Latest / Houselights: A Film Director Podcast / The French Dispatch (2021) - Wes Anderson | Houselights #138

Transcript

The French Dispatch (2021) - Wes Anderson | Houselights #138 · Houselights: A Film Director Podcast

0:03
Welcome to the nerd Party. Hello everybody at home, and welcome to Houselights,
0:23
specifically House of Anderson. That's right, we're taking a break from the
0:29
bird House with Brad Bird because we're doing something a little special this week.
0:34
Our good friend and co host Darren Moser aka Doctor sci Fi, is on
0:39
vacation, and you know what, he didn't want to be bothered by taking
0:42
his mobile podcasting rig with him, and so we didn't want to deprive you
0:47
of a podcast episode of Houselights, so we thought we'd do a little side
0:51
story. So we are going into the wayback machine and going to House of
0:56
Anderson, where longtime listeners will know that we analyze every single one of Wes
1:03
Anderson's movies. But at the time that we did it, the French Dispatch
1:07
hadn't come out yet. Well, now we're in twenty twenty three, the
1:11
French Dispatch is out. It came out in twenty twenty one, and so
1:15
we're going to talk about it. And I am with my good friend and
1:19
coast John Mills. John, how are you doing? I am doing remarkably
1:23
well, given the fact that I had to carry this tray of goodies up
1:27
a Rube Goldberg machine of a building to deliver to you for your morning meeting.
1:34
Mister Riddell, I love that. I love that bit because it's almost
1:37
like an if. It's like if Escher was flat, and that's how he's
1:42
that's how he's going up. And this is for those hopefully if you've if
1:49
you're listening to this, you've seen the film. If you haven't stopped it,
1:52
pause, watch the film and come back. So this is what it's
1:56
called a love letter to journalists, set in an outpost of an amner,
2:00
a newspaper in a fictional twentieth century French city that brings to life a collection
2:05
of stories published in the French Dispatch magazine. This is a really convoluted concept.
2:12
I mean, this is a magazine that works in Enuie, France,
2:15
a fictional town, but publishes mainly in Kansas, Yes, but Liberty Kansas
2:24
and specific, Liberty Kansas and specific. But it got so popular that it
2:30
had a circulation of five hundred thousand something like that, something something like that,
2:36
in a lot of different countries and everything like that. And for this
2:38
type of magazine, you know, this small operation. Five hundred thousand is
2:43
nothing to sneeze at especially back in the day. And there's an intro like
2:49
a prologue and intro, three stories and an epilogue. So and that in
2:53
itself is a very odd structure for a West enters in film. And so
2:58
this is this is just a nobody talks about the French dispatch, but this
3:02
is a very crazy film structure wise, John, have you seen this before?
3:08
Is this your first time seeing it? Did you see it in the
3:10
theater? What's going on? First time seeing it? It came and went
3:14
too fast, and it was you know, twenty twenty one was a weird
3:17
year for a lot of reasons still, and so if there were a lot
3:22
of movies like this where if it wasn't making the movie theater money right out
3:28
of the gate, it you know, it had like two weeks and then
3:30
it was gone sort of thing, right, So I never got a chance
3:31
to see it. And then it gets inevitably I'll get to it, and
3:37
then your que list always gets weird and things get buried over time. So
3:40
no, this is my first time. Is this year first time seeing it?
3:44
No? No, this was okay, this one as soon as it
3:46
came out, because this came out came out in twenty twenty one. It
3:51
was supposed to come out in twenty twenty. Yeah, for those of you
3:53
who have been, you know, around on Planet Earth, twenty twenty was
3:58
a very difficult year for a lot different reasons, and so they delayed the
4:01
recent release for a year. And I got this as soon as soon as
4:05
it came to video. I didn't see it in theater because I wasn't watching
4:09
movies in the theater like a lot of the country, and so I had
4:12
to wait until video. And but the moment it came out, the day
4:15
it came out, my wife and I were like, put it on a
4:17
TV, let's watch. And I am so glad that I did, because
4:25
you know, if you listen to our Anderson episodes, you know that I'm
4:28
a huge fan of Anderson. Like there's very few films that I don't really
4:31
like, and even the ones that I don't really like, I can recognize
4:34
that they're done well. And I was actually talking about this movie. My
4:39
parents came up to visit last weekend and I was talking about this movie.
4:44
This was even before we decided to do a podcast on it. We were
4:46
just talking about it because he's having a new one called Asteroid City. Is
4:50
that what it's called? Yes? Yeah, that out yeah yeah, And
4:56
I Sarah and I my wife, and I think I think we're going to
4:59
sneak away and try to try to see it. But I was talking about
5:02
this movie and my parents were like, oh, would we like it?
5:05
I go, no, you wouldn't like it at all. And they said
5:09
that, like what else has he done? I said. I was like,
5:12
well, you know the Royal ten Abounds, Rushmore Life, Aquatic,
5:15
you know, Darjeeling Limited, and they're like, we haven't heard of any
5:18
of those. I said. It was like, well you probably have heard
5:21
of the Grand Budapest Hotel, Like everyone knew about that one. That one
5:25
made a lot of money. They're like, oh, we turned that off.
5:27
That was terrible. I was like, yeah, you're not gonna like
5:29
this. You're not gonna like the French Dispatch. Yeah, if you don't
5:31
dig the Grand Budapest Hotel, you're not making it more than five minutes into
5:34
the French Dispatch. No, not at all. And it's it's interesting.
5:40
I am legitimately curious because this is you know, you know, you've seen
5:45
this before, and this is my first time encountering it and I got the
5:49
gag, right, I got the structure. I knew what he's going for.
5:54
I thought it was innovative. I thought it was different. I thought
5:56
it was fresh, and there were parts of it that I thought were absolutely
6:00
classic Wes Anderson. I thought that the Benicio del Toro story with Black Widow
6:09
two Florence a few of you normal people, is that he pronounced it to
6:14
do Yeah, something like that. Yeah. Anyway, the story with Benicio
6:18
del Toro where he's the imprisoned artist and he's having an affair with the well,
6:25
not even an affair, he's having you know, his muse is one
6:28
of the prison guards. I think you could call it an affair. Yeah,
6:30
a relationship. Let's call it a relationship because there there is something deeper
6:35
going on there, sort of thing that is the bones of a Wes Anderson
6:39
film. To me, that is something where like I expect an hour and
6:43
a half of that, and my experience coming at at the first time is
6:46
I look at it and I say, huh this. I would have paid
6:50
money to go see an hour and a half of this as a segment.
6:54
It leaves me frustrated because of the fact that I wanted more of it,
7:00
and I didn't necessarily want more of the rest of it. I thought that
7:02
the segment with Francis McDormand was very interesting. That's another one where I'm like,
7:08
I could see that being a life aquatic but with a female reporter sort
7:13
of thing, like a realizing what your life has come to and what it
7:15
means. And so I see all of these elements of Anderson at work in
7:21
these bits. Never see it. Gel. Do you think that that lack
7:26
of jelling is on purpose? You've seen it more than once. Do you
7:28
think that it's intentional that he leaves it like that to further call out the
7:31
magazine structure, or do you think that that is just a failure to bring
7:36
the narrative thread together because I'm looking for a huge emotional payoff at the end
7:41
the way Grand Budapest Hotel does, where when we double back and remind ourselves
7:46
that this is all precipitated by Bill Murray dying, that we're going to have
7:50
that emotional moment at the end where we say, oh, my heart is
7:56
torn in, my heart is torn asunder because of this thing that happened.
8:01
I think it was I think it's definitely it's intentional. That doesn't mean it's
8:07
good. It doesn't you mean it's bad. It doesn't mean it's good.
8:11
But I think it was intentional to have this kind of structure mirror a French
8:16
dispatch magazine, because you have that preamble, you have that initial story that's
8:24
just kind of like a taste, and then you have the three story structure
8:28
and you have a little bit of an epilogue. It's very much like a
8:31
magazine where you read a story and you just get little tastes here and there.
8:35
You don't you don't get a full novel. You don't you don't like
8:39
if a movie is a novel, you're not going to get Beneathio del Tolero's
8:43
story as as a full movie. You're going to get it as as an
8:46
article. You're going to get it as a short story. And again I'm
8:50
not saying you're wrong for wanting that. I'm not saying that it's a positive
8:54
or negative. I think that's what he was going for. And if that
8:56
and since that is what he was going for, hekes Is succeeded in that.
9:01
But whether it was beneficial for that kind of enjoyment or that kind of
9:05
film remains to be seen. I'm with you where my favorite section is the
9:13
Beneathial Deltal Painter short story. I could easily watch an entire ninety minute Wes
9:20
Anderson film of that. I'm not being I don't think I'm being hyperbolic when
9:26
I say this, but that section is some of his best work out of
9:31
all of his movies. Completely agree, easily, completely agree. But the
9:35
French Dispatch is not yes, yes, you said it perfectly right there,
9:41
Absolutely absolutely, and I think that that is maybe what's so frustrating about the
9:46
movie, because I think one tiny change, two tiny changes happening would have
9:54
made this land better. With me one is the animated section struck me exactly
10:01
the same way that the animated section of Kill Bill Volume one struck me is.
10:05
It's a director sitting there, I'm going to prove to you what I
10:07
can do, because I can do it. And it's like, you know,
10:11
to quote Star Trek six, let history show that just because we can
10:13
do a thing, it does not follow that we must do that thing.
10:18
And my father was an idealist. Yes, sorry, yeah, some people
10:24
think that French Despatch means the end of history. I know, I'm I'm
10:28
with you man like this. I watching Kill Bill of this Saint. I
10:31
skip the animated section every single time I watch Kill Bill and with French dispatch
10:39
every single time we get to the animated section, because I've seen this movie
10:41
three or maybe four times. I like this, but when we get to
10:45
the animated section, I roll my eyes. I'm like, okay, and
10:46
it wasn't even directed by Wes Henderson. It was directed by somebody else,
10:50
and it just doesn't fit. I get that he's trying to look any You
10:56
know what I applaud about Wes Anderson having the French dispatch in his filmography is
11:03
I don't think that these sections work particularly well that we're criticizing right here.
11:09
But the beautiful thing about a Wes Anderson movie is he does have his misfires,
11:13
he does have his missteps, he does have his problems, but he
11:16
operates on that non blockbuster margin so that even when he and I'm using this
11:22
word liberally fails quote unquote fails, it's an interesting sort of failure where you're
11:28
like, Okay, well, at least he was trying something. It's like
11:31
going to a restaurant and you know, and the chef like makes something and
11:35
you're like, I like the other two dishes, but this one, this
11:37
isn't really working for me. But I know that care and talent went into
11:43
the crea. There's craft here. Even if I don't think it works,
11:48
I think that the movie. The other part of the movie that could have
11:52
helped it land a lot better is getting back to that emotional through line.
11:56
Is instead of having them sitting in the office and just treating the Bill Murray's
12:01
obituaries just another day, which I get as part of the point, but
12:05
if they'd had them gather at the funeral to start writing the O bit,
12:11
and so you have Bill Murray laying in state while they're discussing his O bit
12:16
and you realize that it's sort of a commentary on the which is exactly how
12:20
the scene is supposed to land, which is it's the commentary on the life
12:22
of a journalist or a magazine writer. Is everything's about the story and keeping
12:28
it moving. And so I think that Land's better if you simply take that
12:31
scene from the offices of the French Dispatch and move it over to Bill Murray's
12:37
wake. And I hate that I'm saying Bill Murray, I don't remember the
12:41
character's name nobody does. And that's frustrating to me too, is a lot
12:46
of these these character names are unnecessarily overly witty, and so they don't stick
12:52
with me, like Max Fisher does. I feel like, if so,
12:58
the moment we had with Bill Murray's character and oh geez, I'm completely completely
13:07
blanking on his name, Oh will Jeffrey Wright, Jeffrey right, Jeffrey Oh
13:11
gosh, Jeffrey Wright. Yeah, okay, so Bill Murray's character and Jeffrey
13:15
Wright's character, that moment was phenomenal when he was in the Chicken coop and
13:20
Bill Murray's talking to him. If we had a moment with Bill Murray like
13:24
that in every single story, I think we would have much more of an
13:28
emotional through line to feel his death a bit more in the epilogue, because
13:35
I mean, I understand that we need the build and you can't have a
13:41
tear jerker like what we had with Jeffrey Wright every single time, but there
13:46
needs to be some sort of stronger connection where instead of just like, oh,
13:52
you're going to the hotel in my dime, there needs to be like
13:56
every writer, not every writer, but the main writer from each section needs
14:03
to have some sort of He was my mentor, He pushed me along,
14:07
he developed my skills more so than he was just a ticket for me to
14:11
go to a hotel. Yes, I think that you're absolutely right. That
14:16
does solve a lot of it because that scene with Bill Marie Jeffrey Wright is
14:20
such a standout. And Jeffrey Wright is an actor who will never get the
14:26
credit he deserves for exactly how insanely talented he is. He It's Jeffrey Wright's
14:33
character, Roebuck Wright was my favorite character in the entire movie. But yet
14:39
the Benicio del Toro storyline was my favorite storyline. Yes, yep, And
14:45
that's a weird place to be in because there were so many parts that were
14:48
weak about his storyline. But he was phenomenal. He is he is a
14:58
tremendously gifted actor. Because he is so he's one of the few actors I
15:05
think that isn't just great on his own terms, but is great for a
15:09
Wes Anderson movie in specific, because it requires a very muted sort of emotional
15:16
projection that Bill Murray. He's in that zone, and Jeffrey Wright is like
15:22
a or naturally dramatic actor that exists in that space. Bill Murray got there,
15:28
Jeffrey Wright always was there, if that makes sense. And it's not
15:33
a knock on either one of them. It's more that Jeffrey Wright. It's
15:37
much more effortless for him, I think, to be in that space than
15:41
many other actors that I've seen, and I think that's what makes his characters
15:46
work so well, and especially in this And someone who had an absolutely thankless
15:50
job because Jeffrey Wright did such a phenomenal job was Leah Schreiber. Oh my
15:56
gosh. Yes, he was a perfect straight man for right. And it
16:04
takes a lot of skill in order to create that tone between the interviewer the
16:11
interviewee where you can shine but not overshadow. And my favorite bit of the
16:18
entire movie is when Jeffrey Wright gives this really emotional section and then Leah Schreiber
16:23
looks at the Cameron says, and now a message from Jim and I toothpowder.
16:29
Yes, Yes, it's it's beautiful. That scene as well, works
16:37
so incredibly for me because the costuming is so perfect for it. I know
16:45
that sounds like a weird sort of thing, but the costuming for that moment
16:49
that they're inhabiting and the time period they're evoking, and the fact that like
16:53
it plays as well in color and black and white sort of thing is that
16:59
is a an incredibly difficult costuming and set decoration trick to pull off because there
17:06
are so many things where if you colorize them from the black and white days,
17:11
they look like garbage in color because they had to go for certain contrasts.
17:15
Reminds me of the funny story that Rodney Dangerfield's signature tie was because like
17:21
he wore it in black and white and then he wore it on a color
17:23
television if I'm misremembering the story or whatever, but basically the point of the
17:29
story is that a couch that looks good in black and white doesn't necessarily look
17:32
good in color, nor does a tie. And to have a costumer and
17:36
a set decorator that is skilled enough to get it so that it works in
17:41
both color and black and white regardless of the segment that we're talking about,
17:45
that's an incredible amount of skill to get in there. Well, it's almost
17:49
like a George Reeve and his Superman, like his Superman outfit when he was
17:56
on the TV show, Like they wasn't in color, like like even though
18:02
the show was in black and white, like his Superman outfit wasn't made in
18:07
color, it was made in really really dark grays and blacks because it showed
18:11
up better on black and white TV. And it's just really interesting that you
18:17
have, like and when when you're doing costuming, you have to think about
18:19
the medium. Yep, and this is just another example of that. Yeah,
18:25
there's so many great things about this movie, and like every single performance
18:30
is fantastic. Yes, like from I never say I can never say,
18:36
pronounce his name right, Matthew almeric Um, the guy who played the commissioner,
18:41
the French commissioner, the commissarier. Oh yeah, the father said yes,
18:45
yeah, he's in a lot of movies and he he did a great
18:48
job. And I really believe like it was. He was very believable,
18:52
and all the way up to like Lois Smith who played ma in Um,
18:57
you know, the rich art pure you know, like the person who employed
19:03
Tildas Winton Um, she's always a delight. And even Henry Winkler is in
19:08
this. You know, that's so crazy. You're just like, what the
19:10
heck? You know, Henry Winkler's in this, even though they're in such
19:15
a small piece Winkler and Bob Balaban and Bob bab He's a national treasure.
19:22
Everybody is something else. He's amazing. What's so incredible about them is there
19:27
in these very small parts, but when they're on screen like there is something.
19:33
It's that indefinable thing that certain actors, especially actors like Henry Winkler from
19:41
old school television. They know how to play the camera so perfectly well that
19:47
Henry Winkler shows up and it's just like you're looking at like it doesn't matter
19:51
what else is going on. Henry Winkler knows how to pull that focus to
19:53
himself without without like making any show, without even making any specific movement,
20:00
and it's he's just there and you're paying attention to him. And Balaban is
20:03
so good at that too, at doing that that sort of thing. They
20:06
create, this this locust, this focal point that is that draws you away
20:11
from Adrian Brodie in the scenes therewith. It's a great effect because it makes
20:17
Adrian Brodie work that much harder and be that much zanier. Yeah, and
20:22
what he needs to do, and again we get back to that whole Benicio
20:26
del Toro, the tortured Artist, the you know, in prison, creating
20:30
the the the gag at the end of having his master work be Fresco is
20:37
so incredibly perfectly gorgeously amazing, Like I can't get over that. Like when
20:47
when Brodie loses his mind about it, like it's so it's perfect, He's
20:53
like, he's like, you, yeah, right, it's it is.
20:57
It is something special. And I think that that's what makes this a frustrating
21:03
even more frustrating for me, is there are things that I specifically dislike about
21:10
this film. The structure, it doesn't gel, the animated part, the
21:15
way it doesn't quite land the emotional punch I think it should at the end.
21:22
But then you come back and you talk about these particulars, and it's
21:26
one of those things where, let me ask you, this, is it
21:30
possible that Wes Anderson gets away with a little more because it's a difference between
21:36
somebody who is being pretentious about their craft and somebody who simply is that right.
21:42
This isn't Wes Anderson trying too hard. This is just Wes Anderson being
21:48
Wes Anderson and experimenting with some things. I would draw a comparison to others,
21:56
but I would get into trouble. But there are other directors where they
22:02
try to be as witty as you know, I'm looking for the terms as
22:11
clever, not not even clever, as eccentric as Anderson, but they do
22:18
it in a much more traditional structure. I think that Anderson is able to
22:23
have you stop and pay attention to the particulars because he has such a focus
22:30
on craft and doing the cute thing, like you know, you're going to
22:34
see the four by three framing, which is so it's still it's odd.
22:38
It seemed odd in Grand Budapest and that comes back here. This doesn't feel
22:45
as natural to the four by three when he uses it. I have to
22:48
agree. There's a lot of switching. And it's funny because I kept thinking
22:55
about our old co host brand, you know, Wall, watching this because
22:57
he couldn't stand it when people would switch aspect ratios and Wes Anderson is the
23:03
hugest offender of this. And yeah, it didn't seem as natural as Grand
23:08
Budapest. With Grand Budapest, you didn't really notice it as much because there
23:14
was kind of like a rhyme or reason to it. There was like,
23:17
oh, it's four bay three here because of this, it's six to eighty
23:18
nine because of this, it's two point three five because of this. With
23:23
this one, it was very much whatever the hell he felt like. And
23:26
there were so many times when I was thinking, like why did you do
23:32
that? Like you're doing four by three, but sixteen by nine would have
23:37
been better. Even two point three five would have been better. At this
23:38
point, there's one specific example where I don't know how to pronounce her name.
23:44
It's Irish and weird, Sisha, Sierosa whatever. I don't know.
23:51
Yeah, we'll just we'll fix it in post. Keep going. Yeah,
23:53
the blonde with blue eyes who's young, who played the show girl in the
24:00
third story when the when the sun is saying do you have blue eyes?
24:06
And she goes in and she looks through the hole and she he sees her
24:11
eyes. It's in four by three, but you're only focusing on a you
24:15
know, like on a rectangle of her eyes. Why would you do four
24:18
by three there? Why? Because you're if you want to focus on the
24:22
eyes, you go for the wider aspect ragio, like you've done so many
24:25
other times, Like when they showed the fresca of his paintings, they went
24:30
two point three five because it's a wide shot. Why wouldn't you do that
24:34
with her eyes? It's just things like that that took me out of it.
24:37
There's the aspect ratio was going back and forth all the time. There
24:41
was something that made me think of Kubrick and the whole thing about center frame
24:47
it and it should always look right no matter how big the screen is.
24:51
And this movie I think is the strongest argument for it because of what you're
24:56
talking about right here. I should be able to watch this on a four
24:59
by three or a sixteen by nine or two point three five. I'm sorry
25:03
two point three nine, you know, as I know what I slipped up
25:11
because I the original DVDs they always screwed it up. They always had two
25:15
point three five. And it's like read that so many times it's burned in.
25:18
True, It's true. I have a hard time with it. You
25:21
just like it's it's there, like actually in the cerebral cortex, wrapped around
25:25
like a SETI alpha five eel and it's like you go in there. And
25:29
I think that had this movie been a consistent aspect ratio, I think it
25:36
would have helped and let me actually use a moment that we talked about earlier
25:41
about the the I don't know, the valet or whatever taking up the tray
25:47
of stuff up top. Yeah yeah, yeah. How much more interesting is
25:51
that shot if instead of regulating it to four by three and having them go
25:53
up, you have it be a sixteen by nine or even a two point
25:57
three nine, and you see other buildings on the sides where stuff is going
26:03
on, so that you build this sort of like whole world expectation of even
26:10
the stuff on the sides. You're seeing these things and it doesn't distract you,
26:15
but you're layering stuff in so that it more it's more immersive for what
26:19
you're going through, and you're you're scrunching up your face. Absolutely, you
26:25
don't agree with me on this. I think I think I disagree with you
26:27
on that one where I feel like that shot in particular was built for four
26:32
by three because it felt because it's it's funny because I even thought, when
26:37
I started thinking about what worked in four by three and what didn't work in
26:41
four bay three, I gave the example of what didn't work, But in
26:44
my mind I was thinking about that shot as what worked because that felt very
26:51
old school, It felt like a set, It felt like a hitchcock set,
26:55
like a rear window kind of Hitchcock set where it was built entirely for
27:00
this shot, for this purpose, and with you know, when you're going
27:06
through vertical like when you're going through the Z axis. That's one beautiful thing
27:10
about four by three is that it forced you to work in the Z axis,
27:15
not the X axis, but the Z and y. And that's what
27:19
worked for that because the individual was going mainly up, a little bit to
27:23
the side to side, but mainly up. And it was in the background
27:29
where you had some side buildings in the foreground. And so I think that
27:33
was a perfect example of a good use of four by three. Okay,
27:36
I want him to keep stretching, And so I would counter that was saying
27:41
two things. One was rear window in four by three Now I don't think.
27:48
I don't even know, and I don't even know if it was.
27:49
I can't remember. Wow, really come on anyway, And and number two,
27:55
I'm talking about side I was talking. I was just talking about the
27:56
set. I was just talking about the set. I know what you were
27:59
talking about, but I think it winds up enhancing it if you find a
28:03
way to put stuff on the side that I would just like to see him
28:08
try it to have stuff on the side that isn't other people climbing up the
28:14
buildings or something, but something that acts as frame that isn't just the pillar
28:18
box black bars when I'm watching it on my TV screen right that it's something
28:25
that helps the shot, but is you know, still interesting sort of things
28:30
going on, and he can still go up and he can still be regulated
28:33
to that tight vertical space, but then there are other things used to buttress
28:40
it to, you know, to act in concert. We're never going to
28:44
agree on this. I get rear window. Rear window? Was Academy ratio?
28:48
Was it? Yes? It was? It was one point three seven
28:52
five to one, which is very close to four by three. Okay,
28:56
close to but not quite. So there you go. That's what I'm saying.
29:00
Okay, so I will hold on to this like a dog with a
29:03
bone. I will not Was it was it four by three? Oh my
29:07
god? Really it was Academy. It was Academy, not four three Yeah,
29:11
yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. You know what I'm saying.
29:12
You know what I'm saying. They're very close to each other. So I
29:15
mean on a home video they would have it would have totally been four bay
29:17
three. Yeah, okay, So I want to talk about the second This
29:19
is what I think, this is the weakest story, and I want to
29:22
get your opinion on that. I didn't really like this one. There's not
29:26
too much I like about the second story. I think Timothy Chlamy does fine.
29:33
I think Francis McDorman doesn't really get to stretch too terribly much. And
29:40
I just think the story is this kind of blase. I'm not I don't
29:42
really dig it. What do you think about the second story? I dug
29:45
the story. I got what he was going for. It had a vibe
29:51
to it that was very life aquatic, and that's why I pointed to it
29:56
earlier. This is really this is Francis What makes you say that? Because
30:02
Life Aquatic. One of the reads of Life Aquatic is a guy coming to
30:06
terms with what his life has meant, of everything that it's come to of.
30:11
He realizes he's at the end of his story that they're you know,
30:15
things going on, things have changed, life is different, and he's,
30:21
you know, this is he's in the final act sort of thing. And
30:25
I think that there's very much an element to that story with Francis mcdormant,
30:30
that's there. I think that the reason it falters a little bit is because
30:37
there's too much focus on Timothy Shallowmy. The Benicio del Toro story works because
30:45
it's his story, but the guard who is his muse is it's balanced just
30:52
right and the framing device is just right. Yes, this there's there should
30:56
have been more focus on Francis Doorman and where she was, and less focus
31:03
on Timothy Shalomay and where he was. So, for instance, if you
31:10
take out the scene where Timothy Shalomay and the young radical girl are Juliet,
31:17
Yeah, are about to make love. Take out that scene, you take
31:19
out a couple of other bits that are focused on him. I think you
31:23
can see that sort of thing where it's really about a woman coming to terms
31:27
with that question of is this what my life has led to? Is this
31:33
what it all means? Is this what it is? You know? Is
31:37
this my swan song moment? I think it lands better that way. I
31:42
would I totally agree with you, because I feel like it was too Michellomay
31:47
and not enough McDorman. I loved the side by side of McDorman and Juliet,
31:53
where we have someone who's at someone who's at the end of her career.
31:57
I mean, I'm talking about the writer, not McDermott. She's gone
32:00
just gonna go on forever. But you have someone who feel is feeling her
32:05
age, especially with sleeping someone so young. And and then you have Juliet
32:09
who's very much at the beginning of her story. And I love seeing that
32:14
side by side, that honest and revealing portrait of cleaning the face, putting
32:20
makeup on, and the wrinkles, the smooth just the very dichotomy and contradiction
32:27
of back and forth. I thought that was very great and very poetic,
32:30
and I would have loved to have seen more of that kind of thing.
32:34
But I'm totally with you. It was just while watching this years, it's
32:37
like, who's a protagonist? Is it the writer? Is it Shaalomi?
32:40
I understand that it's It's weird because in the Beneathio del Toro story you have
32:49
Swinton, who's the writer but is the framing device for del Toro's story with
32:55
Lisa do and So's it makes sense. It feels together like Winton's not a
33:00
part of the story, even though she was there. And then you have
33:05
the second story where McDorman and Chalamay kind of share the protagonist duties back and
33:09
forth with the whole blind date. And then you have the third story where
33:14
right is it? Right is the writer and the framing device, but he's
33:20
the main focus, but yet it's not his story because he's just along for
33:22
the ride in the latter half of the third story, So it's it's very
33:28
weird, like I think the second one is where you have the most confusion,
33:32
the most protagonist confusion. I think that's why I don't like it as
33:36
much. And although I love storylines with what is it May December romance?
33:43
Is that what it's called? When it's yes, I love May December romances
33:47
when the woman is the December like. I love that because I don't think
33:52
we get a lot of stories like that. It's always very much in life
33:54
and in movies it's very much an older man and the younger woman. But
33:58
I love seeing an older woman with a younger man. I just think it's
34:00
very fascinating from a narrative standpoint. But I just I don't I can't put
34:07
my finger on what I don't specifically what I don't like about it. I
34:13
think I don't I just don't give a about their situation. I think that
34:16
might be it. I think it's because of the protagonist confusion. Honestly,
34:22
you're not sure who you're supposed to sympathize with. And I think that Timothy
34:27
Shallowmay this is not the actor's fault. His character is not terribly sympathetic or
34:32
it's basically what it boils down to well drawn. I think that this story
34:38
itself is caught between it. It has Timothy Shallowmay confusing things when the real
34:46
protagonist confusion or balance or whatever, you know, whatever should be between the
34:51
two women. He should be the afterthought, he should balance yet and Juliet
34:58
should be shalomy. Yeah that would work, yeah, yeah, yes,
35:04
oh I like that. Yeah yeah, in in terms of the balance,
35:07
absolutely, and I think that. I mean, if anything, what I
35:14
would be really intrigued to see would be a Wes Anderson anthology series on Max
35:22
or something like that where he just does a season of eight shows and it's
35:27
these sorts of things. I'd love that because just imagine him set loose where
35:32
he doesn't have the burden of trying to make it all come together and he
35:37
just has, you know what, he just wants to throw together this twenty
35:39
five minute thing and just do a little short film. Well, I think
35:44
his next piece is like thirty seven minutes long, right, I think like
35:49
he's he did the Asteroid City and then after that he says he's coming out
35:52
with a movie, Like he's calling it a movie, but it's only gonna
35:54
be thirty seven minutes long. I mean, if if that's where he wants
35:59
to go, then the internet is where he needs to go, Like he
36:01
needs to go to streaming. Agree, completely agree, he should, you
36:07
know, bundle it with What did Jack Do? By David Lynch that aired
36:10
on Netflix? Hey, I like that, don't fash? Okay? So
36:16
so speaking of which like streaming and whatnot, it just made me think about
36:21
like the technical aspects. So this was because of all of the rebates and
36:25
tax rite offs and everything that they got from shooting in France. This movie
36:30
only costs twenty five million to make. That's insane for this many people in
36:36
this kind of time frame in twenty twenty one when this was released twenty twenty
36:39
when it was made, twenty five million is almost nothing to a studio.
36:44
But the thing is is that worldwide it made forty six, So it didn't
36:47
double its budget, and so it probably took a bit of a loss.
36:52
But the thing with a wes Anderson film is that when you finance like this
37:00
is Searchlight is the distributor. When you finance a wes Anderson film, you
37:06
know that you're not going to make Budapest money. Budapest was an outlier.
37:10
When Budapest made money, everyone was shocked, including Wes Anderson, including the
37:15
distributor, including the production company. When you make if Wes Anderson film,
37:20
you make it for the prestige. You make it because a list celebrities.
37:23
B list celebrities want to be involved, and you know you're going to get
37:28
some awards, you might get some nominations. You take it as a loss
37:30
because it keeps it keeps you in the running for awards. I know that
37:37
some people may scoff at that, but that's a real industry thing. It's
37:40
kind of like Terrence Malick. Terrence Malick movies don't make money. They don't
37:46
make money. It does not Terrence Malick does not get butts in the seats.
37:50
But when Terrence Malick comes to you and says, I have a movie
37:52
idea, you make it because it's name recognition because you have people who love
37:58
watch it. We'll talk about it free advertising and it's prestige. Yeah,
38:02
And I think that's the thing where the French Dispatch was him testing his limits
38:08
post Budapest, where Budapest was Budapest, Anderson was a different kind of Wes
38:16
Anderson. In my mind, that's when he really became obsessed with himself,
38:24
when he became really self aware. Oh okay, that's that's a fair comment.
38:31
That's a fair comment. I would say that we are based on what
38:37
I've seen now with French Dispatch, and then I have not seen Asteroid City,
38:44
but I will. But based on what I've heard, I suspect that
38:51
we are all going to wind up looking back on Grand Budapest Hotel as the
38:57
pinnacle like that was he hit it best at ever got and it wasn't going
39:00
to get that good again, right sort of thing. I think it's the
39:02
culmination of so many absolutely perfect bits that came together just right, from casting
39:09
to writing, affectation to all of those sorts of things. Everything came together
39:15
just right. That was the lightning in the bottle moment. That was the
39:17
masterpiece that came together, that just absolutely paid off, because I see in
39:24
the French Dispatch a director, to your point, thinking about everything you just
39:30
said, somebody who is surprised and maybe a little freaked out by what happened
39:37
last time. I get that he hasn't gotten out of his head from that
39:40
yet, Oh, how did I do? Write? Like? That's the
39:44
worst thing for an artist, for whether it's a writer, whether it's a
39:46
painter, whether it's a director, whether it's anything, is to sit there
39:52
and say, oh, I've got to try to replicate that. How do
39:55
I make that happen again? And then you overthink everything. I think the
40:00
French Dispatch is a little bit of overthinking. I once when I went to
40:02
film school, I was the first film like there was there was. There
40:09
was one year where I spent in Los Angeles and it was really intensive.
40:15
It was you throw you in it and for you made three films throughout the
40:20
year. And my first film was fantastic. Everybody loved it. I loved
40:25
it. It was good, it was genuinely good, and I was like,
40:30
holy crap, I had no idea I had that in me. My
40:32
second one was okay, it wasn't great, but it wasn't bad either.
40:37
It was just like a valid effort, my third one epic failure. And
40:42
I talked to my professors. I said, it was like, what happened?
40:45
What do you think happened? Why do you think? Like like all
40:50
the pieces were there, but I kept trying to chase that that high that
40:54
I got from the first film that I made, And they said, you
40:58
tried too hard, And that has stuck with me from my entire career ever
41:04
since I graduated. I kept thinking, am I trying too hard here?
41:07
And while I really like French Dispatch, and I like French Dispatch more than
41:14
like Grand Budapest Hotel that everybody everybody loved Grand Budapest Hotel. People who weren't
41:20
even Wes Anderson film fans were fans of Grand Budapest Hotel. And I think
41:24
that's why it did so well financially. That's why I got nine Academy Award
41:28
nominations, and the most that he ever got up until Grand Budapest and after
41:32
was two Academy Award nominations and at one four. I think French Dispatch is
41:39
a signifier of him trying too hard to chase that dragon. Yes, the
41:45
funny thing is we agree on that point, I definitely think Grand Budapest Hotel
41:50
is a more successful film artist. I just I don't get it. I
41:54
don't get the love for Grand Budapest Hotel. It is probably my least favorite
42:00
Wes Anderson film, next to I'm not even going to include Bottle Rocket Um,
42:06
Rushmore and Dart You ling see, this is this is where the this
42:10
is what's so fascinating. I think sometimes about Houselights is finding out how nuts
42:15
you are and like Rushmore, you know, go back and listen to it
42:22
if you want to. Guys like I loved it so much that my girlfriend
42:27
at the time and I we saw it the following night again. We could
42:31
not like we loved it so much. We were like, I can't believe
42:35
how much I love this, And so we went to the movie theater the
42:37
second night in a row to see the movie again because we just couldn't get
42:42
enough of it and finding out these little differences here about we both love Anderson,
42:49
so but we have this this this um, this disparity between us.
42:53
So the question becomes this, how like what is it about Anderson then that
42:59
keeps us coming back? Was obviously we have personal differences in what we're looking
43:02
for and what we like, and Anderson as an artist really teases it out
43:07
of us. So is there some sort of roor shark test of if you
43:13
find two people who have the same favorite director and you throw them in a
43:16
you know what do you love? What do you love? They'll give you
43:20
the same words. But then you look at the movies that they love the
43:22
most from that artist and like, how like is this a telling moment?
43:28
Am I reading too much into it? Sort of thing? Because well,
43:30
maybe maybe both. I don't. I don't know, I think. Okay,
43:34
So from start to finish, you have Bottle Rocket, Rushmore, Royal
43:37
ten of Melms Life, Aquatuck with Steve Zizoo, Darjeeling Limited, Fantastic Mister
43:43
Fox, Moonrise, Kingdom, Grand Budapest Hotel, I Love Dogs, The
43:46
French Dispatch, and now Asteroid City. So of that list, which one
43:51
is your favorite? Which one is You're like, you know what I'm going
43:53
to I could watch that as many times as possible. Okay, I think
43:58
a Grand budapesto Tell is probably better, but Rushmore I will watch. I
44:01
could watch every day for the rest of my life. So okay, I
44:06
know how much you love Rushmore like you are an unabashed fan, like in
44:09
the episode Absolutely I'll watch it. Me into you. So you think Grand
44:14
Budapest is better than Rushmore even though that's your favorite. I think in our
44:19
you know what, it's sort of the Batman begins Dark Night argument. I
44:23
could go back and forth between either one, but which one is truly better
44:29
versus which one gets the biggest emotional reaction out of me? That's sort of
44:34
the distinction between the two. This is what's crazy to me is that I
44:37
feel like something is wrong with me with the Grand Budapest Hotel because it's how
44:43
I view wine. I think everyone who drinks wine is just joking, like
44:49
they're in on a bit, where like when I drink wine, I'm like,
44:52
this is terrible garbage that burns my belly. No one in their right
44:57
mind could possibly enjoy this, and yet there's an entire culture who you know,
45:02
who makes it a part of their personality. Now this is an extreme
45:07
example. I can totally get white people like Grand Budapest Hotel. I'm not
45:10
saying it's garbage. I'm not saying that at all, but it just it
45:13
makes me feel like it's a bit because everyone talks about how much they'd love
45:16
it. I'm just like it was fine. I guess I just don't get
45:21
it. As a I feel like a hipster because as someone who has loved
45:25
Wes Anderson since then, you know, since Royal Tenemboums, I feel like,
45:31
oh, you're just a poser because you didn't like him until Grand a
45:35
Budapest Hotel, until he hit you know, financial success. But I loved
45:38
him. I loved him before that. But number one, you are a
45:40
hipster, and number two is that I think that there are two things that
45:47
make Grand Budapest work so incredibly well. And I think this is where it's
45:54
The casting is so perfect in Grand Budapest. If I take any one of
46:00
those actors out, I don't think it works as well. What's what's baffling
46:06
to me is I come here to um, you know, to to this
46:10
film and all of these actors are fantastic. Like, I can't criticize really
46:15
any of these performances, from Owen Wilson to even Fisher Stevens is barely in
46:21
the movie. He's in it for like two seconds, and I'm like,
46:23
no, he's really good. Geez, I don't even remember that exactly Jason,
46:29
Jason and Schwartzmann is in it for a blink of an eye, and
46:31
I'm like, uh, yeah, he's right, Yeah, he's the illustrator.
46:36
Yeah yeah, But so's this like that. That's another thing that's that's
46:39
so weird is it's like Budapest Hotel. I will grant you if I changed
46:45
so much as one of the actors or actresses that's in that film doesn't work
46:50
as well. Everybody, like Harvey Keitel always been hit and miss, and
46:54
he's definitely hit in that movie. And it's it's just one of those things
46:59
where it's um but everything comes together. And I think what it is is
47:04
the major distinction between the two of them is that I think that Grand Budapest
47:07
has a true emotional, empathetic art too. Ray finds his character that is
47:15
missing from this It's what I'm looking for that's not there with this film is
47:22
that I want to feel that impact of Bill Murray's death at the end,
47:29
and I don't. So that's sort of the shortcoming for me. Well,
47:31
let's go ahead and get into it. You know, we've been going fifteen
47:35
minutes. Yep, let's go ahead and give the rating. I wanna.
47:38
I'm gonna go to you first. I started the episode, and so I
47:42
get to dictate who goes first. I want you to give the star rating.
47:45
How many you know, like, how many French revolutions are you giving?
47:51
This one thing I do want to note, just as a side trivia,
47:54
I have no idea if this is true. I read it on the
47:57
internet, so it must be true. Yeah, Lisa do had no idea
48:04
that she was going to do nudity until she showed up on set. I
48:07
personally have no idea how that can be accurate. But thank goodness that she's
48:13
French, because otherwise you would have had a problem. You know. Before
48:17
we get to the ratings, I will take thirty seconds to step aside.
48:21
I was talking about this after watching it with the legendary Joey. Happy birthday,
48:27
Joey if you're listening to this, which you aren't, but whatever,
48:30
I can say that that scene was off putting to me in the sense that
48:38
I did not see it as necessary at all. Really, I did not
48:45
see it as necessary at all. That's really funny because I you know,
48:50
I'm a prude and I'm delicate. Yes, I didn't find any of the
48:54
nudity here as unnecessary or off putting, none of it. It didn't bother
48:58
me in the law. I didn't even think about twice. It didn't.
49:01
Let me be clear, when I say unnecessary, I don't mean off putting,
49:06
meaning did I say off putting you said off? Well, I think
49:09
it was off putting because I think it probably I picked up on on Sadu's
49:15
You know, if she didn't expect this, then maybe I picked up on
49:17
that sort of thing because oh no, she she has it in her close.
49:22
I think that she's supposed to be naked in every movie as well.
49:25
You know, maybe so, but I don't. I don't know. I
49:30
just I didn't see I saw it as something you could shoot around, and
49:32
I think it would have actually made it more playful and more interesting to shoot
49:37
around it than to just basically throw it right in there. You can disagree
49:42
all that you want to, but I do disagree because I think that that
49:45
I think if we don't see that, I can't believe I'm defending nudity here.
49:50
Um. But I think if you don't see her nude in full,
49:53
in her full glory, as it were, that I think it takes something
49:57
away when you see the abstract versions of her nude, because I think if
50:04
they shoot around it, you don't really show it. And then you see
50:06
the abstract versions of her, you can't really even see that there's a woman
50:08
there and definitely not a nude wom could I'm not joking and I'm not joking,
50:19
And in the Fresca, I feel like you could really only tell that
50:21
it was a woman at the very very end, in the very last painting.
50:25
But regardless, I think I think it takes something away from the from
50:30
the experience of it, takes something away from the reveal of his paintings and
50:35
the abstract expressionistic view of what he's doing when he calls it nude Sabone number
50:40
seventeen and it's just abstract expressionistic and then we see this, this gorgeous,
50:46
well built nude frenchwoman. I think it you lose something. I don't know
50:52
that I agree. I understand the point you're that you're making. It.
50:55
I just think you could have shown her from the rear and been it would
51:02
have been okay, it would have still worked, it still would have accomplished
51:07
what you're looking for. I'm not I'm not trying to like you know,
51:09
squash it and be like, oh, you can't do things like that.
51:13
You know that you and I are different in terms of the sensitivity scale with
51:15
everything we really are. It's it's we're all over the map between the two
51:20
of us. Yeah, and it's you know, I still want to get
51:23
you to see Boone Tomahawk Sop. Yeah. You. And the thing is
51:28
I want to show it to you the way that they showed the movie to
51:31
McDowell at the end of a Clockwork Orange. That's how I want to show
51:36
the movie. I knew you were going to bring up clockwork. Okay,
51:38
Okay, my rating for this is a I guess for you, a truly
51:45
rage inducing you say two, I'm going to slap you across the face.
51:50
Two and a half. Oh my god, that's me. Okay. Like,
51:55
when I give my rating, it's gonna be people are gonna go like
51:58
what, But like, I give this a solid four. I think this
52:01
is a great movie. I love this movie. I've seen it at least
52:05
three times. And even though I have a lot of criticisms about it and
52:09
there's a lot of things that don't work, I've used this excuse before in
52:13
the show where when things work so well, and it can overshadow the things
52:20
that don't work well, I can enjoy it and give it a higher rating.
52:23
This is a huge example of that. That's why I'm giving this four
52:28
stars is because I think this is a stellar movie. I think this is
52:30
an underrated movie. I don't think we talk about it enough. And I
52:35
think this is heartwarming and lovely and innovative. But at the same time,
52:42
you know it's it's not firing on all cylinders, but there's so much that's
52:45
so great, And like the line from from right from Jeffrey Wright when he
52:50
says he's like he's like, he's like, I have trouble with cartography A
52:52
curse of the homosexual, Like it's such an incredible toss offline. That's such
53:00
a throwaway. But I texted all my gay friends. I'm just like,
53:02
do you get lost a lot? Like all of them were just like,
53:09
what, Like, I watched a movie he said it was a curse of
53:14
the homosexual. He must have done research when he said that, you know
53:19
that there's got to be something scientific about it, right, So I just
53:22
got a crazy idea. So Darren's on vacation and we were planning on going
53:28
back to the Birdhouse next week. What if we say, screw Darren,
53:32
give him another week off, and we both see Asteroid City, and that's
53:38
what we do next week to contribute to the House of Anderson. Yeah,
53:42
okay, do you have time? Do you have time to do that?
53:45
Yeah, let's do it. I kind of like that idea. I would
53:47
like I can find it in a theater in these United States near me.
53:52
Sure you're telling me that Focus Features isn't giving you a wide release everywhere?
53:59
That is, it's not the biggest release, you know, it's although honestly,
54:04
with all the exhibitors showing Indiana Jones in the Dial of Destiny right now,
54:07
maybe they wish they'd spared a theater for a Wes Anderson movie. Good
54:10
lord, is this a packed into the month we're getting? I mean like
54:16
like we're getting a West Enterson, we're getting Asteroid City, we're getting Oppenheimer,
54:21
We're getting Barbie, we're getting um Dial of Destiny, we're getting Mission
54:25
a Possible. Good Lord, Well, I can say that Oppenheimer. I
54:30
can't wait to revisit the House of Nolan because they've promised that they have completely
54:35
recreated a nuclear blast at the point where I will lose my eyesight when I
54:38
watch it go off in Oppenheimer. It's not at all a marketing ploy,
54:43
but what a way to go. Okay, well you heard it here,
54:45
folks that uh, you know what I'm not going to give us Like if
54:51
we can get we both have kids, and so if we can, if
54:54
we can get away and see Asteroid City, that's what we're gonna do next
54:58
week. If not, we're gonna What you're going to hear is our next
55:01
entry in the Birdhouse with the Incredibles. So stay tuned out of the way.
55:06
Either way, it's going to be a fun experience. Join the Revolution,
55:09
Join the Nerd Party.