|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Have any of you read Eileen Jones's critique of the film? It's right here, in Jacobin-it's a hard-left rag, and she hates it. I really enjoyed the movie, but it's fun to read takedowns of stuff you like. Forces you to examine it in a new light. I generally like Jacobin but I don't fully understand this review. Jones's critique resembles the common criticism of Wes Anderson: he makes gilded, all-style-no-substance, overly 'Wes Anderson-y' films. She ascribes a lot of meaninglessness to the film: the nesting narration, the different appearances of young/old Gustave and Zero, the casual nature of death, the idea/existence of nostalgia, etc. She assumes Anderson made aesthetic choices with no purpose. Maybe he did, but I'm not convinced by Jones's argument. It's a surprisingly shallow and superficial reading which treats everything presented on screen as literal and true. I'd like to see Jones engage with other readings of the film beside this awfully lame straw man: quote:Enthralled film critics have been insisting that Anderson has created in Grand Budapest Hotel a fully mature work of art defined by a sense of melancholy over a lost world. That sounds more like a criticism of the Wes Anderson fanboy/fangirl type, which I suppose is fair but shouldn't necessarily reflect on the movie.
|
# ? Jul 16, 2014 03:38 |
|
|
# ? Mar 28, 2024 12:10 |
|
Yeah, for a critique a film that has a magpie-like obsession for the baubles that are the product of suffering, and which even commodifies that suffering itself as a bit of nostalgic confection, that critique is really ungrounded and vague.
|
# ? Jul 16, 2014 04:05 |
|
Anonymous Robot posted:Yeah, for a critique a film that has a magpie-like obsession for the baubles that are the product of suffering, and which even commodifies that suffering itself as a bit of nostalgic confection, that critique is really ungrounded and vague.
|
# ? Jul 16, 2014 13:56 |
|
I like the part where she implies that Richie's suicide attempt in Tenenbaums wasn't sad.
|
# ? Jul 16, 2014 14:39 |
|
GBH is my new favorite Wes Anderson film. Gustave is a fantastic character. Loved every minute of the film.
|
# ? Jul 20, 2014 06:10 |
|
What a fabulously pink film.
|
# ? Jul 31, 2014 07:48 |
|
Naet posted:I generally like Jacobin but I don't fully understand this review. Jones's critique resembles the common criticism of Wes Anderson: he makes gilded, all-style-no-substance, overly 'Wes Anderson-y' films. She ascribes a lot of meaninglessness to the film: the nesting narration, the different appearances of young/old Gustave and Zero, the casual nature of death, the idea/existence of nostalgia, etc. She assumes Anderson made aesthetic choices with no purpose. Maybe he did, but I'm not convinced by Jones's argument. It's a surprisingly shallow and superficial reading which treats everything presented on screen as literal and true. I agree. She seems to read the film as reveling in feelings of nostalgia when it's actually a condemnation of the concept of the "good old days." The entire movie, of course, takes place in the imagination of the woman in the opening scene. The nested narrative is there to draw the viewer into the increasing levels of abstraction and unreliability - the movie basically portrays eighty-some years' worth of whisper-down-the-lane. Old Zero doesn't look like Young Zero because the woman imagines them as possessing differing appearances - Young Zero is a dark-skinned kid fresh from the Middle East, while Old Zero (as described by the author) is a regal old man with no overt "foreign" qualities about him. The deaths that take place throughout the film appear incidental because, with a couple of exceptions, they are incidental to Old Zero - the only deaths that really stuck with him are Gustave's and his wife's, and the second is mentioned as a footnote only because it has no real bearing on the outcome of Young Zero and Gustave's story. This all seems fairly obvious to me. It seems like Jones already had her mind made up about the movie before even seeing it.
|
# ? Jul 31, 2014 16:54 |
|
Really enjoyed this. It's full of energy and quirk, but it didn't strike me as too self-indulgent. It succeeds in being funny and charming even when horrible things are happening, and I found it playfully anachronistic.
|
# ? Aug 1, 2014 21:28 |
|
For whatever reason it's the first Anderson movie to click with me. So many little details. Such a great pace. It's also a nice reminder that Harvey Keitel is still alive.
|
# ? Aug 10, 2014 00:43 |
|
When I saw the movie at first I thought it was Alan Arkin then I was pleasantly surprised.
|
# ? Aug 10, 2014 21:38 |
|
Surlaw posted:This is the most artificial and precisely packaged film Anderson's made and that's perfect. It's the product of a flowery film maker with extreme attention to detail telling the story of a flowery author writing the second hand story of a man with a romantic poet's heart telling the story of the adventures he had with a man who embellished everything he said. It's a first person narrative told through multiple layers of detachment, and it perfectly explains the cartoonish unreality of its action; it's basically a tall tale told via a game of telephone, all with the purpose of obfuscating its true emotional core, the love story that Zero only reluctantly reveals when he has no other choice. Finally saw this and agree 100% with this post, except that last sentence. This is probably my favorite of his yet (though I haven't seen Rushmore [gasp] or Darjeeling Limited - or properly speaking, Bottle Rocket, since I fell asleep the one time I tried to watch it). It's the most aggressively diorama-esque of his films and as a total sucker for that aesthetic, I ate it up; likewise, the narrative nesting of a story within a story within a film really tickled me, and functioned beautifully as an ode to the power of storytelling itself, to shape and redefine real-life experiences.
|
# ? Nov 29, 2014 07:51 |
|
Criminal Minded posted:Finally saw this and agree 100% with this post, except that last sentence. This is probably my favorite of his yet (though I haven't seen Rushmore [gasp] or Darjeeling Limited - or properly speaking, Bottle Rocket, since I fell asleep the one time I tried to watch it). It's the most aggressively diorama-esque of his films and as a total sucker for that aesthetic, I ate it up; likewise, the narrative nesting of a story within a story within a film really tickled me, and functioned beautifully as an ode to the power of storytelling itself, to shape and redefine real-life experiences. You need to see Rushmore, Grand Budapest is most like it of his other stuff.
|
# ? Nov 29, 2014 17:03 |
|
Bottle Rocket is also great, especially if you think of it as being a farce on contemporary, Tarantino-esque, indie crime films.
|
# ? Nov 29, 2014 20:09 |
|
K. Waste posted:Bottle Rocket is also great, especially if you think of it as being a farce on contemporary, Tarantino-esque, indie crime films. It explicitly is that, so yes.
|
# ? Nov 29, 2014 22:14 |
|
precision posted:You need to see Rushmore, Grand Budapest is most like it of his other stuff. How do you figure? I'm not totally disagreeing with you, I'm just curious. Aesthetically, I thought Royal Tenenbaums was more like GBH in it being more diorama-esque.
|
# ? Dec 19, 2014 04:56 |
|
Dr.Radical posted:How do you figure? I'm not totally disagreeing with you, I'm just curious. Aesthetically, I thought Royal Tenenbaums was more like GBH in it being more diorama-esque. When I first glanced over your post I got really confused by your GBH abbreviation and was wondering why you would reference grievous bodily harm in a post about Anderson, I'm obviously slow. In terms of which films of his are the most similar to each other, I would say that with the exception of Bottle Rocket they all share an aesthetic and literary sensibility, though I would say that his most diorama-esque from a very literal stand point is Fantastic Mr Fox. An interesting thing I find about Anderson is how people choose their favourite film of his, its perhaps more so than other directors often a very personal choice, you choose the film that resonates with you, for example mine is Moonrise Kingdom because the relationship between the two kids in it reminds me so much of my first relationship as a child.
|
# ? Dec 19, 2014 06:52 |
|
Naet posted:I generally like Jacobin but I don't fully understand this review. Jones's critique resembles the common criticism of Wes Anderson: he makes gilded, all-style-no-substance, overly 'Wes Anderson-y' films. She ascribes a lot of meaninglessness to the film: the nesting narration, the different appearances of young/old Gustave and Zero, the casual nature of death, the idea/existence of nostalgia, etc. She assumes Anderson made aesthetic choices with no purpose. Maybe he did, but I'm not convinced by Jones's argument. It's a surprisingly shallow and superficial reading which treats everything presented on screen as literal and true. I think she deliberately misunderstood the film so that she could get off this bitchin' take down of our modern, not-left-enough, civilization: "For here is the most ludicrously extreme representation of postmodern cinema’s “undefinable nostalgic past … beyond history.” Here is represented the complete “historical amnesia” Jameson warned us would preclude our ability to grapple politically with our own moment in time." But, if you're so dim that you can't even figure out why Anderson deliberately nested the central story within two other stories, why do you think I would trust anything you have to say about reality?
|
# ? Dec 19, 2014 21:48 |
|
mysterious frankie posted:"For here is the most ludicrously extreme representation of postmodern cinemas undefinable nostalgic past beyond history. Here is represented the complete historical amnesia Jameson warned us would preclude our ability to grapple politically with our own moment in time." I once got into an argument with someone over the historicity of Django Unchained where they legitimately criticized the fact that Candie's speech on phrenology was never explicitly rebuked within the film. When I suggested that Django's successful, clandestine ability to assassinate every white person in the movie did explicitly rebuke the veracity of Candie's outdated racial theories, he said 'normal people wouldn't get this.' Jacobin's waxing about postmodernism strikes me as the same sort of condescension, except aimed at the 'hipsters' who find beauty in Anderson's accurate, impressionistic portrayal of "historical amnesia" and comic-tragic depiction of characters who have lost their "ability to grapple politically with [their] own moment in time." Film critique is a completely fatuous science, where the critic draws upon their projection onto the work (their own preconceived values and, thus, their ability to identify with the world of a text) and basically uses the text as the basis to discuss their own philosophical position. (Not that a film can't make you change or reconsider your philosophical position, just that they usually don't.) Jacobin's point isn't that Anderson's deliberate use of nostalgia to frame his story isn't obvious; it's that this technique is bad because other people might mistake something I don't like for something that is good.
|
# ? Dec 19, 2014 23:21 |
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Everytime I think of Brody's introductory lines THAT loving human being!!! I crack up. That and the following description are my favorite deliveries of the film.
|
# ? Jan 21, 2015 19:34 |
What on earth was that. I went into this pretty much expecting one of those films they churn out for middle aged women to go see with their girl-friends, only watched it at all because of this thread. Well, that was something, quite possibly the prettiest film I've seen in a long time. It's currently free to watch in the UK if you have Sky OnDemand, and they're apparently still showing it in cinemas in Manchester and Liverpool. Maybe I should go see it on the big screen...
|
|
# ? Feb 2, 2015 18:26 |
|
Nettle Soup posted:What on earth was that. Have you not experienced Wes Anderson before? Because golly, you are in for a treat.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2015 19:16 |
|
I got this one on DVD, and by golly was it superb.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2015 20:34 |
|
Nettle Soup posted:What on earth was that. Well you've got a half dozen awesome movies to catch up on then.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2015 23:06 |
Apparently so I looked through his wiki page and I don't think I've seen any of them. Edit: Oh wait, I've seen Fantastic Mr. Fox but didn't think much of it. Nettle Soup fucked around with this message at 23:16 on Feb 2, 2015 |
|
# ? Feb 2, 2015 23:12 |
|
Nettle Soup posted:Apparently so I looked through his wiki page and I don't think I've seen any of them. Watch Royal Tenenbaums right away. Then follow up with the perfect Life Aquatic.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2015 23:35 |
|
Vintersorg posted:Watch Royal Tenenbaums right away. Disagree, I think Anderson's ouvre should be watched in production order. That way, at least for a while, they just keep getting better.
|
# ? Feb 2, 2015 23:37 |
|
Nettle Soup posted:What on earth was that. You might have been thinking of Exotic Marigold Hotel.
|
# ? Feb 3, 2015 00:06 |
|
|
# ? Mar 28, 2024 12:10 |
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:You might have been thinking of Exotic Marigold Hotel. Honestly that isn't the worst thing in the world either, though Grand Budapest is obviously the superior Hotel.
|
# ? Feb 3, 2015 01:25 |