The Darjeeling Limited
I don't want to hear anyone say "You have to see the film to understand it" because short films shouldn't rely solely on other sources to make sense. What a waste of 13 minutes (which felt more like 30).
You absolutely do not need to see the feature to enjoy the short film.
It said absolutely nothing about anything.
But that's not entirely true, is it? You didn't get a feeling of a long-time love on the verge of collapse, intimacy beyond its sale date? That's a shame.
"How's the despair?"
-
FilmFan720
- Emeritus
- Posts: 3650
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
- Location: Illinois
I just got back from seeing the film. I am a Wes Andersen fan, so that must be taken into account here, but I thought the film was a little gem. This is Andersen at his most mature, painting a simple tale and filling it with several amusing moments fitted by some touching additions. I thought the entire funeral sequence was wonderful, and moved me quite a bit. By the end, the film starts to fall apart (Angelica Huston's sequence does not really work), but all in all one of the better times I have had in the theatre this year.
As for Hotel Chevalier, I think it is an exquisite short film, and some of Andersen's best work. I have seen it twice (once at home, once at the theater tonight), and I can't imagine watching Darjeeling Limited without seeing this first. It deepens the film very much, but I think stands on its own just as well.
As for Hotel Chevalier, I think it is an exquisite short film, and some of Andersen's best work. I have seen it twice (once at home, once at the theater tonight), and I can't imagine watching Darjeeling Limited without seeing this first. It deepens the film very much, but I think stands on its own just as well.
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.
- Minor Myers, Jr.
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
Now that I managed to get a sneak peak at Hotel Chevalier through my press contacts, I must say that if this is Part I of Darjeeling Limited, I never want to see the film. How colossally tedious the short film was.
It said absolutely nothing about anything. I don't want to hear anyone say "You have to see the film to understand it" because short films shouldn't rely solely on other sources to make sense. What a waste of 13 minutes (which felt more like 30).
It said absolutely nothing about anything. I don't want to hear anyone say "You have to see the film to understand it" because short films shouldn't rely solely on other sources to make sense. What a waste of 13 minutes (which felt more like 30).
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
-
The Original BJ
- Emeritus
- Posts: 4312
- Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm
You people fucking suck. Really? Not a single other person on this board saw the new Wes Anderson movie? I don't give a shit if it's only been out nationwide for seven minutes. Get your shit together. GOD!!!
Anywhere, here's my review for www.filmmonthly.com (MINOR SPOILERS!)
Recent photos have revealed a different side to Wes Anderson than the spindly dork-wad who directed BOTTLE ROCKET the man so visibly uncomfortable at the MTV Movie Awards, where he somehow reduced Janeane Garofalo and Ben Stiller to fanboys on only his first movie, and somehow charmed the heart of Scott Rudin enough to allot for his Felllini-esque fantasias to come. These days with his dapper, particular wardrobe, Wes Anderson seems more at home in a Wes Anderson movie than directing a Wes Anderson movie. Harsh? Perhaps, but only out of love. More than even Fellini, the degree to which Wes Anderson expanded his filmic world (and it’s all the same Wes-World) is rather unparalleled: the ramshackle tender goof of BOTTLE ROCKET‡ the Truffaut charm of the high school academia in RUSHMORE‡ the Salinger’s eye view of New York in THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS. The progression was so strong and encompassing that what the filmmaker could possibly do next was a mystery. Under the sea for THE LIFE AQUATIC WITH STEVE ZISSOU! Off to India for THE DARJEELING LIMITED! It’s almost fitting that his next film is an animated Roahl Dahl adaptation of THE FANTASTIC MR. FOX. Even his titles have an inscrutable eloquence to them, something that shouldn’t work and yet feels downright regal.
THE DARJEELING LIMITED is no exception for the filmmaker. The movie is enjoyable when not infuriating, dazzling when not flaccid, so sure-footed when not scrambled. We begin with a nifty red herring prologue: Bill Murray plays a business man late for his train, holding onto his fedora, careening through the bustling town, racing after the train as it leaves, running, running…and then Adrien Brody appears beside him, also tackling the same train, but younger and quicker. And then the film goes into slow motion as he reaches the train to the dueling strings of The Kinks’ “This Time Tomorrow”. The young has succeeded, the old has not; they make eye contact, and they’re gone. He is the middle Whitman brother Peter, sandwiched (an apt description) between mustachioed rapscallion novelist Jack (Jason Schwartzman), and overbearing and incredibly injured Francis (Owen Wilson). They are reunited for the first time since their father’s funeral, they all have their secrets (Jack is calling his ex-girlfriend’s answering machine, Peter is having a baby with a woman he always planned on divorcing, and Francis tried to kill himself), they are off on a spiritual journey to see their mother, and they’re on The Darjeeling Limited, a wonderment of a train that provides for some unpretentious silliness as their personalities careen.
If Wes Anderson were to allow their spiritual journey to remain aboard the Darjeeling Limited, the film would be a minor joy. They are quickly shuttled off for reasons of excessive destruction and the film progresses to an Indian funeral and a monastery and the film more or less deflates on its quest for purpose, the former of which is especially disingenuous – a word I must use to label most of this film. The death of an Indian child leads to the path of redemption, and yet there is something inherently (again!) disingenuous about how both Wes Anderson casually offs a child for the benefit of white hipsters and how the white characters march in line in slow motion to another song by The Kinks, making it entirely about them. Wes Anderson denies that all of his films are autobiographical but it’s fairly easy to see that this script (which was written with Jason Schwartzman and Roman Coppola in India) is full of little moments that feel lived, shared, and scribbled down. Wes Anderson digs the culture, but not nearly enough to immerse us in it more than halfway. A telling scene: Jack having sex with Rita in the bathroom, her pleading for him not to cum inside her. “Welcome to India: Please Don’t Cum Inside Us!”
What I grapple with now is how the film will hold on repeat viewing. Even THE LIFE AQUATIC WITH STEVE ZISSOU, a film as unruly as its name, is something of a delight, an unexpectedly genuine film about middle age and a far more poignant and insightful one than the suburban malaise of AMERICAN BEAUTY. As of now, THE DARJEELING LIMITED has the feel of a lark stuck awkwardly between Hope/Crosby mayhem and Renoir humanism, and all signs point to a film too void of form. As in DONNIE DARKO, as in GARDEN STATE, the film epilogues to a slow-motion lateral-parading cast that now in the hands of Wes Anderson again feels routine. What might become of this man were he, like Scorsese before him, forced to return to grassroots film campaigning without Frames Per Second Toggling at his disposal?
Anywhere, here's my review for www.filmmonthly.com (MINOR SPOILERS!)
Recent photos have revealed a different side to Wes Anderson than the spindly dork-wad who directed BOTTLE ROCKET the man so visibly uncomfortable at the MTV Movie Awards, where he somehow reduced Janeane Garofalo and Ben Stiller to fanboys on only his first movie, and somehow charmed the heart of Scott Rudin enough to allot for his Felllini-esque fantasias to come. These days with his dapper, particular wardrobe, Wes Anderson seems more at home in a Wes Anderson movie than directing a Wes Anderson movie. Harsh? Perhaps, but only out of love. More than even Fellini, the degree to which Wes Anderson expanded his filmic world (and it’s all the same Wes-World) is rather unparalleled: the ramshackle tender goof of BOTTLE ROCKET‡ the Truffaut charm of the high school academia in RUSHMORE‡ the Salinger’s eye view of New York in THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS. The progression was so strong and encompassing that what the filmmaker could possibly do next was a mystery. Under the sea for THE LIFE AQUATIC WITH STEVE ZISSOU! Off to India for THE DARJEELING LIMITED! It’s almost fitting that his next film is an animated Roahl Dahl adaptation of THE FANTASTIC MR. FOX. Even his titles have an inscrutable eloquence to them, something that shouldn’t work and yet feels downright regal.
THE DARJEELING LIMITED is no exception for the filmmaker. The movie is enjoyable when not infuriating, dazzling when not flaccid, so sure-footed when not scrambled. We begin with a nifty red herring prologue: Bill Murray plays a business man late for his train, holding onto his fedora, careening through the bustling town, racing after the train as it leaves, running, running…and then Adrien Brody appears beside him, also tackling the same train, but younger and quicker. And then the film goes into slow motion as he reaches the train to the dueling strings of The Kinks’ “This Time Tomorrow”. The young has succeeded, the old has not; they make eye contact, and they’re gone. He is the middle Whitman brother Peter, sandwiched (an apt description) between mustachioed rapscallion novelist Jack (Jason Schwartzman), and overbearing and incredibly injured Francis (Owen Wilson). They are reunited for the first time since their father’s funeral, they all have their secrets (Jack is calling his ex-girlfriend’s answering machine, Peter is having a baby with a woman he always planned on divorcing, and Francis tried to kill himself), they are off on a spiritual journey to see their mother, and they’re on The Darjeeling Limited, a wonderment of a train that provides for some unpretentious silliness as their personalities careen.
If Wes Anderson were to allow their spiritual journey to remain aboard the Darjeeling Limited, the film would be a minor joy. They are quickly shuttled off for reasons of excessive destruction and the film progresses to an Indian funeral and a monastery and the film more or less deflates on its quest for purpose, the former of which is especially disingenuous – a word I must use to label most of this film. The death of an Indian child leads to the path of redemption, and yet there is something inherently (again!) disingenuous about how both Wes Anderson casually offs a child for the benefit of white hipsters and how the white characters march in line in slow motion to another song by The Kinks, making it entirely about them. Wes Anderson denies that all of his films are autobiographical but it’s fairly easy to see that this script (which was written with Jason Schwartzman and Roman Coppola in India) is full of little moments that feel lived, shared, and scribbled down. Wes Anderson digs the culture, but not nearly enough to immerse us in it more than halfway. A telling scene: Jack having sex with Rita in the bathroom, her pleading for him not to cum inside her. “Welcome to India: Please Don’t Cum Inside Us!”
What I grapple with now is how the film will hold on repeat viewing. Even THE LIFE AQUATIC WITH STEVE ZISSOU, a film as unruly as its name, is something of a delight, an unexpectedly genuine film about middle age and a far more poignant and insightful one than the suburban malaise of AMERICAN BEAUTY. As of now, THE DARJEELING LIMITED has the feel of a lark stuck awkwardly between Hope/Crosby mayhem and Renoir humanism, and all signs point to a film too void of form. As in DONNIE DARKO, as in GARDEN STATE, the film epilogues to a slow-motion lateral-parading cast that now in the hands of Wes Anderson again feels routine. What might become of this man were he, like Scorsese before him, forced to return to grassroots film campaigning without Frames Per Second Toggling at his disposal?
"How's the despair?"
Just saw 'The Darjeeling Limited'...
I will preface the review with a disclaimer and a marginal quotation. The disclaimer is that I think this is the least impressive film of the director's ouevre, but I still enjoyed it, seriously. The marginal quotation is that I don't see why it needed the seriously.
In all fairness, you do kinda need the seriously there because with Wes Anderson, it warrants that seriously. There's a lot that works in 'The Darjeeling Limited' and a lot that doesn't, and the much of the latter has to be due to the filmmaker's own preoccupations and satisfactions. The film may be broken up into thirds but it feels like halves, wherein the first half (aboard 'The Darjeeling Limited') feels inspired and full of invention, wherein the second is reliant upon Director as God choices that I found off-putting...
...
...
...
(SPOILERS)
...
...
...
...
There is an Indian boy who dies so that the characters may feel a sense of gravity and loss in their lives outside themselves. This is not a terrible idea but the build to this is so abrupt that it felt literally like Wes Anderson killed a little Indian boy for the redemption fo the White Man. This is an off-putting concept for a filmmaker who has routinely marginalized minoirties to the rank of subordinate, outside of Margaret Yang that is. The film never entirely picks up after they depart the train and one wonders what kind of film it might've been had they stayed upon The Darjeeling Limited (now *that* film would've been true to the Hope & Crosby railings laid down from the get-go, and probably far superior to the one shown here); yet the one we are given works on its own level, although it's not terribly funny and not terribly redemptive as it chugs along to its foregone conclusion.
I have already seen 'Hotel Chevalier' and it serves to bolster Jason Schwartzman's character, though none of th characters are as well defined as one may have hoped. Watching Owen Wilson so battered and beaten did affect my impression of his character, though I prayed that would not be the case. The team of Brody/Schwartzman/and Wilson work very well together, but I wish Anderson had given them more to do. He's a very peculiar talent, and one would imagine keeping them aboard The Darjeeling Limited would have been a given. Knowing that Wes Anderson had left for India to complete the script provides me with too much insight into his potential writing process; there's a lot of "this, from that one time, goes here" and "that, from that other time, goes here".
Honestly, I felt about 'The Darjeeling Limited' much in the same way I did about '3:10 to Yuma'. It's a little disingenuous and there are choices I don't agree with, but I still had a very good time. 'The Darjeeling Limited' was always entertaining for me to watch and while some of Wes Anderson's now-trademarked signatures wore tired (the slow-motion tracking shots, the excessively dour reactions to life, even some of his wide-angle whips), his skill with the camera and visual storytelling is incredibly strong. I mainain the bastard's still one of the most talented filmmakers we have, I just wish he could find an outside voice to work with that's more...outside. Where does a brother gotta post his phone number?
I've danced around the film enough for one post. I'll post something more coherent at a later date. I'll say that I enjoyed 'The Darjeeling Limited' as escapism but ultimately I found the movie a little bit hollow and a little bit of a lost opportunity.
I will preface the review with a disclaimer and a marginal quotation. The disclaimer is that I think this is the least impressive film of the director's ouevre, but I still enjoyed it, seriously. The marginal quotation is that I don't see why it needed the seriously.
In all fairness, you do kinda need the seriously there because with Wes Anderson, it warrants that seriously. There's a lot that works in 'The Darjeeling Limited' and a lot that doesn't, and the much of the latter has to be due to the filmmaker's own preoccupations and satisfactions. The film may be broken up into thirds but it feels like halves, wherein the first half (aboard 'The Darjeeling Limited') feels inspired and full of invention, wherein the second is reliant upon Director as God choices that I found off-putting...
...
...
...
(SPOILERS)
...
...
...
...
There is an Indian boy who dies so that the characters may feel a sense of gravity and loss in their lives outside themselves. This is not a terrible idea but the build to this is so abrupt that it felt literally like Wes Anderson killed a little Indian boy for the redemption fo the White Man. This is an off-putting concept for a filmmaker who has routinely marginalized minoirties to the rank of subordinate, outside of Margaret Yang that is. The film never entirely picks up after they depart the train and one wonders what kind of film it might've been had they stayed upon The Darjeeling Limited (now *that* film would've been true to the Hope & Crosby railings laid down from the get-go, and probably far superior to the one shown here); yet the one we are given works on its own level, although it's not terribly funny and not terribly redemptive as it chugs along to its foregone conclusion.
I have already seen 'Hotel Chevalier' and it serves to bolster Jason Schwartzman's character, though none of th characters are as well defined as one may have hoped. Watching Owen Wilson so battered and beaten did affect my impression of his character, though I prayed that would not be the case. The team of Brody/Schwartzman/and Wilson work very well together, but I wish Anderson had given them more to do. He's a very peculiar talent, and one would imagine keeping them aboard The Darjeeling Limited would have been a given. Knowing that Wes Anderson had left for India to complete the script provides me with too much insight into his potential writing process; there's a lot of "this, from that one time, goes here" and "that, from that other time, goes here".
Honestly, I felt about 'The Darjeeling Limited' much in the same way I did about '3:10 to Yuma'. It's a little disingenuous and there are choices I don't agree with, but I still had a very good time. 'The Darjeeling Limited' was always entertaining for me to watch and while some of Wes Anderson's now-trademarked signatures wore tired (the slow-motion tracking shots, the excessively dour reactions to life, even some of his wide-angle whips), his skill with the camera and visual storytelling is incredibly strong. I mainain the bastard's still one of the most talented filmmakers we have, I just wish he could find an outside voice to work with that's more...outside. Where does a brother gotta post his phone number?
I've danced around the film enough for one post. I'll post something more coherent at a later date. I'll say that I enjoyed 'The Darjeeling Limited' as escapism but ultimately I found the movie a little bit hollow and a little bit of a lost opportunity.
"How's the despair?"
It's simply a way of winnowing down the nearly-infinite submissions the Academy would undoubtedly get if the rule were not in place. It may be merciless to any terrific short film that eludes recognition at one of these festivals, but at least it's honest. It's like a more formalized version of the effect of critic and guild awards in categories where nominators are allowed to be a lot more mysterious in their decision-making process.
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
It's rather silly, if you ask me. It would be like requiring actors and actresses to win an award at a film festival to nominate them. I understand they don't want everything under the sun to compete, but really...this only makes it sound like they only want to recognize award-winning films...Hardly makes the victory mean very much.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
-
FilmFan720
- Emeritus
- Posts: 3650
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
- Location: Illinois
-
FilmFan720
- Emeritus
- Posts: 3650
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
- Location: Illinois
The official AMPAS rules:
(a) The film must have been publicly exhibited for paid admission in 16mm, 35mm or 70mm film or in a 24- or 48-frame progressive scan format with a minimum projector resolution of 2048 by 1080 pixels; source image format conforming to SMPTE 428-1-2006 D-Cinema Distribution Master – Image Characteristics; image compression (if used) conforming to ISO/IEC 15444-1 (JPEG 2000), and image and sound file formats suitable for exhibition in commercial Digital Cinema sites, OR legacy Digital Cinema equipment as previously defined by the Academy, i.e., minimum native resolution 1280 by 1024 pixels with pixel bit depth, color primaries, and image and sound file formats suitable for Digital Cinema sites, in a commercial motion picture theater in Los Angeles County for a run of at least three consecutive days (no fewer than two screenings a day). Student films cannot qualify in this manner.
OR
(b) The film must have participated in a “recognized” competitive film festival and MUST HAVE WON THE BEST-IN-CATEGORY AWARD as specified in the Academy Festival List. Proof of award must be submitted with the entry. “Recognized” competitive film festivals comprise those established film festivals on the Academy's Short Films Awards Festival List, which may be obtained from the Academy.
So, since I don't believe the film won any awards, it must be exhibited for three days straight in LA. Is it being attached to the film anywhere?
(a) The film must have been publicly exhibited for paid admission in 16mm, 35mm or 70mm film or in a 24- or 48-frame progressive scan format with a minimum projector resolution of 2048 by 1080 pixels; source image format conforming to SMPTE 428-1-2006 D-Cinema Distribution Master – Image Characteristics; image compression (if used) conforming to ISO/IEC 15444-1 (JPEG 2000), and image and sound file formats suitable for exhibition in commercial Digital Cinema sites, OR legacy Digital Cinema equipment as previously defined by the Academy, i.e., minimum native resolution 1280 by 1024 pixels with pixel bit depth, color primaries, and image and sound file formats suitable for Digital Cinema sites, in a commercial motion picture theater in Los Angeles County for a run of at least three consecutive days (no fewer than two screenings a day). Student films cannot qualify in this manner.
OR
(b) The film must have participated in a “recognized” competitive film festival and MUST HAVE WON THE BEST-IN-CATEGORY AWARD as specified in the Academy Festival List. Proof of award must be submitted with the entry. “Recognized” competitive film festivals comprise those established film festivals on the Academy's Short Films Awards Festival List, which may be obtained from the Academy.
So, since I don't believe the film won any awards, it must be exhibited for three days straight in LA. Is it being attached to the film anywhere?
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.
- Minor Myers, Jr.
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
I'm pretty sure it doesn't have to win, it just has to show there before being shown in another medium. I haven't watched the short but it looks like it's featured in the AmEx commercial, which will probably cause it to be ineligible.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin