Saw Darjeeling Lmtd (New Wes Anderson)

onetet

at a preview screening this morning.Still mulling it over and not entirely sure how I felt about it. Visually it's stunning, and while the characters are cut from the same cloth as most of Wes Anderson's work -- rich (as in affluent), self-important, but charming relatives bouncing between manic and depressive states -- the new setting shakes things up in some intriguing ways.The first half is full of amazing dialogue and humor in Anderson's usual wry/deadpan mode. The second half is a lot slower and focuses more on serious drama -- at times these portions got a little dreary to watch, but I have a feeling they're going to sit with me well.I found myself thinking about Owen Wilson's suicide attempt a lot... his character begins the film recovering from a major physical and emotional trauma in his life.They showed the Hotel Chevalier short before the feature -- I guess they're going to do that for the theatrical release, too? If not, watch it if you haven't already; it sets up Darjeeling perfectly and it's very well done in its own right.I loved Bottle Rocket and (especially) Rushmore, but I've felt like he peaked with Rushmore -- Royal Tennenbaums and Life Aquatic both had plenty of movie magic in the cinematography and set design, but I felt like the characters, plot, and dialogue were increasingly less sharp with those ones. If this one doesn't up the ante, I feel like it at least halted that slide.

mandrew

"Like a lot of people who grew up with modest means, I have an attraction to stories about very affluent characters. I suppose that the reason for this is the same as why people write about wealthy people to begin with, or why any of us would desire to be rich ourselves -- an absurd surplus of funds gives a person license to pursue most any whim. It's not true freedom by any stretch, but it sorta seems that way from a distance, or in certain types of stories.

It's not exactly a surprise that Wes Anderson is constantly making films about rich people. Above all other things, Anderson is obsessed with aesthetics, and logically, his taste in scenery limits him to stories in which his characters must either possess a lot of money, or enter the context of wealth. Unlike a lot of artists and producers in this decade, Anderson's fixation on wealth has little to do with the glamor of expensive objects and tacky nouveau riche style -- think about this year's MTV awards, Entourage, The Hills, Kanye West -- but rather the tossed-off everyday comfort of having no major financial limitations. You can't buy the lifestyle Anderson is selling -- you have to be born into it. You can try to talk your way into it, like Max Fischer or Eli Cash, but it won't work out. You can work hard, make a lot of money, and enter a higher tax bracket like Herman Blume or Royal Tenenbaum, but your drive and working class roots will always set you apart from those whose ambitions have been stalled by the inertia of excessive comfort.

The three main characters in Anderson's new film The Darjeeling Limited are the sons of a successful businessman, but their wealth is mostly downplayed throughout the film despite the fact that it is crucial to the context of their story. On one hand, Anderson and his collaborators are making an effort to make it easier for audiences to like and relate to the characters as human beings, and on the other, it is a very effective way of showing how rarely their characters think about their privilege, either because they've simply taken it for granted, or don't believe themselves to be as rich as other people they might know, or are just lost in a haze of self-absorbed oblivion. Their tastes are not extravagant, but they are very whimsical, affected, and every so slightly toxic in their entitlement. The prequel short Hotel Chevalier depicts the youngest brother living in a Parisian hotel room for at least a month while sulking through a pathetic bout of depression, and the film proper follows the boys as they take a trip through a foreign country and mostly just stroll through the scenery whenever they aren't half-heartedly taking in some "spiritual" destination or forcing nameless faceless others to -- literally -- carry around their emotional baggage.

It's worth noting that Wes Anderson co-wrote The Darjeeling Limited with Roman Coppola and Jason Schwartzman, which goes a long way towards explaining why the film essentially plays out like the dude version of Sofia Coppola's Lost In Translation. What is it about the Coppola family that compels them to make highly stylized films that beg the viewer to take the emotional pain of extremely privileged young adults very, very seriously?[/b] Is this simply narcissism in the form of self-critique? Schwartzman's character in Darjeeling is an author who is amusingly incapable of writing a story that isn't a very thinly veiled version of his own life -- are we meant to take that as a sort of self-deprecating joke? It certainly seem as though both films drop their whiney leads into a country that they fetishize but do not understand as a way of deliberately highlighting the way both the characters and the filmmakers value aesthetics over content or human connections. The weird tension of The Darjeeling Limited comes from how Anderson's restrained enthusiasm and deadpan melancholy clashes with the self-pity and disengagement of the Coppolas, resulting in some of the film's most appealing moments, but also a larger feeling that Anderson has reduced all of India and its people to a cutesy diorama playset to accompany the Coppolas' sullen miniatures.

Since I saw The Darjeeling Limited on Saturday night, I've been wondering why I feel a bit bothered by its low key depiction of wealthy characters, and I've settled on an answer: While I am all in favor of fiction that portrays affluent characters as three dimensional human beings, I chafe at stories that are entirely or seemingly uncritical of wealth. I love Jonathan Fire*Eater's dark, stylish songs about debauched rich kids, and the hilariously grotesque Bluths of Arrested Development. I adore the snobby primness of Richard and Emily Gilmore and the gleeful capitalist sleaziness of Jack Donaghy, and I'm intrigued by the promise of creepy decadence in ABC's new Peter Krause vehicle Dirty Sexy Money. However, aside from Whit Stillman's Metropolitan and, uh, maybe Batman, I'm drawing a blank on rich characters that I enjoy who are not meant to seem at least somewhat distasteful and untrustworthy to the audience.

Am I being unfair? Is this how my classism manifests itself? Am I really just after stories that are there to tell me that I'm better off and more authentic because I grew up in and will likely always remain part of the American middle class? Why do I need to be told over and over again that money fucks you up? The Darjeeling Limited more or less arrives at that point, but without any sort of certainty or conviction. It just shrugs it off like "uh, I don't know, maybe, whatever..." and that grates on me in the worst way."

and a post script, which IMO explains why bottle rocket and rushmore are anderson's two most successful films:
"If I've learned anything from the last two Anderson films, it's just how much he allows his collaborators to shape the film -- it's pretty obvious how much Noah Baumbach is in Life Aquatic, and how much Coppola/Schwartzman is in Darjeeling, and that maybe the big reason the first three movies worked is because Owen Wilson co-wrote them. (Unsurprisingly, Owen Wilson is -- BY FAR -- the best thing about Darjeeling Ltd.)"

elise

thanks for the review, really! I've been wanting to see this for a while now, and it's nowhere to be found where I live.

I've been so busy with classes that it's hard for me to go see a movie, unless it's a French film

I will always love Tennenbaums and Life Aquatic.

I found myself thinking about Owen Wilson's suicide attempt a lot... his character begins the film recovering from a major physical and emotional trauma in his life.

oh the irony


I can't wait for it to finally come here.

edith head

i haven't seen it yet (but i will)and even though i loved rushmore, i saw this in this week's onion and thought it was funny and true

New Wes Anderson Film Features Deadpan Delivery, Meticulous Art Direction, Characters With Father Issues

September 24, 2007 | Issue 43???39
LOS ANGELES???Fans who attended a sneak preview Monday of critically acclaimed director Wes Anderson's newest project, The Darjeeling Limited, were surprised to learn that the film features a deadpan comedic tone, highly stylized production design, and a plot centering around unresolved family issues.

"What will he think of next?" audience member Michael Cauley said. "And who could have foreseen the elaborately crafted '60s-era aesthetic, melancholy subtext, and quirky nomenclature???to say nothing of the unexpected curveball of casting Owen Wilson, Jason Schwartzman, and Bill Murray?"

In a recent review, New York Times film critic A.O. Scott also expressed surprise at the film's cutting-edge soundtrack, which features a Rolling Stones song and three different tracks by the Kinks.

elise

"Like a lot of people who grew up with modest means, I have an attraction to stories about very affluent characters. I suppose that the reason for this is the same as why people write about wealthy people to begin with, or why any of us would desire to be rich ourselves -- an absurd surplus of funds gives a person license to pursue most any whim. It's not true freedom by any stretch, but it sorta seems that way from a distance, or in certain types of stories.

It's not exactly a surprise that Wes Anderson is constantly making films about rich people. Above all other things, Anderson is obsessed with aesthetics, and logically, his taste in scenery limits him to stories in which his characters must either possess a lot of money, or enter the context of wealth. Unlike a lot of artists and producers in this decade, Anderson's fixation on wealth has little to do with the glamor of expensive objects and tacky nouveau riche style -- think about this year's MTV awards, Entourage, The Hills, Kanye West -- but rather the tossed-off everyday comfort of having no major financial limitations. You can't buy the lifestyle Anderson is selling -- you have to be born into it. You can try to talk your way into it, like Max Fischer or Eli Cash, but it won't work out. You can work hard, make a lot of money, and enter a higher tax bracket like Herman Blume or Royal Tenenbaum, but your drive and working class roots will always set you apart from those whose ambitions have been stalled by the inertia of excessive comfort.

The three main characters in Anderson's new film The Darjeeling Limited are the sons of a successful businessman, but their wealth is mostly downplayed throughout the film despite the fact that it is crucial to the context of their story. On one hand, Anderson and his collaborators are making an effort to make it easier for audiences to like and relate to the characters as human beings, and on the other, it is a very effective way of showing how rarely their characters think about their privilege, either because they've simply taken it for granted, or don't believe themselves to be as rich as other people they might know, or are just lost in a haze of self-absorbed oblivion. Their tastes are not extravagant, but they are very whimsical, affected, and every so slightly toxic in their entitlement. The prequel short Hotel Chevalier depicts the youngest brother living in a Parisian hotel room for at least a month while sulking through a pathetic bout of depression, and the film proper follows the boys as they take a trip through a foreign country and mostly just stroll through the scenery whenever they aren't half-heartedly taking in some "spiritual" destination or forcing nameless faceless others to -- literally -- carry around their emotional baggage.

It's worth noting that Wes Anderson co-wrote The Darjeeling Limited with Roman Coppola and Jason Schwartzman, which goes a long way towards explaining why the film essentially plays out like the dude version of Sofia Coppola's Lost In Translation. What is it about the Coppola family that compels them to make highly stylized films that beg the viewer to take the emotional pain of extremely privileged young adults very, very seriously?[/b] Is this simply narcissism in the form of self-critique? Schwartzman's character in Darjeeling is an author who is amusingly incapable of writing a story that isn't a very thinly veiled version of his own life -- are we meant to take that as a sort of self-deprecating joke? It certainly seem as though both films drop their whiney leads into a country that they fetishize but do not understand as a way of deliberately highlighting the way both the characters and the filmmakers value aesthetics over content or human connections. The weird tension of The Darjeeling Limited comes from how Anderson's restrained enthusiasm and deadpan melancholy clashes with the self-pity and disengagement of the Coppolas, resulting in some of the film's most appealing moments, but also a larger feeling that Anderson has reduced all of India and its people to a cutesy diorama playset to accompany the Coppolas' sullen miniatures.

Since I saw The Darjeeling Limited on Saturday night, I've been wondering why I feel a bit bothered by its low key depiction of wealthy characters, and I've settled on an answer: While I am all in favor of fiction that portrays affluent characters as three dimensional human beings, I chafe at stories that are entirely or seemingly uncritical of wealth. I love Jonathan Fire*Eater's dark, stylish songs about debauched rich kids, and the hilariously grotesque Bluths of Arrested Development. I adore the snobby primness of Richard and Emily Gilmore and the gleeful capitalist sleaziness of Jack Donaghy, and I'm intrigued by the promise of creepy decadence in ABC's new Peter Krause vehicle Dirty Sexy Money. However, aside from Whit Stillman's Metropolitan and, uh, maybe Batman, I'm drawing a blank on rich characters that I enjoy who are not meant to seem at least somewhat distasteful and untrustworthy to the audience.

Am I being unfair? Is this how my classism manifests itself? Am I really just after stories that are there to tell me that I'm better off and more authentic because I grew up in and will likely always remain part of the American middle class? Why do I need to be told over and over again that money fucks you up? The Darjeeling Limited more or less arrives at that point, but without any sort of certainty or conviction. It just shrugs it off like "uh, I don't know, maybe, whatever..." and that grates on me in the worst way."

and a post script, which IMO explains why bottle rocket and rushmore are anderson's two most successful films:
"If I've learned anything from the last two Anderson films, it's just how much he allows his collaborators to shape the film -- it's pretty obvious how much Noah Baumbach is in Life Aquatic, and how much Coppola/Schwartzman is in Darjeeling, and that maybe the big reason the first three movies worked is because Owen Wilson co-wrote them. (Unsurprisingly, Owen Wilson is -- BY FAR -- the best thing about Darjeeling Ltd.)"

um, you got this from here??

how about your own opinion?

Have you seen it? Is this your blog?


edit: I see the quotes now. Sorry if I am confused. I need more coffee.

Guzzo

attn: LA heads

can someone please let me know where I can see this or get passes to see an advance screening

I am trying to do this as a favor to a friend and I'd love to be able to surprise him with tix to this

onetet

What is it about the Coppola family that compels them to make highly stylized films that beg the viewer to take the emotional pain of extremely privileged young adults very, very seriously?[/b]

Where'd that article come from?

I agree with a lot of its criticisms of Wes Anderson and the Coppolas, although I actually don't feel like Noah Baumbach made such a big imprint on Life Aquatic, nor Roman or Jason Schwartzmen (both part of the Coppola family) on this one.

This film definitely got me thinking about tourism, racism, class issues, etc. It's clearly satirizing these characters self-absorption AND the priviledged way in which they navigate this foreign country about which they know so little -- it's just clear to what degree we're intended to find them foolish and to what degree heroic... to what degree, as the quote above says, their emotional pain is taken "very, very seriously." Can something be both very, very serious and the source of humor?

Even a few years ago this would have bothered me a whole lot more; these days I'm more chill and content to see what each viewer's responses to those issues are. And people will react -- if you're an intelligent and aware person, you're going to notice race and class in this film, it's constantly pushing those buttons, whether intentionally or not.

rootlesscosmo

"What will he think of next?" audience member Michael Cauley said. "And who could have foreseen the elaborately crafted '60s-era aesthetic, melancholy subtext, and quirky nomenclature???to say nothing of the unexpected curveball of casting Owen Wilson, Jason Schwartzman, and Bill Murray?"

hahahaha.

Mr. Casual

"What will he think of next?" audience member Michael Cauley said. "And who could have foreseen the elaborately crafted '60s-era aesthetic, melancholy subtext, and quirky nomenclature???to say nothing of the unexpected curveball of casting Owen Wilson, Jason Schwartzman, and Bill Murray?"

hahahaha.

To me the casting of certain people over and over again does not bother me. I find it comforting, its like a great TV show that only airs every other year.

kitchenknight

I think i might be done with this dude. Rushmore is in my top 3 favorite movies of all time, but I honestly thought about walking out of Life Aquatic.

tonyphrone

I think i might be done with this dude. Rushmore is in my top 3 favorite movies of all time, but I honestly thought about walking out of Life Aquatic[/b] .

am i the only one that liked this movie? i admit it was completely style over substance - BUT WHAT STYLE!

I celebrate all of Wes' movies - even if they're all the same. Same could be said for Woody Allen and i love all of his too.

mandrew

What is it about the Coppola family that compels them to make highly stylized films that beg the viewer to take the emotional pain of extremely privileged young adults very, very seriously?[/b]

Where'd that article come from?

I agree with a lot of its criticisms of Wes Anderson and the Coppolas, although I actually don't feel like Noah Baumbach made such a big imprint on Life Aquatic, nor Roman or Jason Schwartzmen (both part of the Coppola family) on this one.

This film definitely got me thinking about tourism, racism, class issues, etc. It's clearly satirizing these characters self-absorption AND the priviledged way in which they navigate this foreign country about which they know so little -- it's just clear to what degree we're intended to find them foolish and to what degree heroic... to what degree, as the quote above says, their emotional pain is taken "very, very seriously." Can something be both very, very serious and the source of humor?

Even a few years ago this would have bothered me a whole lot more; these days I'm more chill and content to see what each viewer's responses to those issues are. And people will react -- if you're an intelligent and aware person, you're going to notice race and class in this film, it's constantly pushing those buttons, whether intentionally or not.

i got it from matthew perpetua's fluxblog, he's a spectacular writer and always has an interesting take on new music. elise, sorry to not cite my sources properly!

i just realized that the coppola in question is roman and not sophia. i think i assumed it was sophia since the themes of 'darjeeling' and 'lost in translation' seem similar.

onetet

Well, Roman's one film as director (that I know of), is CQ, about a director making a Barbarella-esque French sci-fi film in the late 60s and it shares a lot of similarities in styles and character types with Anderson, Sofia, and Baumbach.

He's also been assistant director on some of Sofia's films, maybe all of em.

Pony

am i the only one that liked this movie?

NO. I need to watch this again, and Rushmore for that matter. I'll watch anything with Bill Murray basically, he is that dude.

onetet

Those who liked Life Aquatic... did you love it on first viewing? I thought it felt very wooden, boring, and more of the same and haven't given it a second chance.

tonyphrone

I'll watch anything with Bill Murray basically, he is that dude.

SPlDEY

Those who liked Life Aquatic... did you love it on first viewing? I thought it felt very wooden, boring, and more of the same and haven't given it a second chance.

I definitely loved the Life Aquatic on first viewing. It had a lot of style and character, and didn't take itself to seriously. Zissou is one of Bill Murrays great characters. I think it reminded me alot of a live action cartoon, without all the cheap pratfalls, and slapstick.

That was a pretty interesting review from that Fluxblog. It reminds me alot of the ways on which I analyze a film. Half way through reading that review I was thinking maybe this writers take is more about himself then about the film. Which is a good thing he's asking the right questions instead of dwelling on the synopsis like most reviewers.

- spidey

btw that gigantic Bill murray picture really makes this thread hard to read.

- spidey

Skip Drinkwater

I think i might be done with this dude. Rushmore is in my top 3 favorite movies of all time, but I honestly thought about walking out of Life Aquatic[/b] .

am i the only one that liked this movie? i admit it was completely style over substance - BUT WHAT STYLE!

I celebrate all of Wes' movies - even if they're all the same. Same could be said for Woody Allen and i love all of his too.

I loved The Life Aquatic. Been looking forward to this new one ever since I heard about it.

Mr. Casual

tonyphrone please edit out the enormous picture.. no need

Woimsah

whatever whatever. N Portman gets naked right? yerp!

Skip Drinkwater

tonyphrone please edit out the enormous picture.. no need

Is that what stretched everything out in this thread? Yeah, please.

rootlesscosmo

bill murray played himself out.

the shark doth hath been jumped circa 2000 with Charlie's Angels.

dude peaked in the mid-80's, made a glorious comeback in the mid- to late-90's, notably in Kingpin and Rushmore.

he has since overexposed his quirky self.

he should retire.

tonyphrone

bill murray played himself out.

the shark doth hath been jumped circa 2000 with Charlie's Angels.

dude peaked in the mid-80's, made a glorious comeback in the mid- to late-90's, notably in Kingpin and Rushmore.

he has since overexposed his quirky self.

he should retire.

I see your point - but he was amazing in Rushmore and Lost in translation... he's been a little spotty since then. That last Jarmusch flick ? And I'm a huge Jarmusch fan!

hcrink

i haven't seen it yet (but i will)and even though i loved rushmore, i saw this in this week's onion and thought it was funny and true

New Wes Anderson Film Features Deadpan Delivery, Meticulous Art Direction, Characters With Father Issues

September 24, 2007 | Issue 43???39
LOS ANGELES???Fans who attended a sneak preview Monday of critically acclaimed director Wes Anderson's newest project, The Darjeeling Limited, were surprised to learn that the film features a deadpan comedic tone, highly stylized production design, and a plot centering around unresolved family issues.

"What will he think of next?" audience member Michael Cauley said. "And who could have foreseen the elaborately crafted '60s-era aesthetic, melancholy subtext, and quirky nomenclature???to say nothing of the unexpected curveball of casting Owen Wilson, Jason Schwartzman, and Bill Murray?"

In a recent review, New York Times film critic A.O. Scott also expressed surprise at the film's cutting-edge soundtrack, which features a Rolling Stones song and three different tracks by the Kinks.

This is hilarious.

That said, I'm way happier watching yet another minor variation on Wes Anderson's theme than most of the gay shit that passes for a movie these days.

Skip Drinkwater

bill murray played himself out.

the shark doth hath been jumped circa 2000 with Charlie's Angels.

dude peaked in the mid-80's, made a glorious comeback in the mid- to late-90's, notably in Kingpin and Rushmore.

he has since overexposed his quirky self.

he should retire.

I see your point - but he was amazing in Rushmore and Lost in translation... he's been a little spotty since then. That last Jarmusch flick ? And I'm a huge Jarmusch fan!

That wasn't Murray's fault. The screenplay was terrible.

johnshade

I think i might be done with this dude. Rushmore is in my top 3 favorite movies of all time, but I honestly thought about walking out of Life Aquatic.

mannybolone

The older I get, the less I like Wes' films, for many of the reasons Perpetua outlined. I'll still ride for "Rushmore" though.

NachoManCandySandwich

bill murray played himself out.
he should retire.

Garfield.
(he still rules though)

mylatency

The older I get, the less I like Wes' films, for many of the reasons Perpetua outlined. I'll still ride for "Rushmore" though.

OH ARE THEY?

djdaze

whatever whatever. N Portman gets naked right? yerp!

don't need to wait for the Movie for that one, go to itunes and search for Hotel Chevalier, it's a free Wes Anderson short that somewhat includes said nudity.

DJFerrari

The older I get, the less I like Wes' films, for many of the reasons Perpetua outlined. I'll still ride for "Rushmore" though.

OH ARE THEY?

Best line ever

I'll ride for Life Aquatic too. The interns were great, plus Seu Jorge... c'mon!