MOONRISE KINGDOM (2012)
Directed by Wes
Anderson
Focus Films, PG-13,
94 mins.
* * 1/2
Everyone keeps waiting for director Wes Anderson to make his
masterpiece. He already has–Rushmore (1998).
That explains why he’s been remaking it ever since. Just as surely as a Fox
News broadcast will contain a screed against “Obamacare,” a Woody Allen film
will center on a hopeless neurotic played by the director (or a surrogate), and
a John Irving novel will contain a bear, Vienna, and wrestling, so do all Wes
Anderson films have standard elements. These include:
·
A main character (either a child or a perpetual
adolescent) that is odd and misunderstood.
·
A period of trial in which the protagonist is
ridiculed and presumed mentally damaged.
·
The revelation that the outcast is actually quirky,
but brilliant.
·
A central dilemma that children resolve by
outwitting stupid adults. A host of secondary characters whose motives and
behaviors are inexplicable and improbable.
·
Bill Murray playing a droll but ineffectual
character.
Some critics have hailed Moonrise
Kingdom as the film we’ve been waiting for Anderson to make, but from where
I sit there’s not reason to cast aside his unofficial nickname: “Mess”
Anderson. Those who have been charmed by Moonrise
Kingdom do have one point in their favor–it has a coherent narrative that
carries us from start to finish rather than the helter-skelter randomness that
made some of his other efforts feel like a Saturday
Night Live sketch that got carried away. This time the setting is 1965 and we
get two brilliant-but-misunderstood misfits, the pre-Goth Suzy Bishop (Kara
Hayward) and an orphaned geek scout Sam Shakusky (Jared Gilman). Both kids are
as out of place among their peers as Mormons in a beer tent, and each is either
ignored by adults and peers or endlessly harassed by them. Naturally, they
gravitate to each other.
The film has its charms, and both
Hayward and Gilman are terrific. The humor is offbeat and unexpected, but mostly
in its small details. (There aren’t many laugh-out-loud moments.) And, yes, its
narrative is way tighter than Anderson meanderings such as Darjeeling Limited (2007) or The
Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004), though the latter is much funnier. (Darjeeling, on the other hand, is
certainly among the worst films of the 21st century.) To be frank,
though, Anderson’s coherence is ham-handed. He telegraphs everything and, just
in case you don’t get it, his camera lingers on everything prefigured for so
long that even the intellectually halt and lame will proclaim “Doh!” I wanted
to love this film, but the best I can offer is “meh.” I’m still waiting for
Anderson to live up to the promise shown in Rushmore
and suspect he may be like Quentin Tarantino before he made Kill Bill–in desperate need of changing
his entire focus before he becomes a parody of himself.--Rob Weir
No comments:
Post a Comment