D: This is a tough one. On one hand I really love Wes Anderson films. Rushmore, Bottle Rocket, & Royal Tenenbaums are among my favorite films. (Rushmore especially). Darjeeling Limited, Fantastic Mr. Fox & Moonrise Kingdom are better then most films out there as well. Usually a mediocre Wes Anderson film is still better then the other films in the room.
That brings me to The Grand Budapest Hotel. On one hand it has all the elements that make a Wes Anderson film. Great casting, miniatures, very specific attention to detail, center framing, and a unique and definitive manner of speaking from it’s characters. On the other hand, it jammed all of that into 90 minutes as well as a complicated story mixing time periods, drama and action.
So I’m conflicted. I think it was a good movie, but I’m not sure if I liked it.
It felt like so many elements from other films that were just repurposed at times. The prison escape is very Mr. Fox. Ralph Fiennes character of Gustav is sort of a grown up Max Fischer in a way. And even the use of the lobby boy felt like an expansion of Douglas from Royal Tenenbaums. That’s not to say that they didn’t work, just that it was a bit back to the well.
Anderson seems to be trying to evolve here though. He’s attempting to utilize these tropes that are essentially become his medium and find new ways to utilize them. When I say that Gustav is like Fischer, it’s not in his precociousness, but in his ability to be resourceful and particular about his image and mannerisms. In Rushmore it made the character quirky and likable, here it made him a bit creepy and lecherous. I think this was intentional.
So, here it seems is an auteur at a crossroads, torn between his successful past and his artistic evolution.
Tonally the film reminds me most of Life Aquatic, which is the only film of Andersons that I don’t care for. Both of these movies straddle the comedy/drama line, alternating between them without much notice. In Aquatic it felt incredibly disjointed. Here, less so, but still. When it was funny, it was very funny, but the drama was never really all that intense. Perhaps due to so many secondary characters being introduced when something happens to them it has less impact.
It’s a crowded film, and I wanted to spend more time with many of theses characters, most of whom were relegated to cameo status. As usual, more Bill Murray would be better, as would Bob Balaban, whose entire purpose was to end a montage and stand in a crowd. Jason Schwartzman, Owen Wilson, & Tilda Swinton each get a scene – and what, no Luke Wilson love anymore? Even the more defined secondary players like Goldblum, Dafoe, Norton & Keitel could use more.
All of them are good and acquit themselves well in Anderson’s world, I just wanted their reasons for being here to be more defined.
If it sounds like I don’t like the film, that’s not true. I just always have very high expectations for my favorite filmmakers. Rarely are they met upon first viewing. I’ll definitely be rewatching this one, sooner then later.
A: I hope this one grows on you. I personally had the reverse mindset from you going in – lower expectations because I knew how much I loved his other films (Moonrise Kingdom is my #1).
I walked out of this movie thinking it was one of his best, because of how tonally different it felt. It seemed more sinister than the other movies. There’s always some sort of somberness underneath his stories but I was surprised at how threatening it got. For some reason I got a dinner murder mystery vibe from it. Never so dark that it would make you close your eyes or turn away, but unsettling in moments and ultimately really fun.
I’m sure you’ll refute that, though.
