criterionforum.org

mfunk9786 wrote:I still feel like I didn't really see Moonrise Kingdom. Don't get me wrong - it was sweet, charming, brimming with childhood nostalgia - but it didn't feel very much like it took place on planet Earth. Fantastic Mr. Fox was an animated film, which is very well suited to this kind of frenetic pace, but I reached the end of Moonrise Kingdom, which is pretty much the same length, feeling like I didn't know any of these characters as well as I wanted to. Pulling off Wes Anderson's style of dollhouse filmmaking feels like less of an achievement when he sees fit to completely rid himself of the shackles of conveying realism or the rhythms of real life. Whereas Rushmore's characters (it is ultimately this film's spiritual cousin) and world believably lived and breathed before and after the film's runtime, Moonrise Kingdom is only a real place during the time we're watching this movie, and that makes a big difference to me. Is it a very good film? Yes, absolutely - the attention to detail and craft here is baffling. But is it one that I found easy to warm up to upon my first viewing? No - I often found myself a bit exhausted trying to keep up with the million little things we're ideally supposed to pick up on as Moonrise Kingdom rolled along like a speed train - but I can absolutely see where this will be a grower. Hopefully repeat viewings can make me feel as if I know these people (particularly the adults) more intimately than I did after one go-around, because I do really wish I could have gotten to know them better before Moonrise Kingdom closed, tore down its sets, and went back into a trunk in Anderson's closet.

What are we to make of a film that can’t be truly appreciated for what it is until one has the opportunity to view it multiple times, and perhaps even engage with the remote control to pause and zoom and pour over the attention to detail that whizzes by too quickly to take it in during the course of one sit-down with it? I saw Moonrise Kingdom for the second time on Saturday night, and my relationship with it improved tremendously over my first viewing, but it’s raised an bit of a question in my mind regarding the value of a film that demands to be seen over and over before it can truly be appreciated. But I’m ultimately going to try to work my way through my thoughts about the film aimlessly and without any particular thesis, and completely get away from the larger question that I just raised. Sorry about that.

My first time through Moonrise Kingdom, I found it difficult to absorb everything being thrown at me by Anderson – there are cutaways that are incredibly brief, swatches of dialogue that are supposed to impart knowledge about the histories and relationships between characters that can be missed in the middle of a laugh, or in the middle of a particularly spellbinding visual composition. Anderson has always been a marvelous visual stylist, throwing a lot of tiny details into his films to reward those who are willing to look for them, but he’s never built up such a head of steam before. The rhythm of the film is part of its charm, but it demands more from the viewer than an average film because it rarely lets our minds stop ticking along with each of the Anderson's cues.

There are some things here that don't work as well as perhaps they should. While he gives a largely admirable performance, Jared Gilman is occasionally rather tongue-tied by Anderson and Roman Coppola’s dialogue, but the film, if it’s to be seen in the form of a living, breathing entity, does not stop to let him try to speak a bit slower. There are also plotlines and characters that aren’t given their due – one wonders what Harvey Keitel saw in his part on the page that made it worth getting out of bed – his appearances onscreen are slight and rather unnecessary. Sure, there’s a purpose for the hootenanny that brings all the local scouts together in one place, but giving us a smidge of another character who is simply not as fleshed out as the other adults during a time that the film is zooming along at full speed seems foolhardy to me. The composition of the film finds something charming to do with even the least circumstantial of characters – Tilda Swinton’s, Bob Balaban’s, Jason Schwartzman’s – but Keitel’s presence still puzzles me.

Complaints about the film’s minor flaws aside, it’s an amazingly original work – sure, it draws inspiration pretty heavily at times from films like Pierrot le fou and Zazie dans le metro, among others (I love the visual reference to Eyes Wide Shut late in the film) but I don’t know that I’ve ever been able to engage with such a self-conscious piece of work the way I did with this one – and despite cues taken from other films here, they go together to make a genuinely innovative film that couldn’t be replicated (and I can only imagine that a few faux-indies over the next few years will try). Kara Hayward’s performance strikes me as the birth of a new talent; and the two actors who I had a bit of trepidation about entering the Wes Anderson dollhouse, Edward Norton and Bruce Willis, deliver the best performances in the entire film. And while Moonrise Kingdom has such an impressive cast, the performances are dwarfed by some truly implausible filmmaking feats on display – the opening sequence, some excellent continuity during long journeys and long conversations (a conversation between Willis and Gilman at Willis’ kitchen table is a standout comedic moment), a very creative montage of communication between Gilman and Hayward over their year-long courtship – there is some truly inspired work on display here. While I’m not one to agree with complaints of Anderson’s work being cold (I find his films more emotional [and I get more emotional during them] than most), no one will be able to make the claim that Moonrise Kingdom keeps the viewer at a distance or doesn’t convince us that we should be charmed (or emotionally sledgehammered, depending) by the story of these two unusual children and the little community they inhabit.

I love the film, but I couldn’t truly love it until I’d gotten another crack at it, and I imagine my appreciation will continue to build each time I see it. I heartily recommend that anyone on this forum who’s on the fence (or has just decided to be an Anderson detractor through and through) should see Moonrise Kingdom… twice… before they decide whether it was worth their time.

it’s raised an bit of a question in my mind regarding the value of a film that demands to be seen over and over before it can truly be appreciated

Why should this be an issue? Certain films will hit you immediately, others may take time and several viewings to appreciate. Some fit into both categories: like everyone else, I loved Back to the Future right off, but the dozens of times I've seen it since 1985 have only deepened my appreciation. More pertinent, I could say the same of Rushmore.

Some, like Pauline Kael, insist that the first viewing is the definitive one. Others would insist that you need to see a film multiple times to understand it. Neither view allows for a variety of experience, and besides, it depends on the individual and the film.

There are probably some films that almost demand repeat viewings, for a variety of reasons: I'd mention Playtime (because of the density of its mise-en-scène, in which not all of the goings-on can be glimpsed in any given viewing) and Ivan the Terrible (because of its immense motivic and thematic density). It's certainly no Ivan, but I'd suggest that Fantastic Mr. Fox also has an impressive weave of motifs that can't be appreciated in a single viewing. (At least, that's been my experience.)

I think Wes Anderson's films usually play better on second viewings. I also went back this weekend and enjoyed being able to push the story aside and focus on the craftsmanship on display, the cutaways, and Anderson's staging of background characters and their mannerisms. Outside of The Royal Tenenbaums and Moonrise Kingdom, a second viewing has been necessary for me on all his films.

Expanded to 854 theaters this weekend. Should surpass The Life Aquatic as Anderson's second-highest grossing movie by Monday. Which brings to mind a question - since Criterion has a good relationship with Focus, are we assuming it's going right to Criterion around the end of the year?

mfunk9786 wrote:Expanded to 854 theaters this weekend. Should surpass The Life Aquatic as Anderson's second-highest grossing movie by Monday. Which brings to mind a question - since Criterion has a good relationship with Focus, are we assuming it's going right to Criterion around the end of the year?

I'm guessing Focus does their own version with nothing (or maybe some studio EPK materials) on it at the end of the year, and Criterion gets their hands on it a year later.

Jeff wrote:I'm guessing Focus does their own version with nothing (or maybe some studio EPK materials) on it at the end of the year, and Criterion gets their hands on it a year later.

We'll have to wait until the features for Universal's own release are announced--and hope that Fox's barebones edition of The Darjeeling Limited doesn't set the precedent, otherwise we'll be waiting nearly three years. That said, Criterion's relationship with Universal seems to be extremely comfortable (Criterion announcing their upgrade of Dazed and Confused before Universal's own was even released).

It looks like that's just a placeholder anyway.

Just saw this and wanted to echo some of what's been mentioned, but also add in that I love the film! I'm not a big Anderson fan (haven't seen Darjeeling or Life Aquatic) and his general style hasn't ever done much for me...I guess I just find his films I have seen charming, but sometimes annoying.
That was not the case here, and after the opening sequence kind of left me feeling that this would be pretty much what I expected, it was anything but. The two kids in the lead role were spectacular, especially the boy. He was charming, funny, and absolutely real.

Spoiler

Surely, a lesser/more predictable film would have made him more of an introvert, and perhaps weak. The moment he fights back at his tormenters would have been a big dramatic event. But that would have made no sense! Of course he can handle his own/take care of himself. He's an astute boy-scout and an orphan, to boot! I know this may seem obvious, but by not making a big deal of that fight, I think represented a lot of the movie's strengths...

While surely some of the adult characters may feel under-developed (I liked Willis a lot...perhaps more than any other movie...and thought Norton's whole part didn't amount to much), I think ultimately it was a wise decision to use them less, rather than more.

It wasn't perfect. We kind of get the sense of the small community that the town is, but until the ending, nobody else on the island is even shown. The

Spoiler

other khaki scout camp

...never really seems to be fully addressed (are they competing? Why is their two? For different ages?) And I do want to chime in and say I hated the CGI

Spoiler

(lightning strike, fire in Keitel's cabin, flood water breaking the dam)

, but ultimately, a very enjoyable and indeed, cute and charming film.

The other Scout camp is a the Andersonverse version of a Scout Jamboree site, which is a thing where a bunch of scout groups get together for a big event in the summer.

Also, I thought some of the CGI looked more like stop motion- it definitely had an intentionally amateurish feel to it.

(The movie was great, I think it's up with Royal Tenenbaums and Rushmore amongst Anderson's major works)

Loved it. And have no desire to even pick out flaws. As an ex-scout (and parent of Eagle Scouts who are now scoutmasters themselves) I found the scout stuff hilarious.

Regarding Harvey Keitel's presence in the film:

Spoiler

Did anyone else notice the wonderful, color-tinted portrait of his character displayed on Edward Norton's desk early on?

bainbridgezu wrote:Regarding Harvey Keitel's presence in the film:

Spoiler

Did anyone else notice the wonderful, color-tinted portrait of his character displayed on Edward Norton's desk early on?

This confused me actually. When they met, I wondered was Keitel some distant hero or a personal figure for Norton.

Absolutely agree that this gets better with multiple viewings. My minor quibbles from the first go 'round didn't bother at all the second time. I left the theater wanting to go again -- again. It's become one of those films that I can't really rationalize my extreme fondness for. I can see the flaws intellectually, but have internalized the both the story and aesthetic so much that it begins to feel "perfect" to me. That's such a rare phenomenon, that I'm not going to question it.

I've seen it thrice now and I know that when I go to see Magic Mike tonight I'm going to be like Mrs. Krabappel's class being led past the slide factory and the fireworks testing range to the box factory, while staring hang-dog at the cooler options. I don't care how good Magic Mike turns out to be, I wanna see Moonrise Kingdom again

mfunk9786 wrote:I've seen it thrice now and I know that when I go to see Magic Mike tonight I'm going to be like Mrs. Krabappel's class being led past the slide factory and the fireworks testing range to the box factory, while staring hang-dog at the cooler options. I don't care how good Magic Mike turns out to be, I wanna see Moonrise Kingdom again

I had every intention of going to Magic Mike when I left for the theater.

Y'all are just insecure in your masculinity

domino harvey wrote:Y'all are just insecure in your masculinity

Heh. There's probably some truth to that, but I still intend to see Magic Mike this weekend. I'll just have to go to a theater that is not also playing Moonrise Kingdom.

Jeff wrote:Absolutely agree that this gets better with multiple viewings. My minor quibbles from the first go 'round didn't bother at all the second time. I left the theater wanting to go again -- again. It's become one of those films that I can't really rationalize my extreme fondness for. I can see the flaws intellectually, but have internalized the both the story and aesthetic so much that it begins to feel "perfect" to me. That's such a rare phenomenon, that I'm not going to question it.

I've seen it twice, too, and feel the same way, except that I can't really see any flaws intellectually, either. I see the things that drive Anderson detractors batty, but I've never seen those things as flaws, and even less so here. This is the most complete and poignant expression of the Anderson style that he's produced yet, and I loved every second of it both times I saw it.

There are so many things that feel right to me:

Spoiler

Anderson's musical choices. The exagerratedly militarized routine at scout camp. Scoutmaster Ward's devotion to scouting. Suzy's adventure books, and the way they're woven into the story. Scoutmaster Ward's scene with Sam after Sam and Suzy are caught. Captain Sharp's reaction to everything. Hayward's and Gilman's performances. Murray's performance. Willis's performance. Norton's performance. Everyone else's performance. Tilda Swinton's costume. The way that Sam, bored and looking for something to do at the church play, absentmindedly plays with stuff (the elephant's trunk, the water fountain) as he randomly strolls around. The way that Sam laughs at Suzy's "Coping with the Very Troubled Child" book. Suzy's reaction and Sam's subsequent apology. The treehouse. The way that alliances between kids change suddenly and arbitrarily. The way that kids always feel like they're older than they are. The can of nickels. The constant references to "lefty scissors". I could go on and on.

Plus, it's just so goddamned funny.

Brian C wrote:I've seen it twice, too, and feel the same way, except that I can't really see any flaws intellectually, either. I see the things that drive Anderson detractors batty, but I've never seen those things as flaws, and even less so here.

Yeah, the Anderson "quirk" doesn't bother me at all. I was mainly referring to my previous comment that the adult performances and Suzy's backstory felt truncated. Oddly, I didn't feel that at all the second time.

Brian C wrote:There are so many things that feel right to me

Agree 100% with every spoilered item. I love Suzy's books, and wish I could read them. Anderson had the passages that he wrote for each book animated. See them here as Suzy reads aloud.

Brian C wrote:

Spoiler

The way that Sam laughs at Suzy's "Coping with the Very Troubled Child" book. Suzy's reaction and Sam's subsequent apology.

Spoiler

The counterpart about being orphaned, with Sam's "I love you but you don't know what you're talking about", was perfectly executed, too. I really love the way the movie signals turns - notably there and with the death of Snoopy- such that, without feeling as though we've fundamentally changed the rules or the characters, we understand that this isn't no-real-consequences children's behavior.

matrixschmatrix wrote:

Brian C wrote:

Spoiler

The way that Sam laughs at Suzy's "Coping with the Very Troubled Child" book. Suzy's reaction and Sam's subsequent apology.

Spoiler

The counterpart about being orphaned, with Sam's "I love you but you don't know what you're talking about", was perfectly executed, too. I really love the way the movie signals turns - notably there and with the death of Snoopy- such that, without feeling as though we've fundamentally changed the rules or the characters, we understand that this isn't no-real-consequences children's behavior.

Yes, that was wonderful, too! That line was great, and I also loved when

Spoiler

Suzy paused for a second before replying, "I love you too". What a beautifully observed moment.

I also meant to add the end credits to my list above. Not that I couldn't go on naming great moments from this film, but I think that deserves special mention.

I really love Rushmore and Tenenbaums, but I think this will go down as Anderson's greatest film for me. Even the first time I saw it, I felt like I had seen not just a great film, but a real landmark film. I'm not quite sure when the last time was that I saw a new film that I liked more.

Brian C wrote:I really love Rushmore and Tenenbaums, but I think this will go down as Anderson's greatest film for me. Even the first time I saw it, I felt like I had seen not just a great film, but a real landmark film. I'm not quite sure when the last time was that I saw a new film that I liked more.

It's firmly my favorite Anderson now. Another great moment:

Spoiler

After Schwartzman's Cousin Ben tells them to them all to get rid of the gum ("Spit it out, Sister") and think more seriously about if they are ready to commit to marriage, they go stand by the trampoline ostensibly having a "very serious" conversation while a kid next to them is doing flips on the trampoline. Anderson gives us the whole thing in a long shot juxtaposing the absolute seriousness this discussion has for Sam and Suzy with the fact that they're really 12-year-olds playing house by giving us the kid goofing off next to them. Captures the whole tone of the film perfectly.

There are so many hilarious little throwaway notes, like when the Khaki Scouts smuggle Suzy out of her house and all duck through the half door and the last one simply pushes the rest of the door open.

Jeff wrote:

Spoiler

There are so many hilarious little throwaway notes, like when the Khaki Scouts smuggle Suzy out of her house and all duck through the half door and the last one simply pushes the rest of the door open.

Having now seen it 5 times with loose plans on a couple more viewings before the summer is over, I can only wholeheartedly agree with you & Brian C. Another teensy but absolutely hilarious moment that I'd like to add - and I only noticed it for the first time on my 4th viewing- is:

Spoiler

When Sam offers Suzy's kitten the fish head and guts, Suzy politely declines and points to the kitten food...on the box is written 100% Fish

Saw Moonrise Kingdom twice and loved it even more the 2nd time around. I agree with most great observations here. During the films opening title sequence, the camera showcases the rooms of the Bishops house, leading us to one of the Bishop boys turning on a Fisher Price (?) record player. This whole vibe reminds me of the opening of Harold and Maude, when Harold turns on the music. Suzy and certain shots of her, esp the closeups of her against the beach rocks, brought my mind to Picnic at Hanging Rock.

mfunk, I didn't catch the visual reference to Eyes Wide Shut. What is it?