Bad Moonrising, by David Bax

There is a portion of Wes Anderson’s fan-base (just like any cult director’s fan-base, of which I’m sure I belong to more than one) that seems prepared to rubber-stamp their approval on anything he does. Some of these people apparently attended the same screening I did of the director’s newest film, Moonrise Kingdom, howling conspicuously at the most minor humorous asides. These people may not expect anything more than a retread of earlier films from Anderson but, I wonder, does Anderson expect anything more of himself? There are large sections of this new work in which he does indeed broaden his scope but, ultimately and overpoweringly, he’s content to rely on the same tricks as usual.

Moonrise Kingdom takes place on a New England island in the 1960’s. A boy named Sam (Jared Gilman) and a girl named Suzy (Kara Hayward), both run away – he from his Scout camp and she from her home – and attempt to live blissfully in nature, apart from the world that classifies them both simply as “troubled.” A policeman, Captain Sharp (Bruce Willis), the Scout Master Randy Ward (Edward Norton) and Suzy’s parents, Walt (Bill Murray) and Laura (Frances McDormand), along with the Scout troop and Suzy’s brothers, search the island for the missing children.

In keeping with the style he’s set out for himself, Anderson smothers his film in aesthetic touches. These embellishments are each minute but they are legion. To look at any frame of this film is to see the work of an exceedingly clever young man who seems to feel almost nothing for the world he’s created. His antiseptic and mannered approach makes the viewing experience something like looking at a diorama made of and about dead things.

That same numbing fate befalls his actors, apparently directed to remove as much emotion from their readings as possible while still breathing. Instead of representing some sort of personal voice of Anderson’s, this reads like nothing more than a film student quoting Robert Bresson. These actors aren’t paring down the ornamentations of their performances. They’re simply trying to remain still so as not to knock over anything.

As in earlier works such as The Royal Tenenbaums, the more experienced members of the cast seem better equipped to escape these dull trappings. Edward Norton in particular is the best thing on display here, grasping lovingly onto Randy’s goofy earnestness. Bruce Willis, in a sad and soulful mode, is also quite touching and the two make an unexpectedly delightful buddy cop team. Intriguingly, Jason Schwartzman, who in Rushmore gave much the same stifled performance as the children do in this film, seems to have graduated in a sense. His brief appearance is among the most vibrant and funny stuff in the film.

Perhaps I find myself particularly frustrated because this sorrowful predictability overshadows a number of elements I quite like in Moonrise Kingdom. The film’s themes are consistent, coherent and rich. Anderson is interested in the gulf between the intelligence that puts these children beyond their peers and the lack of experience that puts them behind the adults they fancy themselves to be. In one scene, Sam and Suzy dance on the beach to a Françoise Hardy record. They affect a studied approximation of hipness that they’ve likely seen on television or in films. Immediately after, when exploring a more intimate and romantic undertaking, they are heartbreakingly awkward.

Anderson’s previous film was Fantastic Mr. Fox, a stop-motion adaptation of a Roald Dahl book. I thought it was very good and I am disappointed that this new movie represents something of a backslide. Yet he does seem to have learned at least one thing, which is how to stage action. Mr. Fox was full of motion and the director applies that same approach to the climactic chase sequence here, which is terrific, showing clear growth from the stilted attempts at kinetic storytelling in The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou. As an experiment, I would love to see what Anderson could do with a straightforward action script.

On the whole, Moonrise Kingdom is an improvement over most of Anderson’s output. But those hints of breaking the mold of idiosyncrasies he’s created for himself actually make watching it all the more exasperating. And to be clear, it is funny. Just not as funny as his devotees will try to convince you it is.

You may also like...

7 Responses

  1. Scott Nye says:

    In my own defense, as a card-carrying member of the Wes Anderson Fan Club (the paper is 10-years-aged cardstock, and the letters on it are carefully arranged so as to look slightly, but not grotesquely, made by a somewhat advanced eight-year-old; it’s not laminated because that’s for squares), I think the stasis to which you refer is the precise reason we easily, and happily, accept each and every new film by the increasingly assured filmmaker. Only instead of “stasis,” I’d say “consistent artistic imperative,” or something along those lines; it’s something we responded to from the start, and are unlikely to cease.

    “These people may not expect anything more than a retread of earlier films from Anderson but, I wonder, does Anderson expect anything more of himself?”

    You could substitute Ozu for Anderson and apply the same statement to him, but I don’t think it adds up to much. Some filmmakers seek to explore new worlds each time out, others are content to meditate on common concerns. Neither are inherently wrong. But I saw plenty of advancement, especially aesthetically, in MK (oh, man, that climax), a subject I’ll save until the readers have a chance at it themselves.

    • Battleship Pretension says:

      I agree with most of your points but I want to point out that a “retread” is not the same as a “revisit.” I’m not calling Anderson out for sticking to the same modes and themes. I’m calling him out for doing so in a way that feels to me like he’s on autopilot. At least, it feels like that for much of the film’s first half. I agree with you, the climax is pretty darn good.

      – David

  2. antho42 says:

    I do not like it when reviewers analyse the “fans” of a film. It is a condescending, and some might say, a “hipster-like” move. Unless there is fan service, fans have nothing to do with the artwork itself. The artwork speaks for itself only.

    • Battleship Pretension says:

      While I make reference to how Anderson’s fans perceive him, I think you’ll find that my criticisms of the film are limited to the film itself.

      And if being condescending is a “hipster-like” move then you are king of the hipsters!

      – David

  3. Franco Asmaeil says:

    “These actors aren’t paring down the ornamentations of their performances. They’re simply trying to remain still so as not to knock over anything.”

    Those lines justify the film and this piece.

    Reply to antho42: I don’t think David cares about being labeled a hipster. After all, he wears ties.

  4. Adam DeLisle says:

    All I have to say is that I love the title for the review.

  5. MilkMan says:

    While it might be hard for you to believe, every person has a different sense of humor. Some find Wes’ jokes to be hilarious, you don’t. Get over it!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Verified by MonsterInsights