How do you ever describe a Wes Anderson movie? Swirly comes to mind.
The synopsis, for once, can be gleaned from the adverts for the film. Three brothers, Jack, Peter, and Francis Whitman (Jason Schwartzman, Adrien Brody, and Owen Wilson) come to India at Francis' request. They are called without reason, simply that they will be staying "through the end of the month." Jack and Peter find each other on the titular train, after an interesting and classic Indian taxi drive through the unstated city by a businessman (Bill Murray in a fun little cameo). Francis soon joins the brothers, with signs of recent and severe trauma to the head and ankle. He confesses a motive - for the brothers to take on a "spiritual quest," to be better brothers.
They begin their journey, and we begin to meet some characters: Brandon, the Sancho Panza for Francis (a role Anderson loves to use and abuse through all his films); Rita, the stewardess for the train who clearly has unhappiness in her life, and who uses and is used by Jack for their mutual interest; the conductor, a Sikh who curiously has an American accent that is never explained.
The boys have a couple escapades, serving mainly to highlight their lifelong roles. Peter, the one who is never quite happy with his life and relationships, despite having a wife he loves, a child on the way, and a business that seems to be working, distrusts both his brothers but confides each's secrets to the other. Francis, likely the oldest, is the MC, overriding and overscheduling to archetype. Jack, seemingly the baby, has a backhistory that we are encouraged to see (www.hotelchevalier.com - requires iTunes) as a writer.
The film takes its strongest turn when, after being kicked off the train, the brothers stumble on another set of brothers - village boys traversing a river by a rope. The Whitmans predict the villagers' impending fall, and jump the the rescue of the boys. However, they aren't entirely successful, and the film takes the usual Wes Anderson turn to the serious, with appropriate grief and introspection from each of the brothers about the death of a village boy. There is a flashback to the funeral of their father, the last time they were together as a family, which is supposed to explain something about the boys, but is less than successful in that goal.
Eventually, the boys end up at their real destination - their mother (Anderson's usual matriarch, Anjelica Huston) who has become a nun in the foothills of the Himalayas. The film continues from here to its in media res conclusion, with lessons learned, but futures unwritten.
Like most of his movies, Anderson creates a microcosm that is a bizarre family in extrema. We all know people like the ones Anderson creates, just (hopefully) none quite that zany. This is where he can shine (The Royal Tenenbaums) or not (I haven't seen The Life Aquatic..., but that was the conventional wisdom). The brothers reflect the old Russian novel ethos - every dysfunctional family is dysfunctional in its own way (applied by Tolstoy and Dostoevsky equally). Perhaps a personal bias toward the actors, but Jack and Peter are the ones that draw the most empathy, particularly toward Peter during the death of the boy. I've just never much appreciated Owen Wilson as an actor, and his role here does little to convince me otherwise. He can be in good films, but his whiny, overbearing brother is just not my cup of tea. Perhaps, Anderson plays this to his advantage, as he is the one that is a foil to Peter here.
In general, this was an entertaining film, one that will be seen by fans of the director and likely few else. It succeeds well in telling a small, entertaining story. However, it pales when compared to his prior works, particularly Tenenbaums and Rushmore. The main failing is, unlike in those works, there is only a limited telling of the backstory. We hear about a father, probably implied by the surrogate of the Bill Murray business man - a presence in their lives, but always distant, perhaps literally, perhaps metaphorically. We hear about the relationships of 2 of the boys, but virtually nothing about Francis (why is he injured?). We see the loving nature of their mother, but learn nothing about why she runs away from them. The voiceover in Tenenbaums, with the continually interspliced flashbacks, worked very well for painting a fuller picture. Perhaps Anderson wished this vaguer story. Although only 20 minutes shorter than Tenenbaums, and the same length as Rushmore, it feels much shorter, less a full view than a glimpse.
If you liked Wes Anderson's prior work, you will probably like this one. If you didn't, don't try to appreciate this one. If you haven't seen the earlier works, give it a try, but have a drink or two first.
0 comments:
Post a Comment