540 The Darjeeling Limited

[Jeff]

Hotel Chevalier is so thin and light that it barely exists at all.

Unlike a certain glorious ass for those who haven't got the picture yet.

[FilmFanSea]

Manohla Dargis in the Times

[David Ehrenstein]

At the press screening of The Darjeeling Limited at 20th Century Fox last night Hotel Chevalier was attached to the film, much as Mieville's Le Livre de Marie is attached to Godard's Je Vous Salue Marie.

If they are indeed going to remove it for theatrical release of the feature, and include it on the DVD as Mahnola says -- wait for the DVD.

[domino harvey]

Even though the short did nothing for me, I'm puzzled as to why it won't be shown before the film proper in the theater. Does the studio not feel a (relative to say the audience for Hail Mary at least) mainstream audience can handle a short and a feature, especially when the feature barely breaks an hour and a half in length?

[Faux Hulot]

I loved Bottle Rocket and Rushmore (even enjoyed Life Aquatic and Wes' AmEx and ATT spots), but Tenenbaums was a twee little tea party for poodles, and from the looks of this glorified "deleted scene," I suspect we're in for more of the same. In fact, upon witnessing the utterly insubstantial Chevalier I was tempted to craft a joke about the emperor's new clothes, but Portman's performance pretty much made that redundant.

[Jem]

I though Hotel Chevalier was beautiful, much more than a just a free jerk off for grubby adolescents.

[tavernier]

Manohla Dargis in the Times

I know Times critics are interchangeable, but that review was by A.O. Scott.

[sevenarts]

Just watched this. Portman has a great ass, and there a few good lines -- most notably the very funny exchange already mentioned in this thread -- but I'll agree that this is an utterly insubstantial trifle. It's basically a long trailer for the main film, or better yet a really long iPod commercial. I posted a small paragraph about the film as part of today's blog here.

I love Anderson's first three films, and Life Aquatic was worthwhile though flawed, but if this is indicative of what we can expect from his newest feature, he may have totally lost whatever he once had.

[Polybius]

[...] but Tenenbaums was a twee little tea party for poodles [...]

I would dearly love to see that reprinted as a blurb on the DVD cover =D>

[godardslave]

I love Anderson's first three films, and Life Aquatic was worthwhile though flawed, but if this is indicative of what we can expect from his newest feature, he may have totally lost whatever he once had.

Whereas on the other hand, I view Aquatic as his masterpiece. Therefore, from my perspective, "whatever he once had", has only got stronger over time.

[DrewReiber]

Whereas on the other hand, I view Aquatic as his masterpiece. Therefore, from my perspective, "whatever he once had", has only got stronger over time.

Agreed. As for Hotel Chavalier, I have no idea how to respond to something that is listed as Part 1 of a film I have yet to finish. Once I've seen Darjeeling, then I will reflect on the prologue. For now, that much analysis seems pointless.

[Hrossa]

I thought Hotel Chevalier was a good sketch of an abusive relationship. It's got some great elements (some of which I didn't pick up on until I watch the film a second time):

- Natalie Portman's attempt at facial expression when Jason answers the door as well as the subsequent attempt at a kiss which he parries into a hug.

- Her perusal of the various items he's assembled for her - punctuated by her discovery that the paint on the painting is still wet.

- the "that was a long pause" exchange.

- N. Portman various accoutrement: the bruises, the toothpick

And then there's the whole question of why she's visiting him for just one day. It seems like she's just doing it to hurt him and reassert her control over him and he knows that's what she's doing but he's powerless to stop it.

I appreciated it more the second time I watched it. But I think it's a really nice short film. It manages to put a lot into play.

This is probably also the longest single scene of Wes Anderson's career. It took a moment for me to adjust to watching it. Generally his scenes last a minute or two at most.

[Steven H]

I thought Hotel Chevalier was a good sketch of an abusive relationship. It's got some great elements (some of which I didn't pick up on until I watch the film a second time)

No one has brought up a total lack of "narration," where Anderson usually guides people along the story in a fairly straightforward way, there's a ton of ambiguity and mystery to this short film. Even the colors and environment chosen seem more msystery drama than the usual light comedy approach. Portman and Schwartzman seem to be reversed in gender to how Anderson usually portrays relationships, as I can't think of any other films where the woman initiates sex.

Schwartzman is completely outacted though, and if it wasn't for the facial hair to hide behind, he'd probably get tossed out the window by Portman. I remember after watching Closer thinking about how great she really is at commanding a screen presence, and when she smiles after arranging that picture on the desk in Hotel Chevalier, she complete changes the mood of the short. But hey, who are we to analyze such uninteresting and insubstantial material.

[Hrossa]

Are there any other threads here where roughly 80% of the content is people talking about how much they dislike the thing in question? The only other thread that comes to mind from my perusal of the board is the one about Quentin Tarantino, but even that didn't seem to contain as much energetic hatred.

I'm somewhat amused at what prompts page after page of negative comments given the fact that those who dislike Anderson's work seem to all agree that it's trivial and not worth their time.

And yet we have 8 pages of people reiterating how trivial it is.

Who knows how distended this exercise could get once the majority of us actually get a chance to see the film.

[Steven H]

I don't mind negativity, but one sentence disclaimers about how obviously bad something is are poison for the forum. This is why I avoid the Tarantino and Chasing Amy threads becuase *that's* where I'm tempted to do the same thing, which doesn't do anyone any good. But hey, I'm just a defensive h*****r in a fetishistic subculture that clearly doesn't know right from wrong and I only like Wes Anderson's movies so some girl with spiky hair and grandma socks will make out with me.

But anyway, I'm actually very happy because I assumed like the last couple of Anderson films that it would open in late December, but instead its just a couple of weeks (or a few weeks, depending on location or somesuch.) So I have We Own The Night and Darjeeling Limited to look forward to in the very near future.

...and by the way, I said "hamster" so matt can't ban me.

[Antoine Doinel]

The Life Obsessive With Wes Anderson

[Barmy]

I'm seeing this tonight at the NYFF. I'm certain it will be utter shite. I hope Wessy is there so I can throw some tomatoes at that twee twerpy little twit.

[denti alligator]

I'd be happy to take your ticket off you. I'm one of those people who doesn't think it will be shite, yet who couldn't get a ticket, because all the people who are going to heckle Wes got their tickets first.

[Barmy]

I'd like to help, but I already bought a bag of tomatoes.

[Jem]

I'm seeing this tonight at the NYFF. I'm certain it will be utter shite. I hope Wessy is there so I can throw some tomatoes at that twee twerpy little twit.

Wow, hate to get on the bad side of you, such passionate distaste for someone you probably have never met.

[LeeB.Sims]

I decided I might never know if it's really good or bad in an intellectual sense, but I know I loved it and I haven't stopped thinking about it so I've made my peace with that. I think Steven is on to something interesting with the gender reversal aspect he pointed out. This is reinforced by Portman's short hair, the macho toothpick, and the comment she makes about Schwartzman getting a haircut (his hair is pretty long now, but this indicates it was even longer before like maybe he is attempting to take back some of his masculinity). It's also interesting that though it is clear that this was a somewhat abusive relationship (he really seems pretty ruined by her), the bruises on her indicate that wherever she was she has gotten a little taste of her own medicine, to an extreme degree. This aspect of the short really tells an epic story with no narration (as again Steven pointed out) and no expository dialog. In that respect Anderson's work here is pretty accomplished.

[domino harvey]

Are there any other threads here where roughly 80% of the content is people talking about how much they dislike the thing in question? The only other thread that comes to mind from my perusal of the board is the one about Quentin Tarantino, but even that didn't seem to contain as much energetic hatred.

I'm somewhat amused at what prompts page after page of negative comments given the fact that those who dislike Anderson's work seem to all agree that it's trivial and not worth their time.

And yet we have 8 pages of people reiterating how trivial it is.

Who knows how distended this exercise could get once the majority of us actually get a chance to see the film.

This isn't a blowjob forum with everyone sucking the film in question's dick. I gave the short an honest shot, and I'm willing to bet others did also. I don't need to take it to the extremes of some other posters and keep posting about how bad the film in question is, but complaining because someone doesn't like the film you like is .com fodder. Keeping silent about a film gives a false impression of universal acclaim or acceptance from the forum, and obviously that isn't the case. I don't hate Anderson and I would like very much for him to make another movie that I can admire, but it hasn't happened yet.

[Steven H]

I decided I might never know if it's really good or bad in an intellectual sense, but I know I loved it and I haven't stopped thinking about it so I've made my peace with that. I think Steven is on to something interesting with the gender reversal aspect he pointed out. This is reinforced by Portman's short hair, the macho toothpick, and the comment she makes about Schwartzman getting a haircut (his hair is pretty long now, but this indicates it was even longer before like maybe he is attempting to take back some of his masculinity).

I think its important to notice the clothes and haircuts in Anderson's films as they're usually shorthand for the traits, ideas, blessings, or burdens the characters are carrying with them. Hiding behind hair (Murray in Rushmore, Wilson in Tenenbaums, now Schwartzman) and suits have always been "guy things" in his films, and Portman's unnamed character has quite the trenchcoat to keep up the trend. Even when she's stark naked sitting at the table, she seems to be looking at Schwartzman like a piece of property or a pet. Its a very cold moment for such an atmosphere and context.

It also reminded me of the scene in Rushmore where Max tries to win back Ms. Cross, with the soft music playing, the way its lit, etc. Portman seems to show up as Max did, as a surprise to gain control of the situation, but it plays out in a more adult way, with more ambiguity and less chiding for not knowing your place. Here there's a history we're not privy to, and things are complcated and course, but not only is the backdrop different, its ideal for a setting. You couldn't imagine a more romantic spot and a less romantic encounter, which I suppose is where the quirkiness factor comes into play.

And though Margaret Yang didn't exactly initiate sex during Rushmore there's some connection there. Her pleasant demeanor playing to Schwartzman's earnestness is completely different from how Portman seems to own (or at least be a parasite to) the mustached version of the same character in Hotel Chevalier. This is how I imagine Murray and Paltrow's relationship in Tenenbaums to have started out, and of course the more powerful person is eventually turned off and disgusted by the weaker there, and we're not sure how that's played out here. The continuity from film to film and how Anderson deals with relationships is one of the big reasons why I felt he was similar to Ozu, particular later Ozu, and how he did this to make larger points (though he was probably more conscious of how his films were interwoven than Anderson is.)

I can't wait to hear Barmy tell us the whole audience booed at NYFF.

[Jean-Luc Garbo]

Not to rain on anyone's parade, but could we please get a separate thread for discussion of Portman's derriere? As a lover of the zaftig, it's not much to write home about. I just don't see it. Kudos to whoever said she's better than Schwartzman in Hotel Chevalier. I thought her acting there was a joy.

[David Ehrenstein]

No, not the title of a film. Jean-Luc Garbo suggested that a separate discussion be created for it growing out of the thread for The Darjeeling Limited and the short accompanying it Hotel Chevalier, where the ass in question is featured.

Needless to say this is not to be confused with the Andy Warhol, classic Taylor Mead's Ass.