A reader sent me a link to Timothy May’s Intercut.net review of Wes Anderson‘s The Grand Budapest Hotel and it’s a treat of a read.
After breaking down the particulars of the plot and characters, May gets deeper into the nuts and bolts of Anderson’s filmmaking style as well as the similarities and, more importantly, differences between his lead characters over the course of time.
In referring to Ralph Fiennes as M. Gustave and his penchant for honesty, which separates him from previous Anderson leads such as Max Fischer (Jason Schwartzman) in Rushmore and Royal Tenenbaum (Gene Hackman) in The Royal Tenenbaums, who share a “singular notion of culture, class, and decorum”, but the latter two are also liars. Why does this matter? Well it matters when it comes to what the character is fighting for and what he stands for as a man.
May then writes:
The turning point in Anderson’s evolution from Max Fischer to Gustave H is his Indian road trip comedy The Darjeeling Limited (2007). The film follows three brothers who try to reconnect with each other and learn how to express their feelings in the wake of their father’s death. This struggle is present in almost all of Anderson’s films, but this was the first time he made a film explicitly about how to deal with it. Anderson is questioning the value of the pet themes he had thoroughly explored in his four previous films. This makes The Darjeeling Limited one of Anderson’s most confused and difficult movies, but it also marks the first time the audience grappled with the idea of a “Wes Anderson movie.”
The Grand Budapest Hotel is undeniably a film steeped in “Wes Anderson-ness” and many have looked at this as a negative. May has done a wonderful job of examining just what exactly “Wes Anderson-ness” is and what it means to consume a “Wes Anderson movie”. As much as each may look and feel the same, the intentions behind each are not the same. If a filmmaker is truly attached to his/her work you’ll be able to see parts of them within their narratives and style, this couldn’t be more true when it comes to Wes Anderson. He’s clearly attached to these films and if Darjeeling is to be looked at as a turning point, a turning point to what?
I’d clearly say it’s a turning point and mark of personal growth. An acknowledgement of not only presenting complex characters, but actually showing these characters face their personal struggles and deal with them specifically as May has said. This marks a growth in Anderson, a recognition, whether conscious or not, of what his characters previously stood for and what they stand for now.
May also discusses Anderson’s visual approach in not only fantastical terms with films such as Grand Budapest and Fantastic Mr. Fox, but also looks at Budapest from its presentation, aspect ratio and just why exactly has each film seemed more and more “Wes Anderson-y”. I absolutely love his answer and the way in which he relates it to the righteousness of M. Gustave.
Gustave’s whole way of life is overtaken by the crashing waves of fascism and the modern world. When the Zigzags stop his train and ask Gustave to go with them, he does not fight. Gustave would rather die than live in a world so diametrically opposed to the one he knew. Anderson continues to fight for his style and for his values. Here, he makes a compelling argument for his way of making cinema, and like Gustave, he will not let the tide take him.
I’m planning on seeing Grand Budapest Hotel again this weekend, which I’ve meant to do, but I upped the urgency solely because of May’s review. Great work.
