Saturday, April 26, 2008

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou

Wes Anderson is one of those people whose work I love so much it rouses concern in me that I just might be a hipster. What also rouses concern is how each time I watch it, The Life Aquatic becomes a better and better movie to me, and it's generally regarded as his weakest one yet.

But no film has had Bill Murray with as much time on screen completely topless, and this MUST count for something, shouldn't it?

Having been utterly and emotionally crushed by the fact that I can find NEITHER my Flight of the Conchords Season 1 dvd's NOR Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, I resolved to watch this film, which was oddly placed upon my bookshelf. Given the way this film seems to want to act as a sort of play on screen rather than fully explore the elements unique to film moreso than other Anderson films, I find it, while overlooking that it was probably my indolent self putting it somewhere, droll and ironic. So it's no longer there, and it was played, further justifying my purchase. Thumbs up.

My girlfriend at the end: "It was ok." Oh yeah? Well you like Kevin Barnes of Of Montreal and he LOVED it! So yeah! That proves nothing!

The truth is she's absolutely right. I feel that Wes aims far and wide with this one, and with many stylishly sparse and tight long shots hopes to not only offer us an epic overseas adventure, but a deep exploration of the emotions spanning a breadth of characters. For Wes here, it's ambitious as hell, and while it's all guessing since I have not seen it, it looks like he narrowed his focus a little more for his followup The Darjeeling Limited. I don't blame him, because Zissou and Crew just didn't hit it out of the park. What they did accomplish, though, was at least a two-base run that's totally worth watching in my mind.

Again, this is maybe my third or fourth time watching it, and it's one that grows on me. Given that the reach is so wide, you really absorb little on the first viewing but a gist of the story and a breadth of humorous characters. Watch the journey again, and you may soften up to Steve Zissou, played by Bill Murray with the dolor that got him award talks in Lost in Translation, and his desperation for finding someone still rooting for him. Actually, to tell you the truth, he's probably the only character that I've grown attached to at all, but it's become a fun thing to watch his journey. Steve would hate to hear me say it, but I seriously like the film.

That doesn't change the fact that I walked out of the theater after my first viewing feeling a little underwhelmed compared to how I felt walking out of Royal Tenenbaums, which was equally dense and increasing in value on repeat viewings. So why is that? Well, Royal and Steve are two main characters with a lot in common. Both are old men with past glories and they're looking for reasons why they went away and also finding a way to regain them. Both have reached a point of desperation when we find them. What Steve has that Royal does not, though, is 1) thinner characters. Most characters are only seen through the lens of their interactions with Steve. The only real deviations are incredibly brief and both involve Ned. It gives a little depth to some other characters, but not a lot. Royal, on the other hand, gives a good amount of focus to troubles facing Royal's children completely out of his control. It's truly a broader ensemble piece and goes far in giving everyone a purpose beyond reflecting ONE character's troubles. 2) Thinner side plots. I wanted to care more about Willem DaFoe's Klaus, but it just never came up. He's just desperate for Steve's regards and it's never really explained why since he's essentially a right hand man. I keep comparing to Royal, and I don't know if that's completely fair, but in that one you have a sort-of-incestuous love affair, a drugged out friend, and some other stuff that doesn't completely tie together but it's there and interesting on some level. At the very least, again, it gives some flesh to his characters. Zissou's side crap is interesting too, but not as much so. 3) No big adventure to worry about. This may be the biggun' because this part was actually really cool in this movie. Completely unrealistic, we have Steve flip out on Filipino pirates to the Stooges' "Search and Destroy" and a very awkward yet awesome shootout/chase on their hideout island. It's funny and fun in an Indiana Jones kind of way, but stylistically anything but. It's actually pretty entertaining and is something new for Anderson. But it does pull away from time that could be spent developing characters. Thus everything is left feeling a little half-baked.

But fuck you all, sometimes the doughy bread is the good shit. It's soft and mushy, but there's some substance there. And style, which doesn't fit the bread analogy but Anderson's style is in top form here. From those strange jump cuts that feel abrupt but totally work somehow, to a full setpiece of all the ship's (the Belafonte) decks leading to very impressive long takes that make for almost a comic book feeling. My girlfriend didn't feel comfortable at all during these, though, so your mileage may of course vary. And it still amounts to something. Again, it's not as good as it could have been, but come on now. The ending does kind of get to me. I'm happy to see the redemption and I do feel it.

The added focus on action has other perks as well. Here we have Wes throwing in visuals of the deep sea. With CG and claymation he does, to an extent, capture the sense of wonder of his audience. This is new territory for him, and again the high aim means it doesn't get all the attention it deserves, but it does offer a level of aesthetic captivation that's worth noting. But it does even more. It actually proves itself to be a neat little symbol of Steve's own vitality, first being something taken for granted to something that completely halts the film. It all comes together at the end to remind Steve that, as he puts it, "this is an adventure." This viewing is the one where I finally begin to understand what the hell he might mean.

Maybe it's forced. Maybe it's the dedication of a Wes Anderson fanboy, but if I really am one, wouldn't I have seen Darjeeling Limited by now? Wouldn't I have been excited for it rather than concerned that he's rehashing themes he's revisited several times over at this point? And again, I didn't feel this way when I first watched it. For some reason I started caring more as I re-watched. Perhaps it's one of those things where you're better able to sort through the pieces, and the pieces just aren't as well organized this time around. So what I'm here telling you is this: there's some really pretty, very worthwhile pieces here. You can sift through them and make something special of it, but it is a little broken up and not as well put together as Wes's other gems. I still give it a recommendation.

No comments: