Title [Oh what's the point?]

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou tells the tale of a broken old oceanographer/entertainer whose career has steadily crashed. Steve Zissou is a lot like a washed up Bill Nye. The movie begins with the premiere of Zissou’s new film (which crashed). While filming the movie, Zissou’s best friend was eaten by a “Jaguar Shark”. Zissou vows to avenge his friend by filming one last movie hunting down the Jaguar Shark (which may or may not exist). This movie has been very widely discussed amongst reviewers (it has a score of 56 on Rottentomatoes). There are those that praise it, those that hate it, and then Roger Ebert who refuses to take a stance.

So let me start out by saying that The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou is weird. Some of you, those who have suffered far too many auteurs this semester, know exactly what I’m getting out. But I suspect most of you are puzzled because that statement doesn’t really say anything

That’s the key.

Wes Anderson’s movies are explosive, funny, and quirky (or in one word whimsy-seriously this showed up in every review I read) but they do not make a statement. Life Aquatic is the bottom of the pointless crater that is Wes Anderson’s film career which since Bottle Rocket has been progressively less and less relative to our society. This doesn’t mean his movies aren’t enjoyable (far from it!) but at the end of each one this viewer finds himself asking, what was the point?

The common theme in Wes Anderson’s movies is that dramatic events tend to happen, but we don’t know why. I will start with the most puzzling case from Life Aquatic, but really there are more than I can mention. One of the member’s of Zissou’s crew is a woman who appears topless periodically throughout the film. She has some sort of purpose (job) on the boat, but her being topless only serves to give the movie its R rating. Midway through the film she stages a mutiny against Zissou since she perceives him to be a crazy old man leading them on a suicide mission. She leaves Zissou’s company (along with all of his overworked interns) but the rest of the crew stays behind. Sure, one could argue that the mutiny was justifiable, but only one person leaves! What point does this make? Why is it in the film? Anderson does not answer the question. He does not explain why at the beginning of every event in the movie one of Zissou’s crew members sings a David Bowie song in Portuguese (that is not a joke). He does not explain why in Rushmore Max Fischer is compelled to build Ms. Cross an aquarium. He does not explain why in Bottle Rocket Dignan leads a life of crime. Anderson puts these events on the screen and makes the audience perceive the answers to their questions.

Wes Anderson’s movies tend to dazzle, but there is no substance behind the special effects. Most of Life Aquatic takes place on Zissou’s boat, the Belafonte. The set is a cutaway boat which allows the camera to follow the characters from room to room, level by level throughout the ship. These tracking shots are amazing and the ship appears to be a child’s dream boat. It may look rough from the outside, but inside there is a spa, chemistry lab, library, full kitchen, and observatory. The scenes of the ship were probably my favorite in the movie. But it’s just a toy and Anderson is careful to never let it become more than a playhouse. Outside the ship there are wonderfully colored computer-animated sea creatures that blur the lines between imagination and reality. But for the most part they are not referenced (only the Jaguar shark that Zissou is searching for) nor are they really acknowledged. They’re just flashy. The same can be said of Max Fischer’s plays. They’re elaborate, expensive, and very over the top. They help characterize Max, but they don’t enlighten. In Bottle Rocket Dignan creates very fanciful and intricate schemes to rob people, but they blow up each time because he’s such a screw up. There’s an old saying that if you shoot for the moon and miss, at least you land among the stars. But for somebody as highly regarded as Wes Anderson, it sure would have been nice if he delivered more of a social commentary in his films. He’s sure got style, but that can only take you so far.

Chigurh- More Bitter than Sweet 2

Sometimes it’s fun to root for the villain. I think in some movies the bad guy is often cooler than the hero. The same cannot be said about Anton Chigurh in No Country for Old Men. In that movie the Coen’s managed to create one of the most despicable, disconnected characters I’ve ever seen.
The leading reason for this is that Chigurh is a psychopath. Of this I am convinced, and to be honest that is probably the friendliest diagnosis anybody should give him. The character’s lack of emotion makes it impossible to connect in any way with him. What makes the movie frustrating for me is that Chigurh never pays for his crimes. He never gets caught, he doesn’t die, and the two times where he sustained injuries he didn’t really show any pain. But after killing innocent people (some for no reason at all) and generally over-doing his part in making the world a worse place, shouldn’t something bad happen do him?
Perhaps this is a lesson that the world is not fair. I personally (and optimistically) reject this viewpoint that the Coen’s are trying to teach us because nothing is that bad.

Chigurh- More Bitter than Sweet

Sometimes it’s fun to root for the villain. I think in some movies the bad guy is often cooler than the hero. The same cannot be said about Anton Chigurh in No Country for Old Men. In that movie the Coen’s managed to create one of the most despicable, disconnected characters I’ve ever seen.
The leading reason for this is that Chigurh is a psychopath. Of this I am convinced, and to be honest that is probably the friendliest diagnosis anybody should give him. The character’s lack of emotion makes it impossible to connect in any way with him. What makes the movie frustrating for me is that Chigurh never pays for his crimes. He never gets caught, he doesn’t die, and the two times where he sustained injuries he didn’t really show any pain. But after killing innocent people (some for no reason at all) and generally over-doing his part in making the world a worse place, shouldn’t something bad happen do him?
Perhaps this is a lesson that the world is not fair. I personally (and optimistically) reject this viewpoint that the Coen’s are trying to teach us because nothing is that bad.

Hollywood Altman-Style Does Not Paint a Pretty Picture

So I've decided to take this blog in a totally new direction: one that is completely superficial and lacking in intellectual depth.

Just kidding.

But now that I've gotten the worst out of the way hopefully it won't sting as bad when I tell you what I'm ACTUALLY going to write about. The truth is this constant theme throughout Altman's movies continually distracted me from enjoying any of them. It bothered me so much, that I cannot come up with anything else to write about (assuming that even that would be worthy of a place on this well-established blog). What I'm getting at is,

Did anybody else notice how damn UGLY each of Altman's leading actors were??

I don't know what Robert Altman did to make Elliot Gould look as bad as he did in The Long Goodbye. He looked like the actor that plays the Geico cavemen. I hardly recognized him because he looked like a pit-bull. There's a picture in my health class that shows what happens to the inside of your body when you smoke and the poster recreates that image on somebody's face. In Elliot Gould's case, the chain smoking clearly killed his face.

I can forgive Altman for all the uggos in Nashville considering the time and place the movie was shot. I wouldn't expect him to hire male models for a movie in which the main setting is the Southern United States (no offense to the hicks). But the thick seventies glasses combined with mullets just don't do anything for me.

Altman tried too hard to create realism in The Player by casting greasy movie executives. Tim Robbins is probably the best-looking man in any of these movies (I mean that in the straighest way possible) and that says a lot for the early 90's. But it bothered me for the entire movie that his eyes seem waaaay too close together and his forehead appears to be plotting the conquest of his rest of Robbins' face (the ratio at the time of the Player seemed to be 1:1 forehead to face).

So maybe I left the superficial part in, but I truly did come up with this while analyzing the films. People will argue that Hollywood is obsessed with pretty movie stars, but clearly Altman is not part of that.

Its to bad he wasnt born today!

Who ever pushed Kurosawa to make color films is amazing!! in Ran every shot was one amazing picture the color in everything was phenomenal and over the top beautiful. i hope he didn't play with the coloring in the camera because the scenery in Ran makes me want to travel to Japan so bad! I want to take the roll of film and take the individual frames and urn some of them into amazing photographs. I wonder if his previous films would have been just as amazing if they were in color as well, if they would have helped his film to be as visually enjoying as Ran was.
I feel that the ending scene when the blind man is alone on top of this huge cliff with this almost angry/ strangely peaceful sky in the background. I think this scene is visually interesting and visually different in that we start out at only seeing his shadow. Where as in other shots looking that away from the subject we can still see details and faces. But in this scene we only see shape and body form. It is almost emphasizing that we too are just as blind as the man on the cliff. That like the blind man our vision is also restricted. Also supporting the dismantling of everything of a hero losing everything even the human senses.

- Jennifer K

It’s raining cats and dogs! Oh wait, it’s a Kurosawa movie…

Kurosawa’s movies are deep in how they portray a hero, but one of their most obnoxious pitfalls is Kurosawa’s choice to over-dramatize weather effects. Throughout the whole entire Kurosawa unit I was reminded of a humorous quote from Wikipedia. When Kurosawa met John Ford , Ford commented that Kurosawa likes to use rain. K responded saying that, “you’re paying a lot of attention to my films.” Well Kurosawa, you’re wrong. Anybody who watches one of your films will have picked up by the end of it that the weather is completely ridiculous. Kurosawa over dramatizes a lot of things in his movies often for artistic effect (like when Lady Kaede had her head chopped off and her blood literally painted the walls). But the weather effects to me do not always serve an artistic purpose. In Yojimbo I think they seriously had to have lined up the entire street with fans and blowers in order to get the wind that powerful. These types of thought crept up on my while I was watching the movies and actually prevented me from enjoying parts of the films. And absolutely nobody wants to see an old Japanese man’s upper thighs. Just nobody. Keep the wind to yourself Kurosawa.

Future Machines: Real Life Future

I must be a machine or I have a ‘bittersweet’ heart. I watched this movie with some other girls and they got all sappy for the way the ending turned out I liked it but nothing worth getting emotional over. I really enjoyed this movie considering the reputation I hear of Woody Allen and how much of a creep human he was. I do like his combination of comedy, drama, and fiction I thought it was put together well and really made the movie ‘pop’. It is a love story, real world vs. the world of Hollywood / screen. I was thinking about this story idea, the bigger basic story concept… how a man leaves his world to be with this woman. Sounds a bit familiar! The story line of stereotypical forming relationship in most of today’s romantic female viewpoint sitcoms but kind of true to what women want (a man to come to change to their tastes or location i.e. less work/change for the woman)

Rita: Go with Tom! He's got no flaws!

Its ironic how if he had no flaws then how is him not being real not a flaw. I don’t know where these other characters minds were but they mostly seem a bit for the moment and not so much for the long term future. Kind of this go for it attempt. I live for the moment but I also don’t like to look at relationships with people as a life moment thing to have. I guess it depends where you place what is important to you. what's life all about anyway?

- Jennifer K