|
Pretty great cinematography in this film, but the outermost layer of the nested narrative was useless artifice, and I think this was the most classist movie I've seen in a long time.Twiin posted:Did no one else think it was weird how Zero changed races when he was older? This was actually pretty much the punchline of the film for me. GBH is a movie which posits that there was great dignity once in being a servant of the ruling class, that both castes benefited from it, and that upward social mobility was possible by being supremely loyal and pure of heart. Zero inherits the GBH, from Gustave who inherited it from a noblewoman for being supremely dedicated to her, and he "changes race", leaving his home country and ethnicity behind. (Note that there is no recovery of his homeland's dignity from Gustave's racist savaging of it, only that Zero himself, the "good one", suffered there and he is stricken by it). It reminds one of places like India and (at one point) Mexico, where the upper class and the working class could be easily distinguished by their skin tones, even within the same ethnicity. Anonymous Robot fucked around with this message at 14:18 on Apr 3, 2014 |
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 14:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 10:20 |
|
|
cloudchamber posted:You seem to be confusing the social conditions of 1930s Europe with things that the film was actively advocating. So, this post is a whole bunch of bullshit. Writing off an engaged critique of the film as "Tumblr style condemnation" is a great way to squash any kind of productive discussion. And thanks for presuming my ignorance of basic history. What does the outermost narrative accomplish? We learn that it's the 80s, for some reason, and there's a book about the Grand Budapest Hotel. The author is beloved. All of this information is redundant or useless, as it immediately leads to a monologue in narrative two establishing the same information. At the end, the girl closes the book. The movie already had a nice closing shot before this, as narrative two ended. The heiress' son and his cohort are delineated from the bourgeois very explicitly throughout the film. On a number of occasions, they are juxtaposed with the SS look-alike logo to confirm their fascist affiliation. Both of their costumes are all black, in contrast to the vibrant colors worn by the heiress, and the purple- the color of royalty- notably worn by Zero and Gustave. As collaborators, they are not of the same quality or dignity granted to the wealthy in the movie. In GBH, the fascists are the final curtain-fall of the world from which the film draws its scopophilic fascination. Zero remarks, near the end of the film, that most of the estates of the wealthy became "common property" (historically, this term referred to the property of deceased or deported "undesirables", which transferred into the hands of collaborators and opportunists). I don't see where the film is making clear that Zero's recollections are clouded by nostalgia. I don't recall anything that called into question the veracity of his story, or its details. Medicine progressed- so what? That has nothing to do with the social structures of the age, or the gilded imagery which GBH is so enthralled with. This is not an isolated problem with GBH. Of all Wes Anderson's work, The Life Aquatic is probably the only film of his that I've seen that wasn't condescending and classist, with its sympathies and imagination firmly rooted in the dealings of the rich. Anderson's aesthetic revels in in opulence and finery. At times, this works to his credit, and shows in the meticulous detail of his set design, shot composition, and costuming. However, it is indicative of an ideological position that should be resisted. GBH is more egregious, in this regard, because it also draws in the servile class and makes them complicit in this structure, as well as using them to trade in quirky "bohemian" imagery. I'll use an emblematic image to explain myself. Let's take Zero's hat. This is an important image; it was used on a great deal of the promotional material for GBH. The hat reads "lobby boy", clearly cementing his position. In the film's posters and advertisements, this is an ironic image. It calls forth the humiliation of being in a servile position. However, this isn't really present in the film itself. Rather, it goes out of its way to highlight the supposed dignity of serving the "establishment" and its tactile grandeur, and contrasts it with the lack of the same dignity in the new working caste, the GBH's 60's concierge and Zero's replacement. Zero, a foreigner, is brought into the fold by Gustave and integrated into the stratified society of the hotel, in which he learns, thrives, develops as a character, and eventually inherits great wealth in exchange for his fealty. There's no bitter contrast here to provide any ironic depth- even the conditions of Zero's servant quarters, or the looming, labor-sucking boss of the pastry shop, are portrayed as quirky, whimsical things. They're the sites of romance and adventure. The guiding thesis of GBH is to show us the lobby boy hat and say, wasn't that fun for all of us?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2014 06:26
|
|
|
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
|
|