times. This is a theme that
brings up memories of the characters in 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 similarly misunderstood. Their similarities are demonstrated
in the ‘letters’ scene, as we get only parts of their letters to each other and
they merge seamlessly on into the next despite the fact that they’re
interruptions. But though Sam seems to really want to be loved and taken into a
loving home, Suzy seems oddly unaffected by the absolute 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 a great amount of
freedom. They’re really able to relate to each other in many ways, and that is
where their genuine love for each other 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 slow separation never is explained, and is
somewhat perplexing. One could 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 a symptom than a cause.
Scout
Master Ward, on the other hand, seems to be forming a healthy relationship with
a lady, Becky, on the side. The relationship is seen subtly developing
throughout the film, in the background of several scenes, beginning with the
offering of a cigarette, and then being confirmed at the end of the movie with
a picture of her on Ward’s desk. Hardly any dialogue is exchanged between the
two, but it is an entertaining and uplifting subplot.
Unfortunately,
it seems through all of these comments and references, I’ve only made separate
points for and against the film’s quality, and never actually had them confront
each other. So I will now. Though the quirks are lacking, and the style doesn’t
seem entirely developed, the emotional importance and moral message of the
film, which seems to be that love can genuinely be found, even by children and
broken love can be resolved, makes up for the film’s lacking parts. The
characters are what really make this film. Roman Coppola and Wes Anderson have
made an excellent 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
quite likely contemplated by more than just the two main characters, everything
does end happily. Beautiful relationships have developed at the end, and both
the adults and children have learned a good lesson. True, it is rather
stereotypical for a Wes Anderson movie, but the delivery of the message is just
different enough for it to be unique.
No comments:
Post a Comment