:: Royal Pain ::

Monday, December 16, 2002

Charles Taylor wrote a great Salon review of the new Jack Nicholson movie About Schmidt. It’s not an unmitigated lambasting, and parts are quite complimentary, but the bulk of the review serves as an indictment of modern American cinematic satire-dramadies, which attempt to straddle the emotional fence by simultaneously parodying their characters while endearing them to the viewer. Taylor notes that, recently, such efforts have become increasingly pejorative and condescending, focusing on the former goal while invalidating the of the latter. An excerpt:

But I'm afraid [director Alexander] Payne, along with the twee, tea-cozy sensibility of Wes Anderson and the team of Spike Jonze and Charlie Kaufman, with their meta-nothings, represents the new school of American film comedy that presents itself as an exclusive club for those hip enough to get the joke. What unites these filmmakers is that their vision of comedy is crabbed and diminished and also, at the same time, terribly, terribly pleased with itself.

Most of you who read this blog know me (who am I kidding, both of you know me), and you know my affinity for Spike Jonze (ever since his Weezer video direction days) and especially Wes Anderson (though I won’t claim to possess the mnemonic proficiency that some of my friends have), but I think Taylor has a very good point. Both tend to emphasize a web of referentiality and quirkiness spun around a skeletal plotline - intricate, nuanced, and outlandish enough to hold up to repeated watching and scrutinizing, and stopping short (mostly) of the inaccessibly absurd, but lacking in cohesion. Anderson’s The Royal Tennenbaums, for instance, is an entirely character-driven movie, but each major figure is such a caricature that their interactions, which sustain the cursory plot, exceed the realm of farce and leap into the purely nonsensical. Add to this that most exposition and development takes place in the form of a voice-over narrative and not before our eyes, and the characters themselves become ancillary accessories to well-crafted wordplay and audio-visual humor. Yes, we know that Richie is an erstwhile tennis star, but does his choice of sport serve any purpose other than as a sight gag (the beard, outfit, and poster are undoubtedly fantastic, but I get the sense that the existence of Luke Wilson’s character is predicated upon these details, not vice versa)?

This would be fine if it were the intent. Anderson’s maniacal attention to detail, amazing aptitude for weaving a very complete referential network, and eminently enjoyable art/sound direction produce nothing short of a wonderful, hilarious movie. Listening to his commentary on the dvd though, I was struck by how much he referred to the plot, the characters, and the interaction thereof. I had seen the movie more as an assemblage of funny quotes, coy references, and unique stylistic sensibilities; Anderson saw it as a story about a family. Admittedly, I tend to be a bit myopic when it comes to subtext and undertones, but I completely missed the point that it was supposed to be anything other than smug and arcane. By contrast, I interpreted Bottle Rocket as much more of a unified story, and upon further reflection, I think it does a much better job of straddling that fence between parody and endearment. What happened? Is this a microcosm of how film has progressed in the last decade? Wasn’t 9/11 supposed to spell the end of “meta-nothings”? Speak up.

UPDATE: Stephanie Zacharek chimes in as well.

SON OF UPDATE: salon readers respond, and sound quite a bit like the comments for this entry.

Posted by morland @ 07:32 PM

:: Comments ::

maybe it's okay when movies are funny only to those who are in on the joke...i'm a little tired of adam sandler-esque "Tommy Boy" remakes that cater to the least sentient among us. if anderson's movies are full of simple sight-gags, at least they're intelligent enough that you had to actually reflect on the movie, in the context of the director's commentary, to discover their hidden inanity.

i have to agree with you though, when you point to 9/11 as the primary catalyst for a shift in the stylistic zeitgeist of american cinema.

or not...what are you talking about?

Posted by: josh on December 17, 2002 02:27 AM

no, no, I'm just saying I think it's odd/funny that many recent films of this nature have become increasingly extreme in their self-encapsulated meaninglessness despite the fact that so many media pundits were pointing to 9/11 as the death knell for irony and anything unpragmatic. I personally like the trend's seemingly stochastic independence from political events. all I was saying is that I didn't realize the extent to which these filmmakers had mired viewers (maybe not all viewers, could just be me) in the (hilarious and, as you noted, intelligent) details of these flicks at the expense of any real connection to their characters or plot. the 9/11 reference was just part of a larger attempt to pick out a "because" or "despite" (in that case, the latter).

Posted by: morland on December 17, 2002 10:56 AM

I think it might be going too far to say that these films embrace "self-encapsulated meaninglessness". Undoubtedly, humor is presented uniquely in Anderson's movies, almost to the point of refusing the audience a straight-up punchline - instead visual cues and self-reflective irony are the rule. I fail to see how this makes the humor "crabbed and diminished". To me, its just different, and pleasingly so. In addition, the plots may not always be in the foreground, but they are most certainly there to be found, even with some help from the director's commentary if necessary. What really pisses me off about critics like Payne is that they interpret their dislike of certain stylistic choices as a general failure on the part of the movie - in reality, he is just too close-minded to appreciate something that might make him have to think a little bit more about what he is watching.

Posted by: Alexis on December 17, 2002 02:13 PM

[Payne was the director, Taylor was the critic]

I think Taylor might have gone a little far, but I think he raises a valid point: whether or not you like/agree with the style of humor in these movies (which I certainly do, and I get the feeling he partially does) the more outlandish the characters, and the more ancillary the plot, the less it works on a satirical level. I agree with his statement that good satire shouldn't be selective in it's implications.

I feel perhaps Royal Tennenbaums was a bad example for this, but I haven't yet seen About Schmidt, so I couldn't respond to that.

Posted by: morland on December 17, 2002 04:36 PM

i'm not so sure Royal Tennenbaums aspired to satire. it struck me as much more of a farce. in that respect, it's outlandish characters and ridiculous attention to detail work perfectly.

Posted by: josh on December 17, 2002 06:55 PM

yeah, and that's exactly how it struck me as well, which is why I found Anderson's commentary to be surprising: I think he may believe it to be more. I dunno, it's presumptuous to think that, but that's what I gleaned.

Posted by: morland on December 17, 2002 07:26 PM

- Post a comment -

« Full of humor, that is! | Main | Kiss off! »