Often, it is difficult to point to what exactly defines an exceptional film. Some may consider deep, introspective, and psychologically riveting characters to be the ingredient, while others consider authentic, documentary-style cinematography to define its quality. By exposing oneself to traditionally unconventional films, audiences can explore what defines an exceptional film, through the different elements of the filmmaker’s vision. Wes Anderson’s films tackle these debates. He is an eclectic American filmmaker of this generation, commonly known for his distinct unique visual and narrative styles. His films are defined through the construction of vintage set-ups, flat-level symmetry, quirky characters, and dark humor, bringing out an oddly refreshing stylistic approach to the filmmaking world. This paper will be featuring two of his most recent films, The Grand Budapest Hotel and The French Dispatch, the two epitomizing his directorial vision. Despite his critically acclaimed cinematography, critics have reported their disinterest in Anderson's filmmaking. His use of shallow character depth and lack of emotional substance within his films has been said to detach the audience from a deep experience. But are these differences truly contingent on whether or not Anderson’s films are full of merit and quality? Should they hold back his critical acclaim? Through exploring his directorial visions, we can also gauge whether or not his filmmaking deserves the backlash it gets for going against traditional norms of directing.
One foundational element that is consistent across Anderson’s films is the theatrical, play-like acting of his characters. They almost pose as tropes, coming off as satirical, for a light-hearted, comedic effect. The odd-ball characters are unique to his style, as Anderson does not necessarily attempt to have his characters exhibit “realistic” acting, so to speak. There are subtle instances where this acting approach is present in various scenes. For example, in the Grand Budapest Hotel, the doorman in the elevator stands up tall, in an exaggerated way with his eyes harshly pointed up, with an oddly snobbish expression, acting in satire of professionalism. Also, the lobby boy, Zero, wears a fake mustache and a slanted purple hat, with “Lobby Boy '' wittily etched onto it, almost poking fun at his awkwardness and lack of experience. Anderson nor his cast would defend that characters are acting in a way that is realistic and authentic, as this is clearly meant to be a magnification of their archetypes. Similarly, in The French Dispatch, there is a scene where Julian Cadazio, the art dealer who is also sentenced for tax evasion, builds up frustration with the convicted artist, Moses Rosenthaler. Frustrated he is not producing much art, Cadazio cusses him out for being a psychopathic murderer, after Rosenthaler lags with producing art. After a strange snarl, the next scene cuts to Rosenthaler, wheelchair-bound, charging at Cadazio. Despite being handicapped, he viciously beats him, adding a humorous edge to the culture of the characters.
Even in such seemingly catastrophic situations, his actors carry themselves to be less emotionally charged and rather quick-witted, something that other filmmakers may consider unrealistic for darker subjects. The theatrical acting style serves as a more entertaining approach rather than realistic interaction, nevertheless a brilliant approach to captivating audiences. However, this doesn't mean Anderson’s films are void of meaning, rather it is shown in different ways. In the Queen’s Quarterly critique of the Grand Budapest Hotel, they discuss how “Everyone is guilty of romanticizing the illusion of a time where they don't belong” (Queen’s Quarterly). They explain how the concierge, Gustave, cannot seem to mend every conflict with elegance and politeness, as influenced by the hospitality industry. This quote speaks to a universal message, despite it being overcast by the quirky characters. Although the characters may not seem objectively psychological, they do undergo challenges of identity, simply represented in a more theatrical light.
Not only does Anderson create witty characters in serious matters, but through his use of cinematography, he can also create vibrant and unique settings, especially in unconventional situations. He accomplishes this by using color as a major magnet of his directorial vision. In the French Dispatch, the film switches between black and white (representing the past) and color (representing the present). The black and white pairs nicely with the 1960s French cinematic aesthetic contrasted with the bold colors of the present, that define Anderson’s work. The interaction between the seriousness of the black and white and the playfulness of colors marinate well in specific scenes. For example, Zeffirelli, a self-proclaimed leader of a strike against the university, incentivized the working people of Ennui-Sur-Blasé to join in on the protest. After he died in a fatal accident, the next scene shows Juliette, his love interest, and two other men standing sadly in front of the bright yellow La Sans Blague Cafe. In this situation, other filmmakers would likely have decided to place these sad characters in front of dark, serious architecture. Anderson does quite the opposite; he makes an exceptional directorial choice to place these sad characters in a colorful environment, creating a metaphorically striking effect. This is followed by the next scene in black and white where Mrs. Krementz, wearing a gas mask, lies in her bed by herself with her typewriter. It adds this unsettling, dark humor effect to Zeffirelli's death, as the two used to do the same when he was alive. These visuals along with the symmetrical imagery, and fast, panning cuts creates a powerful visual experience for the audience. These mechanisms contribute to the story-like appeal of his narratives, while keeping it emotionally distanced, for entertainment purposes.
It is without a doubt that Wes Anderson breaks the norms of the typical cinematic experience, accomplishing complex sentiments through his interplay of quirky characters, color, and cinematic techniques. His overall filmmaking visuals prove that one can go against conventional film techniques and still produce art that makes the audience feel a mixture of emotions. It takes creative boldness to put together odd elements in such an artistic way- like making the audience feel uncomfortable and satisfied through the villain's humorous death, or feel awkward and giddy through the couple’s odd romantic tension with one another. Not every movie has to repeat the same visual devices to prove its merit, and he certainly speaks to this reality. Wes Anderson is the poster child for serving unwavering loyalty to his style, and for fearlessly putting in controversial artistic choices that elevate his imagination and merit.
댓글