Screened at the New York Film Festival: In a 2004 interview with Charlie Rose when asked if he would like to do something dramatically different from his oeuvre so far, Wes Anderson said he would like to make a film that “resisted the impulse to crack a joke at every turn,” and “The Darjeeling Limited” might be that film.
It’s pretty obvious by now that we love Anderson, right? (though his last perfect film is “Rushmore,” don’t even try to argue). We’ve made a soundtrack series dedicated to his films, we’ve written about “The Darjeeling Limited” extensively and we even did a feature dedicated to all the music in his films not featured on the accompanying soundtrack disc (Is this an apologist set-up or what).
So quick answers (we’ll dispense with the set-up, you know what it’s about). Was it better than ‘Life Aquatic’? Yes and no. The film is toned down, there’s much less of an over reliance on pop music, the hyper-stylized world is slightly dialed back, but there’s still a measure of his hermetically-sealed and taut, impeccably-composed compositions that have a tendency to suck the life right out of the room – and the emotion in the story to boot (his world gets claustrophobic after a while).
And as much as Wes’ world is becoming one big cliché, some hallmarks of his work are gone. For instance, there’s not one, “fun activity” montage with a tastefully energetic classic pop song bouncing the scene along and the title sequences he is so fond of are gone (the book chapters in the ‘Tenenbaums,’ the “Day 45” titles over the sea in “Life Aquatic,’ or the velvet curtain months from “Rushmore”). Those keeping total score will want to note there’s no underwater shot (an aesthetic choice found in everyone of his films) and a slow-mo shot doesn’t quite close the film.
Wes can’t resist some of his trademark tricks though (the three Kinks songs used in the beginning, middle and end of the film are all set to a stylized slow-motion tracking shots) or little nods to pop culture (the barefoot Schwartzman in his grey suit appears reminiscent of Paul McCartney’s barefoot Abbey Road album cover look).
While Wes rolled with the technical punches that the chaos of India served (some scenes actually have, *gasp*, a shaky camera where a tripod couldn’t actually fit, the film still feels tightly-wound and anxious.
Conversely, the prequel “Hotel Chevalier” is still very much inside of the Anderson, imaginary milieu, but feels a lot less constricted and exhales a natural oxygen.
“The Darjeeling Limited” is being criticized for being a mess – which it’s not exactly, and being praised for being melancholy and mature – which it is, but again, Anderson’s heightened artifice always leaves us feeling on the precipice of true emotions rather than feeling as heartbroken as we should (think watery eyes rather than tears).
Wes Anderson had perfected what we like to call the “sad smile” – the tone of bittersweetness that comes with love and loss, but there’s little joy in ‘Darjeeling.’ While it’s certainly not a downer film and while we were eager for Anderson to try something different and new, and to some extent he fulfills that wish, the film just feels sad without much hope, yet without genuine sadness either.
His immaculately orchestrated feelings of longing, yearning and unrequited love which seems to pervade all his films (whether romantic or familial) seem to just be bleak here. Here is a family that is dysfunctional and has no love (Anjelica Houston plays there estranged mother in the film’s final scenes – image to the right). In the end they’re really no better off than the bickering threesome they were in the beginning and while better this realism that then a Hollywood ending where the brothers journey has brought them together, something about the film’s overall tone leaves us unsatisfied.
We’re hard on Anderson, we truly love some of the moments he’s brought onscreen in the last decade, but we can’t help but feel disappointed (it could be a review unto itself, but the small amount of pop music in the film feels placed rather than appearing naturally – and the very-excellent “Strangers” by the Kinks is nowhere near as melancholy as it should be).
Anderson doesn’t like to linger on one emotion, perhaps because he’s thinking he doesn’t want to manipulate, but sad scenes could be more effective, if he could sit still in the editing room and let the audience have sometime to absorb just what happened rather than rush onto the next scene. Much like ‘Life Aquatic,’ death is treated without fanfare and without pulling on any heartstrings, but he could stand to let scenes breathe just a tiny bit.
Yes, Bill Murray briefly appears, but we’re not really sure what his scene is supposed to mean. Sure we are: it’s to remind Adrien Brody’s character (perhaps the highlight of the film and a good argument for Wes to keep extending his players) of their deceased father, the impermanence of life and how youth sadly trumps age, but the scene can’t successfully communicate those authentic feelings for you. You have to infer them and this scenario tends to happen over and over again in the film – you know how you’re supposed to feel, but those emotions are always slightly out of reach.
Producer Scott Rudin allegedly called the script a “mess” before it was shot and the production notes allude to this confirming that Rudin helped work on the script in a minor capacity (though the film’s screenplay is credited to Anderson, Roman Coppola and Jason Schwartzman) and the story is somewhat convoluted. A flashback sequence (that stars French New Wave-era director Barbet Schroeder) seems out of place and nowhere near as touching, informative or contextual as its supposed to be.
Audiences that see the film without the accompanying prequel ‘Hotel Chevalier,’ might be more than a little confused when they catch a brief glimpse of Natalie Portman’s character in a curtain call scene (which in the context of the film’s conclusion is garish and really doesn’t jive with the rest of the film’s tone – again Anderson can’t resist it).
One things for sure, hipster fans of Wes Anderson that love him for his pop music choices and his gimmicky quirks, might be headed for the hills after this one. It’s pretty easy to see what’s going to happen here: fair weather fans are going to write him off and look to similar facsimiles to fill the void, his apologist devotees will find every great moment in the film and cling to them with dear life insisting he’s still a master and the rest of us will sigh with that sad smile wondering if the unique ingredients that once defined Anderson have now finally turned on him and become limitations. [B-]
Sadly, this Onion article ridiculing Anderson’s clichés might be the best review of the film we’ve seen. New Wes Anderson Film Features Deadpan Delivery, Meticulous Art Direction, Characters With Father Issues
