Richard Brody's recent puff profile of Wes Anderson in the New Yorker (which can be read here ) vexed and perplexed me. This is partly due to Brody's semi-inappropriate cheerleading and back-patting of Anderson's efforts and partly due to Anderson himself who - according to the essay - seemingly makes movies to merely reference other movies, not because they're willed into creation by some deep internal necessity. This in turn breeds a certain, say, inauthenticity in his characters which by some accounts is grand and by others grand folly. I'm in the latter camp. as is this assessment of life aquatic from n+1 which Brody references.
Don't get me wrong, I love love Bottle Rocket and like-love Rushmore - perhaps b/c the first has the ambitions of the nascent filmmaker on full display and the second has its roots in slight biography; they're also the least self-concious of his attempts - but it's all been downhill from there, each sucessive movie a more labored effort to watch. Is the well dry?
I feel compelled to include that I have an inherent alarm bell that rings when the rich (c/f spike jonze) have these artistic vagabond narratives spun about their early formative experiences and then go on to get really into fashion and culture and being in magazines. maybe i'm just jealous.
5 comments:
if i haven't said lately that you're an unstoppable rockstar, well it's time i did.
that's all.
no, you're not jealous. you're just right.
lady:
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
yep.
interesting. There is still a scene from bottle rocket that when i think of it i can still whip myself into a laughing hysteria. Rushmore is one of my favorites. On my top 20 for sure. And the first time i watched Royal Tenenbaums i was struck by those clever and outrageous characters. laughing at so much subtlety and not so subtle moments make it so delicious!
but im just in it for the entertainment!
Post a Comment