REVIEW OF THE LIFE AQUATIC by Chris Knipp
Roaming the seas Wes Anderson style
The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou is about an insecure, not quite grown up Jacques Cousteau clone whose undersea adventure series has tanked for the last decade. His wife Eleanor (Anjelica Huston), who was the “brains,” some say, of the enterprise, and whose rich parents were its backers, is about to leave him. An illegitimate son who is called Ned Lipton (Owen Wilson, for the first time not the coauthor of a Wes Anderson screenplay) has just shocked Zissou by appearing, and a pregnant British journalist has come on board to do a cover story on him, but since she’s “honest,” it’ll be no puff piece. His big rival, Alistair Hennessey (Jeff Goldblum) is much richer and more successful. Zissou has declared before an Italian audience his newest project: to track down and kill a rare breed of shark which was responsible for the death of his partner. Thus begins this rambling, entertaining, quite original movie which above all is a vehicle for the ripening talents of the mature Bill Murray -- for which Lost in Translation now seems but a timid warm-up.
Sofia Coppola’s second film showed Murray’s ironic wistfulness; The Life Aquatic showcases a far wider spectrum of expressions and emotions. Steve Zissou is the captain of his antiquated studio-like ship, and he knows how to command. But he also knows he's become a failure and he's often open about his insecurity. Anderson merges absurdity with sympathy throughout his portrait of Zissou.
There are those who think Anderson had gone further out into the kind of quirky self-indulgence and preciosity he occasionally displayed in his previous film, The Royal Tennenbaums -- that his movies have become sequences of fade-out comic vignettes, static tableaux to set off one-liners. In fact The LIfe Aquatic isn't static at all. It crackles and pops with a spiky sense of direction. Steve's goal is to track the spotted leopard shark that ate his partner and best friend, and that goal really does drive the meandering action. (The movie's populated with digitalized underwater creatures that, weird though fish can normally be, manage to look even more absurd. The spotted shark is only the largest of them.) Along the way he must deal not just with self doubt but with pirates, financial and personal loss -- one mishap after another. His reunion with his son ends in tragedy. But he achieves his own redemption, even winning the friendship of his nemesis (Goldblum). The Life Aquatic has the satisfying arc of classic comedy, skirting failure and disaster and ending in happiness and union. The risk Anderson runs isn't of stasis but of declining into the kind of silly incidents you find in TV sitcoms. But that's a risk he manages to sail safely past.
And he has assembled a great cast -- Cate Blanchett (more winning and human than usual here, in a performance that's not a shtick or a feat of mimicry but a portrait of nice lady); Willem Dafoe as a testy Germanic acolyte; Goldblum, in his posh mode as in Igby Goes Down; a relaxed, self-parodying Michael Gambon; the regal Anjelica; and above all Owen Wilson, who acts as Zissou's (and Murray's) chief foil. The movie is also enlivened by fun settings like the Italian theater in the opening sequence, the boat, and the ruined hotel on the little island later on.
Essential is the wistful relationship with "Ned," Owen Wilson, whom Steve willingly appropriates yet is constantly uneasy about. He's glad to be needed, but terrified at the responsibility of having a son. Wilson is from Kentucky here, quietly charming, polite, unflappable. His simplicity and sense of security are an essential balance for Zissou's neurotic complexity.
The characters are constructed out of precise and witty moments. There's a charming scene where Ned comes upon the journalist, Jane Winslett-Richardson (Blanchett), and finds her listening to a tape of Bach keyboard music while reading aloud from the English translation of Swan's Way -- with the other volumes of Proust stacked on a chair, and she explains she's reading them for the baby in her tummy. When Ms. Winslett-Richardson boards the boat and is assigned to her cabin Steve says "Not this one, Klaus" (to Dafoe's character) just like in Jules et Jim when Oscar Werner introduces Henri Serre to Jeanne Moreau, and when Ned gets involved with Jane, Steve says "I said 'not this one'" and Ned says "I thought you said 'Not this one, Klaus'."
These are the kind of little touches that give the movie its special charm, but they also lead us toward a sense of understanding, even enlightenment. Anderson's strength in this movie as in The Royal Tennenbaums is that he conceives his whole cast as an eccentric family throughout -- the family of a man who doesn't want to be a father because he didn't like his, but who just as clearly is dying to become a mensch in his own eyes, and can't accomplish that alone.
It was rather odd to see this movie in the overblown cineplex where it was having one of its two opening "exclusive engagements." Somehow the scenes and dialogue didn't seem like what you'd expect in a cineplex at all. Still, The LIfe Aquatic is shot in a wide aspect ratio, and it looked great projected in the big auditorium, the same kind of room where House of Flying Daggers or Ocean's Twelve might appear. The mostly young audience was plainly delighted.
What makes this one of the best American movies of the year is that it's very much an auteur piece but it's warmly inclusive in its use of movie traditions. Wit luck its comedy may reach across barriers of class and education: it could "go wide" in more ways than one.
Re: REVIEW OF THE LIFE AQUATIC by Chris Knipp
I enjoyed your review as well Chris. I just saw the film last night and while it falls far short of what I would consider a great (dare I say 'good') film all around, I have great respect for Anderson's vision.
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Knipp
Roaming the seas Wes Anderson style
...Thus begins this rambling, entertaining, quite original movie which above all is a vehicle for the ripening talents of the mature Bill Murray -- for which Lost in Translation now seems but a timid warm-up.
Sofia Coppola’s second film showed Murray’s ironic wistfulness; The Life Aquatic showcases a far wider spectrum of expressions and emotions.
perhaps first brought out in Anderson's Rushmore.
Quote:
There are those who think Anderson had gone further out into the kind of quirky self-indulgence and preciosity he occasionally displayed in his previous film, The Royal Tennenbaums -- that his movies have become sequences of fade-out comic vignettes, static tableaux to set off one-liners. In fact The LIfe Aquatic isn't static at all. It crackles and pops with a spiky sense of direction.
Yeah, it's funny. There is one side of me that says it's extremely indulgent filmmaking, but I ultimately come away feeling that it is a clearer distillation of what Wes is interested in (is that the definition of indulgence?).
Quote:
The risk Anderson runs isn't of stasis but of declining into the kind of silly incidents you find in TV sitcoms. But that's a risk he manages to sail safely past.
Just barely, though. Apart from the rambling plotline, my biggest complaint is how played-out his gestures become from film to film. At times, this felt like Royal Tennenbaums-light... Things are starting to feel a bit too familiar.
Quote:
It was rather odd to see this movie in the overblown cineplex where it was having one of its two opening "exclusive engagements." Somehow the scenes and dialogue didn't seem like what you'd expect in a cineplex at all. Still, The LIfe Aquatic is shot in a wide aspect ratio, and it looked great projected in the big auditorium, the same kind of room where House of Flying Daggers or Ocean's Twelve might appear. The mostly young audience was plainly delighted.
Beautiful colors and I hear the animation was all stop-action which has been widely misattributed to cg in various reviews. Stop-action makes so much more sense with Anderson's crafty aesthetic...
Quote:
What makes this one of the best American movies of the year is that it's very much an auteur piece but it's warmly inclusive in its use of movie traditions. With luck its comedy may reach across barriers of class and education: it could "go wide" in more ways than one.
You could be right. While Murray has occupied this role in both coppola and anderson films, much of the movie-going crowd is just now catching on to his appeal. I wonder how this will play with mainstream audiences as a result.
All in all I really enjoy Anderson films. This may have been my least favorite of the 4, but it is still an enjoyable and singular aesthetic offering from a very creative mind.
P
A Special Movie In A Difficult To State Way
If one isn't focused on this movie, it could be considered quite bland and boring, yet on a more sustained experience, this movie has a different stylistic feel and approach that almost defies classification. The different photographic techniques, the colors, the sets are vibrant with energy. The acting style at times is amateurish yet deliberately rebelliously anti-polished.
I can accept the outlandish pirate sequence that was so jarring and unbelievable (that in some ways is typical of the whole movie's premise). Yet when it comes to Bill Murray's character, his presence as Bill Murray in the movie becomes a distraction. I would have preferred to have seen Bill Murray's character in "Lost in Translation" in "Life Aquatic" rather than what the audience experienced in "Life Aquatic." With the more convoluted scenario, Mr. Murray's character in "Lost in Translation" would have been forced to expand and his dry humor would have leached out in what I would have imagined would have been delightful ways.
The movie on the whole was an original, entertaining, and creative experience that I'm glad I had a chance, reluctantly, to see.
Going to Put this Movie Into My Reserve Pile
This movie defies classification and as such, it's so difficult to evaluate and judge it based on criteria for which there may be none. I'm just going to have to put this movie on it's own shelve and then at the end of the year review all of my favor 2005 films and then see what happens when I get to the Life Aquatic's own shelve of experiential challenges.
I did read your post carefully, three times
Originally posted by tabuno
What is surprising about this remark is not the remark itself, but the absence about this remark in the rest of the comment. There is very little in the way to support and explain the idea that Bill Murray is to blame of this movie's exquisite failure. Almost half araib4's comment is a description of support of completely the opposite!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
arsaib4: Huh? Please read a post carefully before responding in the future. I was quoting Kent Jones and why he felt Murray was the biggest reason the film failed. I don't feel strongly one way or the other on Bill Murray and the film.
response from tabuno: I had hoped that I would have avoided arsaib4's concern raised above and that is why I did carefully read his post. I was responding to arsaib4's statement, "However, one thing I don’t consent with is his blame (Kent Jone's) laying squarely on the shoulders of the film’s star: Bill Murray" to mean that he took issue with laying the blame of the movie's failure on Bill Murray. And prior to replying and after re-reading arsaib4's post I came to understand that what followed arsaibr's statement above was Mr. Jone's description of supporting argument for his own statement about Mr. Murray's miscasting.
What my post really was intended to do and I feel that I was pretty clear about it was raising the point that arsaib4 brought up the point but then dropped it. It was like saying I don't agree with Mr. Jone's and then move on without saying any about his disagreement with Mr. Jone's. If arsaib4 wanted to take the time to point out his not consenting to Mr. Jone's position, I am puzzled why he didn't feel it important enough to explain why he felt that way. In short, why bring up a topic and not talk about it? Why post it in the first place then? In fact if one doesn't "feel strongly one way or the other on Bill Murray and the film" then why even bother? What's the point?
arsaib4: "First you assume that as soon as I mentioned "screenplay," the pirate scene automatically comes into play. I believe I mentioned "mood and tone" not structure, and even if I did, I used the words "didn't quite". As for the pirate sequence I said "I don't have a big problem..." so once again, please read carefully before going further. My mentioning of "a key event" was geared towards a death, not the pirate sequence. You also seem to be confusing yourself between "surreal" and "bizarre." In this case, please read your own statements carefully"
tabuno: I don't think it so easy to separate the screenplay from either "structure," "mood and tone" as mentioned or even separate "mood and tone" for that matter from "stucture" - that's actually the problem I have with this movie that arsaib4 seems to want to avoid - the mood and tone of this movie was severely torn asunder briefly by the structure of the move. A screenplay is the hard copy that incorporates and is the framework of the structure of a movie and has a lot to do with developing the mood and tone of it. And as for "didn't quite" flesh out his screenplay, I am of the opinion that the movie in the section of the screenplay that I'm concerned with wasn't fleshed out sufficiently at all to smooth over the jarring disconnect in mood and tone of the movie when the structure of the movie goes from a mellow scene to a violent, serious scene.
It is far to easy comment on a movie by saying, "I don't have a big problem" with something and feel that it adequately will address other people's more strongly felt convictions about a movie. Film discussion that becomes completely subjective and restricted to internal statements like, "I liked that," "I didn't care for that," "It was ok, but it really wasn't important," "Oh well," makes it difficult to have any substantive conversation about a film. It's like talking about the weather. "It's 65 degrees, it's a bit chilly." For Arsaib4 to imply he really doesn't feel strongly one way or another about this film and his response seems to imply that perhaps there's more to it than he's leading on. At least when I take the time to watch a movie for a second time, the movie means more to me than I don't feel strongly one way or another. If it was me and I didn't feel strongly one way or another about a film, I'd forget about it and not even think about it again or even discuss it.
Arsaib4's response about a "key event" is odd. If one reads my response, I didn't even talk about it or discuss it. I actually deliberately skipped over Arsaib4's last paragraph because I had had so much else to comment on his earlier discussion.
Re: I did read your post carefully, three times
Quote:
Originally posted by tabuno
And prior to replying and after re-reading arsaib4's post I came to understand that what followed arsaibr's statement above was Mr. Jone's description of supporting argument for his own statement about Mr. Murray's miscasting.
Where is my statement about Mr. Murray's miscasting? To refresh your memory, this is what I wrote: "...one thing I don’t consent with is his blame laying squarely on the shoulders of the film’s star: Bill Murray." And then I went on to mention a couple of other concerns I had.
In fact if one doesn't "feel strongly one way or the other on Bill Murray and the film" then why even bother? What's the point?
Unfortunately, this kind of attitude is quite prevalent in film criticism today (especially in this country). Every film is hailed by the quote-happy critics as either a "masterpiece" or is thrown aside (Tabuno would certainly enjoy reading Armond White). And that's why we need critics like Kent Jones and Jim Hoberman. They aren't afraid of making strong statements, but they also realize that most films don't qualify to be discussed in that manner.
It is far to easy comment on a movie by saying, "I don't have a big problem" with something and feel that it adequately will address other people's more strongly felt convictions about a movie. Film discussion that becomes completely subjective and restricted to internal statements like, "I liked that," "I didn't care for that," "It was ok, but it really wasn't important," "Oh well," makes it difficult to have any substantive conversation about a film. It's like talking about the weather. "It's 65 degrees, it's a bit chilly." For Arsaib4 to imply he really doesn't feel strongly one way or another about this film and his response seems to imply that perhaps there's more to it than he's leading on. At least when I take the time to watch a movie for a second time, the movie means more to me than I don't feel strongly one way or another. If it was me and I didn't feel strongly one way or another about a film, I'd forget about it and not even think about it again or even discuss it.
To me it's far to easy to make grand, generalized statements, which is apparently something you prefer to do. Here's one from me (although a necessary one): Film criticism is subjective, whether you like it or not. If you felt strongly about the film after watching it for the second time, then bully for you. I didn't. I found certain aspects to be quite worthy, while others, not quite so.
Thanks for not hitting over the head
arsaib4 thanks for not placing me in a dark pool of black tar pitch and scalding me with boils.
