Baron Ricard von LooGAR Wrote:
Not surprisingly, Tanner and I see eye to eye in this thread.
Anderson WANTS subtext, but that doesn't mean its anything more than wankery. Sorry.
I'll wholly admit the wankery and it I find it amusing (only watched the Royals and The Life) and understand it as such. This critic's motives are pretty clear and comprehensive. That's what throws his opinion out the window for me. He's paranoid and searching for triggers to be offended. Whether or not Anderson wants to be offensive, argue away.
Quote:
Wes Anderson situates his art squarely in a world of whiteness: privileged, bookish, prudish, woebegone, tennis-playing, Kinks-scored, fusty. He's wise enough to make fun of it here and there, but in the end, there's something enamored and uncritical about his attitude toward the gaffes, crises, prejudices, and insularities of those he portrays.
This hints to me a social critic not a movie one. Don't parlay this article into thinking that a movie critic should be some social arbiter of our times. It's a movie. It's poorly written criticism in my inebriated opinion.
Besides what's wrong with upper class bread whiteys making movies. And Sofia is part Italian last I knew, and so am I. This article entices to incite. We're all from somwheres. I'm stopping here]<----wall
eter, aka 
usty 
halk
