SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home David Thomson on Films: The Stunted Adulthood of Wes...

FILM JUNE 4, 2012

David Thomson on Films: The Stunted Adulthood of Wes Anderson

Moonrise Kingdom is set on an island, but its director Wes Anderson has always seemed like someone who insisted on a small off-shore existence. This is not uncommon in American movies, or necessarily forbidding: Josef von Sternberg lived on a glowing island where the light and its shadows fell on the face of a woman, ideally Marlene Dietrich, because Sternberg had loved her and been humiliated by her. Howard Hawks preferred to find an enclosed cockpit of intense talk and action—the airfield in Only Angels Have Wings or the court newsroom in His Girl Friday. The cattle drive in Red River seems set against epic American landscapes, with changing light and weather, but it’s really a camp that could wander on forever. Woody Allen haunts the streets and interiors of what looks like Manhattan, but he clutches his overcoat island of solipsism. In the same way, Wes Anderson has always been drawn to isolated worlds inhabited by adults who are lost children.

In Moonrise Kingdom, in and off the shore of a fabled New England, there are storms coming. One has to do with weather and is forewarned by Bob Balaban, a figure in red (Wes Anderson is thrilled by red), somewhere between God and a Maine meteorologist. The other is an attraction between two kids, Suzy (Kara Hayward) and Sam (Jared Gillman). How old are they? Well, there’s the rub, or the respectful touch—for on a wistful beach Suzy does tell Sam he can touch her chest, which is indicated by a hopeful white bikini top. The film is vague on how old the kids are, just as it is evasive on what “love” means to them. As well it might be, for on the mainland of commercial movie-going we could be close to ratings panic—Moonrise Kingdom is PG-13 (for “sexual content and smoking”). But as so often with Anderson, it’s generous to call this sexual content as opposed to fey signaling.

These kids are nostalgic, wounded grown-ups, like all the other adults in the film: Sam is an orphan, but Suzy has despondent malfunctioning parents, Frances McDormand and Bill Murray, and the remote world in which they live has authority figures in Edward Norton’s “Scout Master Ward” and the local cop, Captain Sharp (Bruce Willis). Ward is in short khaki pants, of course, and, with Norton’s perpetually youthful gaze, is a head boy, while Sharp is anything but what his name promises—a dull, sad veteran of disappointment.

Some commentators have said that this is a charming evocation of first love for the kids, and if that’s how you see it, that’s fine. I think it’s rather more a woeful but smug commentary on how adults make a mess of everything while romantic children just want to be pure and touch each other’s chests or whatever. In fact, Kara and Jared are thirteen (a year older than Lolita, a.k.a. Dolores Haze, and a good deal more knowing than Mr. Anderson about what marriage means at that age). Never mind, Moonrise Kingdom is a damp, soggy terrain where moisture and sentimentality ooze under every step. The film is frequently funny, always elegant (or mock-elegant), and something that would make Humbert Humbert laugh all the way to his asylum. Whenever it finds itself nervous about feelings (which is often), it plunges into childlike but cool, ironic art direction as if to say, look, this cute story is done as seen through the kids’ eyes. Isn’t it? Whereas, the sensibility of the whole enterprise is of an adult alarmed by anything like maturity (so let’s refer to it as “maturity”) and nostalgic for the purity of childhood about to be warped. What it is is J.M. Barrie, and the Peter Pan whimsy could give you the creeps.

In a recent interview, in Sight & Sound, asked whether the film didn’t present a very Norman Rockwell vision, Anderson surprised me with this forecast: “These kids that are in the story, she’s bound to end up at Berkeley or something and he’s probably going to get sent to Vietnam”. What jarred for me in that notion of an alleged 1965 was the unlikelihood of these kids getting access to anywhere except Never Never Land. Nor do I feel any way in which they will have to confront and deal with the disillusion that faces their elders. Their trick and advantage is that they are enchanted. That is very like the gloomy armor worn by Woody Allen’s characters. It’s living on an island as opposed to being in the world.

Which brings me to Anderson’s famous family: the group of writers and actors he likes to keep on hand. This script is written with Roman Coppola (who also worked on The Darjeeling Limited), and in the past Anderson has collaborated with Noah Baumbach (The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou and Fantastic Mr Fox) and Owen Wilson (everything until Moonrise Kingdom, when he may have been hijacked by Woody Allen). He has a stock company that includes Wilson, Jason Schwarzman (from Rushmore) and that eccentric standby, Bill Murray. Now Murray is a small, grumpy treasure. He can hardly play a round of golf without being funny. He has had his moments in six Anderson films, but can anyone say he is used, or extended? Or is he just part of the flora and fauna of Anderson’s island. Newcomer Tilda Swinton, playing “Social Services,” manages to make a far deeper impression because she senses that her part needs a touch of starched blue Grimmness. But Murray and McDormand are merely “there,” just as Bruce Willis gives hints of hoping for one of his real supporting roles instead of an endless cameo.

In short, for all that Wes-ites will revel in this film (it is doing knockout business in sixteen theatres), I can’t believe Anderson is going anywhere except to his self-satisfied island. He might study another islander, Ingmar Bergman, who established his own confined context as he grew older, just as he lived personally on the off-shore island of Faro. But Bergman was not complacent in his detachment. He knew it was a model of existential loneliness, not just Swedish but world-wide. For Bergman the island was no escape; it was the most dangerous place. Wes Anderson, by contrast, dodges solitude and indulges a kind of prettified “lonesomeness” that is mock-poetic, soporific and faintly creepy.

David Thomson is the author of The New Biographical Dictionary of Film and The Moment of Psycho: How Alfred Hitchcock Taught America to Love Murder.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 5 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

5 comments

Thomson wants the characters to remain in the enchanted land but Anderson doesn't seem to care. Many if not most filmmakers create ambiguity. Dorothy returns to Kansas but everybody in Kansas had been in Oz. Same with Big Fish, an underrated movie with Albert Finney whose larger than life character is told in fantastic stories to his son, which ends with the stories being revealed as fantasy only to have the fantastic characters in the stories appear at Finney's funeral. Then there is my all time favorite, Swiss Family Robinson, in which the adults, faced with the choice between remaining in the enchanted land or returning to reality, choose to remain in the enchanted land. Don't we all want a little enchanted land in our reality.

- rayward

June 5, 2012 at 7:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Damn, you burned Anderson for sure. I haven't seen this movie, but I have a hunch your review is on the money. I'm a year younger than Anderson, and I reckon my generation's biggest failing--and by "my generation" I mean the white, American, university-educated subset of those born between 1965 and 1975--is an ironical ambivalence about adulthood.

- AaronW

June 5, 2012 at 7:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I actually liked this movie a lot. It definitely had flaws--some of the character development for the adults was pretty thin. Having said that, I really enjoyed the odd relationship between the two kids. And, at the risk of sounding like a dumb Wes Andersonite, there's something striking about the storybook visuals of this film. The whole thing feels like the toy chest at your grandparents' house--objects arranged neatly in bright, painted-on colors. That's not enough for everyone, though. And I could understand why folks might find it irritating. But I was captivated. And the ending was very moving.

- maxhencke

June 5, 2012 at 9:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

max, I'll allow for the possibility of my liking this movie. I thought "Rushmore" was plumb hilarious, but I didn't care much at all for Royal Tenenbaums, Life Aquatic or Darjeeling Express. The deadpan, depressive line delivery starts to get oppressive after a while, and Anderson's movies start to feel to me like a Terry Gilliam flick except with the whole cast stoned on some really heavy indica.

- AaronW

June 5, 2012 at 10:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As with most of Wes Anderson's films, the characters are really secondary to the overall visual candy he paints them into. It isn't that these "kids" have romanced views of "life", it's that they have an affected view of life. They're in it but not into it. Anderson's first real film, Rushmore, was a great movie in that it surprised us and the characters inhabiting that particular world were a bit off, yet you could relate to them. His subsequent films, have basically been an expansion of the original movie - lost "kids" in a romanticized world not of their making and not affected by their presence. The exacting details, the cut-away sections, bright colors, indie-rock sound-tracks all come off too earnest and cloying. The outlier of Wes' later movies was Fantastic Mr. Fox - Which, because of it's very medium and materiality, fulfilled the visual wonderland that typically fills in for the lack of character development in his other films and the characters where the most fleshed out Wes has given us. I tried hard to like Royal Tenenbaums, Life Aquatic and Darjeeling Express but the earnestness is too much and lack of empathy for the characters by viewer and director alike makes for flat story telling. Wes is a descriptionist. Like a writer that spends 12 pages telling you about the every minute detail and dust mote inhabiting the offices of a detective, without actually telling us about the detective, Wes spends 120 minutes telling us about the inhabited world with its raccoon hats, pop guns, white tank tops, portable record players, matching track suits, matching luggage, and Willem Defoe as intrepid sidekick without actually telling us about the characters.

- singlspeed

June 5, 2012 at 10:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close