When you're seeing a Wes Anderson film, you know it's his work without seeing any credits. He has a special font that he uses for everything (including credits, and a variety of objects within his movies, such as books, store windows, signs, etc.). His art direction is distinctive, including an eccentric-antique set and odd costumes with vivid colors. He has favorite cinematographic moves, including the side shot slow motion walk and the rapid swing 90 degree pan. His soundtrack has a soft-folk-rock quality to it, such that it sounds like it's all from the same band (but it's not). He has favorite actors, such as the Wilson brothers, Bill Murray, Jason Schwartzman, and Anjelica Huston. His recognition of his style is most evident in those American Express commercials where he explains how to make a movie -- he knows he's self indulgent, and I love that about him.
Rushmore and The Royal Tenenbaums were perfect examples of how his special universe worked well, mixing whimsical humor with honest sentimentality. But then came the Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou. This movie was a disaster. It not only tried to jam too many characters in to a plot with not enough room for them, but it wallowed in its own sentimentality without much counteractive humor. It simply wasn't balanced, and was a disappointment. I hoped that Darjeeling would be a return to Anderson's earlier work, and luckily, it was far better than Life Aquatic, yet not as complete as Rushmore or Tenenbaums.
I say it's not complete not in a derogatory sense, but in the sense that is an intentionally fleeting movie. Anderson immediately throws us in the middle of what's happening without any exposition, like we're passengers on the train unaware of anything outside its domain. The first scene in the movie is Adrien Brody's character, Peter, running to catch the titular train. He jumps onto the train, and we follow him to his compartment where his brothers Jack, played by Jason Schwartzman, and Francis, played by Owen Wilson, are resting. The voyage has begun, but we don't know anything about it until Francis explains that he had a life-threatening motorcycle crash that has left him bandaged and limping, and that also has sparked a need in him to reconnect to his brothers in a spiritual manner. So he decided to get these brothers, who haven't seen each other since their father's funeral a year ago, to come with him on this voyage. The voyage is ostensibly to see temples and try to perform rituals to enhance their bond, but Francis actually has an ulterior motive for getting them to India, which is revealed early in the film.
During the trip we see why these brothers don't get along: Francis is controlling and overly verbal, ordering food for his brothers at the dining car and constantly asking them to agree to conditions; Peter is sensitive and obstinate, and clings to the memory of his father through physical possession of his personal items at the emotional expense of his brothers; Jack is impetuous and can't commit fully to Francis' plan. But these brothers don't hate each other -- there is a very obvious affection they hold for each other, and that makes the characters round and more believable than most in Anderson's world.
The train is only around for about half the film, and really provides us the relational exposition. Jack has a romance with the stewardess; a snake Peter bought gets loose inside their cabin; Francis and Peter fight and are maced in the process; and the train "gets lost" (a wonderful metaphor for life).
But the plot of the movie really begins once they get kicked off the train. Left in the countryside of India, the brothers happen upon a bonding spiritual experience that far exceeds anything that Francis could have planned. The climax of this experience is a flashback -- the only in the film -- that shows us these brothers the last time they saw each other. The experience is a catharsis that allows them to do what they came to do, and we follow them on one final voyage before the film ends.
I've seen this movie described in commercials as "hilarious." I think this is a terrible misnomer. There is a lot of humor in the film, but it is almost entirely in the way the brothers communicate with each other. There is nothing "hilarious" about it, though. This film is a touching character study that uses Anderson's quirky humor to get the audience to relate to the brothers, not to belly laugh.
As I said earlier, the film feels incomplete. It is not a structured story, but a snippet out of life. These characters are simply dealing with grief, and experiencing each other's grief. Things happen in the movie the way they would in life -- things don't work out so well all the time. Sometimes the mission cannot be accomplished. But in the end, the brothers do very symbolically "shed" their grief and catch the train home, to continue their voyage.
P.S. - At the beginning of the movie, the screen says to watch Anderson's short film, "Hotel Chavalier," online, at hotelchevalier.com. It involves Jason Schwartzman's character and his ex-girlfriend, mentioned throughout the film. I have not seen it, for various reasons, but I'm sure Nilay will opine on it.
0 comments:
Post a Comment