criterionforum.org

mfunk9786 wrote:

Spoiler

I took that, and the line about the crops from Balaban, as a more uplifting gesture to suggest that these important moments and places have gone by the wayside (the church steeple, the cove) but that what made them so special will live on and grow within these kids. Every important relationship is an exercise in absorption of each other, and of your shared memories, until they become a part of your mutual DNA.

Spoiler

It's also a now-permanently private place, something shared between the two of them that can never be invaded or spoiled. It's magical in part because they can never go back, and neither can anyone else.

knives wrote:I have to strongly disagree and would even go so far as to say that Fantastic Mr Fox is the most important film in the evolution of Anderson's career since Rushmore. Before it he was building the most basic foundations of his cinematic house with Fantastic Mr Fox going out of it's way to say that it is time to work on putting in the electric and plumbing. There's a radical change in his thematic concerns present and even a few subtle ones in his presentational style (noticeably the focus on earthy colours versus the previous bright blue bases). Honestly I find thinking of Anderson's films individually impossible as they are so closely tied together and purely auteuristic.

Stylistically I think you're right, and the very fact that it was the precursor to Moonrise implies that Fantastic Mr. Fox had some quality of artistic expansion or renaissance for him. I should watch it again.

Is the term "Moonrise Kingdom" ever actually _uttered_ during the film (neither my wife nor I remembered hearing it -- though we knew what it must refer to). ;~}

No one ever says it, but watch the end closely, and remember a line Suzy says while their clothes are drying on the line.

mfunk9786 wrote:No one ever says it, but watch the end closely, and remember a line Suzy says while their clothes are drying on the line.

We'll try to remember this for our next viewing. (Our kids were a little miffed that we went to see this on our own).

Michael Kerpan wrote:We'll try to remember this for our next viewing. (Our kids were a little miffed that we went to see this on our own).

It might be fun to catch this on your own, but if you want to know...

Spoiler

When their clothes are drying, Suzy says, "I like it here, but I don't like the name. 'Mile 3.25 Tidal Inlet.' It's got no ring to it." That's the last we hear about it before they are found on the beach the next morning.

At the end, when it shows Sam's painting, there is a dissolve to an actual overhead shot of their finished campsite at the inlet, showing that they had written "Moonrise Kingdom" in stones on the beach before going to bed that night.

mfunk9786 wrote:No one ever says it, but watch the end closely, and remember a line Suzy says while their clothes are drying on the line.

Spoiler

If I had any major complaint it's that the final shot didn''t hold a few seconds longer. I didn't notice the formation of the rocks spelled out the title until my second viewing.

Especially since it's coupled with the sweet little dedication to Anderson's girlfriend.

I wondered about that dedication. I kept thinking it was someone who passed away.

To be fair, it's something I googled, not something I just knew offhand.

We noted the line about the inadequate name for the location (which was why my wife guessed the reason for the title), but missed the (obviously very) brief shot you mention.

I met a young actor who played one of the khaki scouts and he pointed out to me that some of what people seem to presume is CGI was actually done with miniatures (the floodwaters breaking through the dam, for instance). Apologies if someone else already pointed this out.

I was wondering about that- I think my speculation was that it was done with stop motion, but it definitely had a handmade feel to it.

Really loved this movie and I had a quick question:

Spoiler

I don't think its been pointed out here, but was a picture of the operator at Edward Norton's desk at the end of the film?

Yeah that's what I was assuming too. Thanks.

I got to watch this a couple of days ago, I really enjoyed it. Probably one my favorites Wes films since Rushmore/Tenenbaums.

This was the first Wes Anderson film that I got to see on the big screen, and I was not disappointed. I was flabbergasted by the actress portraying Suzy, Ms. Kara Hayward, never putting a foot wrong in her debut feature, successfully dodging the trap of being too precocious. There was such an honesty in her eyes and a cadence behind every line uttered, that it was hard not to fall in love with her. Mk was incredibly heartwarming, cute and sweet.

I went in skeptical, as the days of Anderson topping himself seemed long past, but resistance was futile. This is so clearly his best film, a crystal realization of his Tati-esque control of every aspect of the screen that I was deeply moved by the sheer artistry and hand of the auteur.

Also, haven't read the whole thread yet, but surely my girlfriend and I weren't the only ones who walked out of the theatre saying, "Well, I know what we're going to be for Halloween," right? I'm well aware that this will be the year of Sam and Suzy couple costumes, but we're throwing down the mic regardless

See it again and again, it becomes more rewarding each time. You're right about the Tati comparison, this is like a 16mm Playtime in that respect.

mfunk9786 wrote:this is like a 16mm Playtime in that respect.

Isn't that an oxymoron?

Sort of, but also an accurate statement here. A mini-Playtime

domino harvey wrote:I went in skeptical, as the days of Anderson topping himself seemed long past, but resistance was futile. This is so clearly his best film, a crystal realization of his Tati-esque control of every aspect of the screen that I was deeply moved by the sheer artistry and hand of the auteur.

Pretty much my reaction to a T. I've always enjoyed Anderson's films, but this one really swept me away. When you see everything click like this, you realize just how silly grumbles about Anderson 'repeating himself' really are.

I got the Pierrot nods, but to me they seemed to me somewhat beside the point. The real vibe I got from the film, particularly the early sequences with their intense, earnest, hilarious romantic melodrama, was George Kuchar. Which was a delightful surprise and absolutely perfect for the material. Anybody else feel the same way?

zedz wrote:I got the Pierrot nods, but to me they seemed to me somewhat beside the point. The real vibe I got from the film, particularly the early sequences with their intense, earnest, hilarious romantic melodrama, was George Kuchar. Which was a delightful surprise and absolutely perfect for the material. Anybody else feel the same way?

Hah, I actually watched Pierrot for the first time the night before last (I know, I know) and was struck by the points of comparison with Moonrise- though as much by how differently Anderson treats in-some-ways-similar material as anything else Certainly, the phrase 'the last romantic couple' as applies as well to it as it did to Pierrot, but it's striking how much more optimistic Anderson is- not only in having a happy ending, but in his belief that the couple apparently can really know themselves and one another, instead of the inevitable seeming dissolution of the Godard. And obviously, Anderson is less interested in the Brechtian audience-distancing techniques and so forth, and more willing to let the audience get totally invested in his characters (though not so absolutely dedicated to the idea as Hollywood norm.)

zedz wrote:The real vibe I got from the film, particularly the early sequences with their intense, earnest, hilarious romantic melodrama, was George Kuchar. Which was a delightful surprise and absolutely perfect for the material. Anybody else feel the same way?

Weirdly, I just caught up with George Cukor's wonderful Travels With My Aunt, and it seems to me a clear influence on Anderson's work, particularly visually. Highly recommended to all Anderson fans, in any case.

Damn, it's only available from Warner Archive. The source novel looks good, though.