. . . . interesting piece on wes anderson and his insufferable whiteness.

gotta say that this article is pretty much dead on and really forces you to look as his oeuvre a little differently.

Anyone watch Hotel Chevelier yet?

Its a prologue to The Darjeeling Limited and stars Jason Schwartzman and Natalie Portman (and she gets nekkkkid)

This sounds like something Gar would say, but nicer.

The article is pretty well-written. I enjoyed the read. I still like The Royal Tenenbaums though.

I didn't find any of that dead on

Any writer who describes The Squid & the Whale as excellent has lost me, already.

That's nothing to how Americans are portrayed in Indian, Hong Kong and Chinese films. They mostly either Slim Pickens or Lorenzo Lamas.

Yeah, that movie was painful. I don't think I've ever hated movie characters more than in TS&TW.

talk about oversensitivity

I'm not particularly a Wes Anderson fan. But, I see no reason to expect that a rich white guy making movies about other rich white guys wouldn't have a stilted, distant way of portraying his central characters' relationships with people of other races. That's the world we live in. It's a shame, but I find a movie that shows these characters so far removed from most people of other races they interact with doing so in an awkward, even an offensive manner, more honest than something showing a bunch of upper crust white boys that somehow have a deep understanding of those beneath them on the socio economic ladder.

I would tend to agree that it reflects poorly on our society, but as far as film making goes, why would you expect someone that in a movie where people setting out from their golden towers, those people would behave less than admirably to those they encounter?

Yeah, I stopped reading it when the spoiler alert came up in the article. I don't know why some people have to delve deep into every movie to find what it has to do with race, ethnicity or sex. Is it possible it has literally nothing to do with it, since it is a quirky, eccentric film by a person who does quirky films that always revolve around a bizarre family or a cast of social misfits who band together.
It was an interesting read, but I agree with Tanner, this author is oversensitive about it all.

because it's an art form and consciously or subconsciously there are subtle messages about percieved reality/society from the director's point of view; rather, more directly the editor's point of view since they are the ones who actually put the cuts together. I am assuming, though, that Anderson is pretty involved in the editing process as well.

Every artform has a message. Some are more blatant than others, and some more intentional than others, but just because you don't think it has anything to do with race, ethnicity, gender, politics, or whatever doesn't mean that sublte texts don't exist within the content of a film. The point is not to prove that Anderson is intentionally a bigoted rich white guy. The point is that the writer of that article gets that message from his critical analysis of the film. Truth is subjective in this case, and I think the author of this article made a pretty good case for his subjectivity.

That's just my thoughts on it anyway.

I completely understand that, I should have said I don't especially like the fact that this happens because sometimes the message is simply crude Dick and Fart jokes and then some art/social critic takes the piss out of it all.
I know I didn't have to read the article and thus could have avoided his critical analyzation, but I have to ask why there is a need to go to such depths to critically analyze a filmaker who generally does innocuous indie films.
I'm clearly being hypocritical saying most of this, since I went to Grad School to study International Politics, and Political Scientists do the exact same thing to the most mundane political events. It's his prerogative to do this, and it clearly stimulates discussion. I just think we ruin the art sometimes by dwelling on it in this manner.

isn't that the whole point of literary/artisitic criticism. . . understanding a piece of art as more than just a tableau? i think that piece is well written and is thought-provoking at the very least and, in that respect, it's successful in being more than a standard "i liked it" or "i hated it" movie critic drivel.

hockney he's not, but i'd put wes anderson squarely in the auteur category. i mean, i can understand not analyzing the lastest movie from "the rock", but anderson's films are going to have staying power much in the same way coppola's generation in the 70's (a huge influence on him) do.

i'm not saying i don't like wes anderson films, but it's nice to read something like that that gives you a new way to look as something so familiar. that's all.

Maybe I'm too cycnical, but I think when people dig this deep on a film of this type, they're basically just looking for excuses not to like something.

But Anderson films, at least in my perception, are intended to have depth. It's not like Anderson films are in the same category as Austin Powers films. However, every film has something to do with society at large, whether or not the story itself has anything to do with it or not.

Pussy Galore being raped into heterosexuality has nothing to do with the story of Goldfinger, but it has a lot to do with the portrayal and view of women in that era, IMO.

There is a depth to Wes Anderson's film, but I don't necessarily believe it involves broad social issues, and has more to do with human foibles and the emotional attachment we have to the flawed humanity of his characters.
Richie Tennebaum attempting suicide due to his love for his adopted sister is quite a bit different than Pussy Galore. On its face, the overtly sexual names of Bond girls shows there is a major issue with the portrayal of woman.

every movie, painting, poem, novel, etc has subtext whether or not one chooses to see it. the fact that you don't believe that anderson is intentionally choosing to portray these themes only makes it more important to foster discourse. if folks don't want to engage in this or consider it being overly sensitive doesn't make the points inherently incorrect even if what the guy is saying could be considered a tad inflammatory.

there's a ton of good discussions about the article in slate's discussion boards which they call "the fray". lots of solid support on both sides of this....

well i guess now i have to go see it. dude says it's his most "obnoxious" film

I think you are taking liberties with Anderson's influence without giving reason why. Comparing his legacy can easily be seen as a stretch at best. And b/c Copola influenced him doesn't necessarily back that claim.

Yeah, you pretty much said exactly what I said. Yay team.

oh that band sucks.


and if anyone wants to download hotel chevalier, there's links here.

The whole discourse thing is kind of bullshit. The world has subtext not just art and we all have misconcieved notions. I can take any movie and probably find something that is misconcieved and that can be construed to be offensive to someone. Big deal.

So are you saying that something has to be blatantly misconceived or intentionally so for someone to be justified in their distaste for something? I think there are varying degrees. Sure, it may be more far-fetched to start blathering on about misogynistic/racist undertones of the Die Hard films than to discuss something like what the article references, but that doesn't mean critical analysis is "bullshit' or lacks validity. IMO, an Anderson movie that tries to push itself off as being "important" on some level surely is justified in receiving a greater amount of scrutiny than Princess Diaries.

So because a movie claims to be important, it deserves more scrutinity? I think can think of a several arguments of why Die Hard and the Princess Diaries are more "important" than Bottle Rocket

And I don't think I stated "intentional" as the standard either. It doesn't have to Birth of Nations to warrant discussion.

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.