Simply stated, Wes Anderson is not the most original presence
in American film comedy since Preston Strurges. For him to be so, we’d have to
go back in time and obliterate works by the Coen Brothers, Stanley Kubrick, and
above all, Woody Allen. Kent Jones was a schmuck for writing his essay that
declared Anderson such a god, and Anderson is now a fat-headed buffoon for
reprinting it, in its entirety -- updated, of course -- as one of two booklets
that accompany The Criterion Collection DVD of The Royal Tenenbaums.
I like The Royal Tenenbaums. It was one of my favorite releases of 2001.
This double-disk DVD set is, however, a pompous bunch of crap.
Wes Anderson’s cinematic universe is perfectly represented by his brother
Eric’s cartoons. They’re intelligently conceived, simply drawn, and offer a
child’s point of view on subjects which are ultimately adult. Eric’s
drawings accompany every aspect of the DVD set, from the box to the booklets to
the special features. The cartoons are so earnest and naive (and cute), that you
can’t help but like them. Ditto for Wes’ films.
That said, Eric Anderson’s drawings are no Sistine Chapel.
Ditto for Wes’ films.
The Royal Tenenbaums is a funny, often moving portrait of a dysfunctional
Upper-East Side Manhattan family. The performances are all top-notch; I even
found myself appreciating Gwyneth Paltrow’s Margot, overcoming a
predisposition to disliking her (nepotism, hype). Bill Murray continued his
excellent work from Anderson’s superior Rushmore, with another melancholy, understated performance. And Gene Hackman gave what was, in my
opinion, the year’s best performance by a male lead. The drama is never less
than engrossing, and Robert Yeoman’s cinematography builds nicely on themes
established with Anderson on their two previous outings.
My problem with the movie is that I felt Wes Anderson was retracing over certain
beats from Rushmore. In that 1998 film he emerged with a distinct, though
referential, visual style that relied on symmetrical wide-angle compositions.
He’s maintained that approach here, yet where it once seemed fresh it now
comes across as forced. Much of the dramatic structure seems to have been transferred, as well, and I’d think more of it if I hadn’t seen it
already. Like Quentin Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction, which self-consciously
geared an established style toward the masses, Anderson has fallen into the same
trap. Like Tarantino, he’s going to have to switch gears next and show us what
else he can do.
Also, I found myself unimpressed by Wes Anderson’s commentary. It seemed void
of any great insight into his work, unlike say, Francis Ford Coppola’s on his
newly released slate from the 1970s. While Anderson’s ability to preconceive
his films down to tiny details is fascinating in Albert Maysles’ documentary
footage, he never offers any sufficient justifications for his decisions. And when he asks for a marker to color in a character’s head on a
mural, far be it from Julie Sloane to say no, even though her reaction to his
request is obviously masked.
The Criterion Collection Rushmore DVD is one of my favorites. It was
surprising to see a small film receive such lavish treatment. I was also new to
Anderson’s work and hadn’t been blown away by his debut effort Bottle
Rocket. Whereas the Rushmore set contained only one disk, and with
it, more extras, there’s no reason other than ego for The Royal Tenenbaums
set to include two, plus a book-shaped sleeve.
Perhaps, my biggest problem lies not with Anderson (Who can blame an artist for
having an ego?), but with the critical society that chooses to anoint novice
filmmakers -- and young ones, I might add -- as geniuses. It’s the Orson
Welles syndrome. This has to stop. Superlatives are opiates to artists. The
studios love them. The PR people love them. The writers of the superlatives get
to be reprinted and feel that they, too, are geniuses by association. This might
be great for promotion and marketing, but it’s completely out of proportion.
Will it stop any time soon? No. There’s nobody of any stature who’d want it
to. What we need are filmmakers with enough modesty to recognize poppycock and
treat it as such.
Wes Anderson is a promising young filmmaker. The Royal Tenenbaums is a very good modern film. But that’s it.
-Jamie Stuart
-Copyright 2002 by
Jamie Stuart