- Joined
- Mar 3, 2014
- Messages
- 57,511
- Reaction score
- 21,592
I was thinking of Raising Arizona a few times.
For me it was more Barton Fink.
I was thinking of Raising Arizona a few times.
That's a sound connection. Gilliam and Burton are idiosyncratic directors, just like Anderson. Yorgos Lanthimos would be the extreme version.I don't know what I can say about this movie right now. I liked it but I'm not sure exactly why which is weird considering how many films I've seen in my life. In some weird way it reminded me of films like Big Fish and The Adventures of Baron Munchausen.
I don't even know if the comparison is a valid one, its just a feeling that these sorts of film's give to the viewer. Much in the same way as Big Fish and Baron Munchausen, you have a tale being told and you aren't 100% sure how much of it is true or not or where it may go next. It bothers me that I like The Grand Budapest Hotel for reasons I can't entirely explain. The main two characters, M. Gustave and Zero turned in competent to excellent performances as quirky characters in a quirky world living under quirky circumstances.
I probably need some time to think about this one as a whole and possibly another viewing but it feels like a 8.5/10 to me...for reasons I have trouble explaining.
Interesting observation on Baron Munchausen. Not sure I agree though. In this film I took everything at face value. In Munchausen I took it all as fabrication, but dismissable due to the entertainment value of his embellishments.
That was the one other spot I wondered about. Him running was funny, but seemed out of character. Not to mention it should have been easy to establish he wasn't in the area such that he could have done it. It was an out of town trip, near as I can tell. Plus Norton saw him on the train heading too the estate. Him saying he couldn't divulge his alibi to protect a woman's honor seemed like convenient writing. I don't know. Just didn't seem right.
. . . and lands precisely on the next perfectly centered frame.
I think you meant to put this in here. . .
http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/s...-discussion-the-grand-budapest-hotel.3746837/
I really enjoyed this movie. It has been on my radar to watch for a while, but I had never got around to it. I loved the way it was filmed. I appreciated the thoughtfulness and exactitude that went into every shot. I enjoyed the kitchy nature of the train going up the mountain. I recognized the Charlie Chaplinesk quality of the movement in some of the scenes. I appreciated that it addressed very serious societal topics in a humorous, almost self deprecating way. It was complex but not violent to the soul. And I appreciate that. A Clockwork Naranja will prolly poke at my heart a heck of a lot more. To be honest, this resonates of Latinamerican magical realism to me. You have reality mixed with tremendous suspension of disbelief... not truly magical realism, but non the less surreal fun absurdity.
I actually saw this as a commentary on class and the rights that are inherent to a person within a particular class of society, in a specific place. Gustav bangs rich old women and works in a luxurious hotel. But he sleeps in a shabby room where the focus of the shot are his perfume bottles, his attempt to be worthy and of acceptance because of his expensive scent. He knows his place in society. When faced with an arrest driven by a wealthy nobel, he knew who would have credence with the authorities. It makes total sense to me that he panicked and ran. It’s the same real life intelligence that told him that he needed to fight in prison so that he wouldn’t appear as a victim. I would also caution against using the rights we inherently have as Americans, as rights that exist in the rest of the world. To me it is credible that nobody would believe, or give a shit, about whether he had an alibi or not.
Grand Budapest is no different. I can find almost nothing to criticize about it . . . beyond the fact that at the end my reaction is simply, "Eh, yeah, that was all right."
Whoa! Gotta shift my paradigm here. <chugs beer, hits, bong, pets dog>
Yep. Wonderful observation. Thanks for expanding my view on the film. You're already an asset to the club.
{redford}
Now is there any way you can talk me down on the misplaced absurdity of the Defoe scenes? For me that's about all that stands in the way of perfection.
To me, the entire movie was an exploration of the absurd and a gentle mocking of traditional movie scenes and tropes. I expected certain things to happen and I feel like the director played with that anticipation. I worried that Agatha would be violently hurt, but she died by natural causes (Prussian flue - club members have already researched it for us!!! Thank you dude who looked up the flue shit!),
I expected the Fly to jump off the train and run into the proverbial dark and forbidding place that would result in his death. I expected multi-ringed Dafoe to track him by scent alone, coz he is a bad mofo and that is how those characters roll in movies! In some cases, the scenes played out stereotypically, but expertly, and in others they subverted our expectations, and they subverted some of them for our better good (I was relieved that Agatha died of natural causes) and some of them to soften the blow, like when Gustav died by gunshot but we weren't forced to see it.
I appreciate a movie that mocks itself. I feel like this one did that. Like there were moments where they were laughing out loud at themselves as they were creating the scenes. They didn't take themselves too seriously.
I'm all for mocking. It's the subjective boundaries of consistency that got me with those scenes.
It was definitely a set-up with Agatha. And well-done too because the result was the same but it felt totally different than had it gone done violently. Less cynical perhaps?
If you're happy with impossiblillity breaking the veneer of believable quirkiness then cool. And as I've stated, I love the movie in spite of these criticisms. But they still exist in my mind and that's the nature of the beast (i.e. critique). As an aside, the Dafoe character, the way you describe it, reminds me of Buscemi in Things To Do In Denver When You're Dead. Maybe you've seen that one?
I'm not sure I'd say it mocked itself so much as I agree it came from a perspective of not taking itself too seriously. Similar, but maybe in the middle I suppose. We might have different notions of "mocking". I didn't see this as a send-up or parody in anyway. Like how Scream both mocked horror and turned the tables at the same time.
I absolutely agree that it isn't Scream mocking caliber....I would say the adjective gentle applies to every aspect of this film, including what I have described as self-mocking. I think maybe it lies between my characterization of self mocking and your characterization of not taking itself too seriously....and I do get the Buscemi reference
In this film, Buscemi is so clearly a character. He is the two dimensional equivalent of the train going up the mountain. They all were to a degree, G and M were given some depth, but in general were also very caricature like. This felt like a movie poking gentle fun at movies with varying degrees of success in their choice of scenes. Buscemi bothered you. I wasn't offended by that level of implausibility, but felt that the scene where Agatha looked though the roof and then the other lady's head was presented was a little cheap. But like you said, its all small potatoes...great, fun movie overall...
The film is mostly gentle with well-placed breaks that add juxtoposition. Gustave'sbrutal insultsassessments and his attempted undressing of Zero after the escape served to add somewhat of an edginess to the film overall. For my money that worked in its favor.
Yeah, not much depth of character outside of the two main protagonists. At least not in the writing. I'd think that's where you need acting. Human subtlety and pictures being worth a thousand words. Even though I saw Bill Murray as Murray, he still sold me on the role. Would totally want him as a concierge.
Buscemi didn't bother me in the context of that movie. It added to it that he was this in-stoppable pee-wee dude. The film did stop short of having the audience witness the implausible though. For whatever that's worth.
I liked that film. Saw it at the theater on an early date in a long-term relationship. Fond memories for sure. A subsequent viewing had me convinced the movie was trying just a bit too hard to be hip though. This came on the radio during the trip home. We sang together. Greatest Rock 'n Roll song ever. Guess it was destiny we're married today.
She's literally making me a sammich at this very moment! Ha!
I feel like that's what Wes Anderson wants us to say about his films.
To me, the entire movie was an exploration of the absurd and a gentle mocking of traditional movie scenes and tropes. I expected certain things to happen and I feel like the director played with that anticipation. I worried that Agatha would be violently hurt, but she died by natural causes (Prussian flue - club members have already researched it for us!!! Thank you dude who looked up the flue shit!),
I expected the Fly to jump off the train and run into the proverbial dark and forbidding place that would result in his death. I expected multi-ringed Dafoe to track him by scent alone, coz he is a bad mofo and that is how those characters roll in movies! In some cases, the scenes played out stereotypically, but expertly, and in others they subverted our expectations, and they subverted some of them for our better good (I was relieved that Agatha died of natural causes) and some of them to soften the blow, like when Gustav died by gunshot but we weren't forced to see it.
You may have seen this already, but for anyone who hasn't:
I've never seen that, thanks. Apparently he is obsessed with symmetry. As @europe1 mentioned, shapes are also used heavily and meticulously to frame shots and provide lines or references of perspective. It's kind of mesmerizing, I really like it.
You'll get no argument from me, I love Kubrick.
"Charming! Oh, how charming! How marvelously, stupendously charming!"
I feel like that's what Wes Anderson wants us to say about his films.
And indeed they are charming. And they're extremely well-crafted. And he has a knack for bringing together these excellent ensemble casts and getting top-notch performances out of them.
But for as charming as they are, and as well-crafted as they are, and as well cast and acted as they are, I can't avoid the fact that I always only find them moderately entertaining. That is, I enjoy them. But I'm always left feeling at the end that they were a trifle that didn't amount to much. That's probably not fair, but it's how I end up feeling. They are always worth the time, but only marginally.
Grand Budapest is no different. I can find almost nothing to criticize about it . . . beyond the fact that at the end my reaction is simply, "Eh, yeah, that was all right."
I had seen it once before, and frankly, of the four choices this was the third down the list for me. I would've preferred to re-watch either Rushmore or Moonrise Kingdom.
I'll give it a 7.5/10 but that score is bolstered by the sheer level of craftsmanship on display.
In Anderson's work everything is meticulously pristine, from the costuming to the framing, it's all built up like a loving doll house.
So what we have here, is a series of people trying to mitigate the evil in the world by exalting the good.
*ending with puking due to pretentiousness*
"Charming! Oh, how charming! How marvelously, stupendously charming!"
I feel like that's what Wes Anderson wants us to say about his films.
And indeed they are charming. And they're extremely well-crafted. I can find almost nothing to criticize about it . . . beyond the fact that at the end my reaction is simply, "Eh, yeah, that was all right.