The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou** (2004) 9.75, 9, 9.5, 28.25

          Dear friends, welcome to my review of The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou. I already had a rating for this one and I can't say too much changed, excepting wisdom, but it will feel good to express my reasoning here. To it!
          For wit, I've given it a 9.75, up .25 from before, which was probably implicit in my previous rating. I looked to my favorite Wes Anderson film, The Royal Tenenbaums a lot to compare and contrast this film. They are delightfully different. This film is written differently in some of the most interesting ways. But first I'll note some pleasing similarities. The key to Wes' writing, to my mind, is his characters' open uncomfortability with the fact of living. Too often characters in films live in a way that obscures interiority and emphasizes their action. They live in a way that suggests little conflict and a surprising lack of confusion about what they do and why they do it. The center of this story is inhabited by Steve Zissou and a young Kentucky Airlines pilot who is rumored to be his son, Ned Plimpton. These two are played by Bill Murray and Owen Wilson, respectively.
          The relationship between these characters is exactly as one would imagine it, riddled with uncomfortable honesty and false familiarity. For the former I provide a quote, not particularly funny, but important to the tone of the film: 
          Steve: You're supposed to be my son, right? 
          Ned: I don't know. But I did want meet you, just in case.
I contrast this with this moment of unnecessary and awkward familiarity between these characters minutes later.
          Steve: You think you'll want to change your name?
          Ned: Ned?
          S: No, not the Ned part. Unless you want to. I meant your last name. I thought you might like to let me give you mine.
          N: Ned Zissou.
          S: Ned Zissou, exactly. Or, if you want to, you can change the first part too. I would have named you Kingsley, if I'd had a say in it.

N: Kingsley. I don't know. Maybe I'll stick with Ned for now.

S: Sure. That's okay.

I think that the relationship of these two begins as needy and pushy on Steve's part, accompanied by Ned's blind search for someone to fill that paternal role. But the beauty of it is that their relationship evolves into Steve taking inspiration and improving because of Ned and Ned accepting the extent to which he has to be his own man, even with a father.

          The story is good, but the acting takes it to another level. I've mentioned part of the genius of Bill and Owen's performances. They bring to life characters that live into the real-life awkwardness of writing one's own dialogue and living moment to moment. They are both born of their own situations, different as those are, but both open themselves with moments of clear plastic falsity and others of unadulterated feeling.
          Cate Blanchett inserts the awkward aspect of a love triangle between the possible father-son and she exquisitely crafts her character, Jane Winslett-Richardson, into something of her own, due in no small part to the writing surely, but with great dueling clarity and opacity that matches her male co-stars.
          Part of Wes' brilliance is his exciting minor characters and the wonderful actors he gets to take small roles, like Willem Dafoe as Klaus, Bud Cort as Bill the Bond Company Stooge, Anjelica Huston as Eleanor, and Jeff Goldblum as Alistair Hennessey. Willem does his best acting here, I think. Klaus is perfectly needy, passionate, and inarticulate: utterly childish. Jeff Goldblum plays the best upscale prig imaginable. Bud Cort, however, may be the scene-stealer of the film, as Bill the Bond Company Stooge. He begins as a joke before he even appears, only to prove to be the most utterly human person in the film, possibly apart from Ned.
          This movie sets itself above by being perhaps the funniest of Wes' films. I've already mentioned, though I can hardly do them justice here, Klaus and Bill, but some of my favorite moments center around Jane's attempt to give up cursing by saying "effing" whenever she has the urge. This is still only my second favorite instance of Wes Anderson finding a way around cursing, though. The rest of my favorite moments center on Zissou's use of interns. Examples:
          Steve tries to give Ned a gun.
          S: Here.
          N: Oh, no, no, no.
          S: No exceptions; everyone gets one. Anne-Marie, do the interns get glocks!
          Anne-Marie: No, they all share one.

          S: (To Pirate) Don't point that gun at him, he's an unpaid intern.
From here, I'd like to address moments that might be spoilers. For those who haven't seen this and don't want to know the ending just yet, skip past this.
******************************SPOILER WARNING*********************************
          One of the most impressive moments, both from the standpoint of wit and wisdom, is when Ned dies, near the end of the film. This is impressive for Wes as a writer, because he has a tendency to tie things a little too neatly at the end. At the end of most of his other films, everyone is accounted for. The lonely man finds a son in need of a father, the two loners find each other, the estranged couple rekindle a romance of sorts. This often works and I don't mean that this is universally a flaw, but Wes steps beyond that, if only for one film, to explore a story where we have some large gaps. When Ned dies, he was just becoming a son to Steve, a lover for Jane, and a member of the team, possibly a future father to Jane's baby, the last of which is even more important given the importance of father-son themes to the film.
           This is impressive from a wisdom standpoint, because it is a reminder that perfect situations like Ned's insertion to this group don't always last, but even when they don't, they can change individuals or groups for the better. A good man can do more good, even in a short time, than it's even possible for him to imagine.
          This also leads to another plot-sensitive note that affects the wisdom rating of this film. It is the power of death to work on us. At the beginning of the film, Esteban is lost to Steve and the whole company. His loss sends Steve on a mission that will change his life. This mission of revenge will eventually stall, but not until it accomplishes an impressive overhaul of his character. Ned comes to find Steve because of his mother's death, a decision which will ultimately prove fatal, but also the key to his self-fulfillment and his growing into his own image of a man. Ned's death finally brings Steve, his crew, and not least Jane to a new self-realization that may have been impossible otherwise. This all plays to my growing fellow-feeling with Tolkien's idea of death as a gift of God to Man, that in many ways the power of loss and pain may do good to us that sin did not foresee when it sought to kill us.
           One of the absolutely most important ideas in this film for me is that revenge is often crushed by knowledge. Revenge is a primordial instinct and even a possibly misguided pang for justice, but I think that the reason we are so often warned to avoid it is that so much of our bloodlust when it comes to revenge is shallow and unconcerned with justice for the wronged, but more concerned with childishly inflicting pain on that which inflicted pain upon us. Near the end of the film, when the group finally encounters the jaguar shark, we see the foolishness of placing blame with our own narrow perspective. When Steve re-encounters the animal, he no longer wants revenge, but sees that death happened and no punishment is needed. So, when we are wronged, the truth is that wrong is rarely simple, which is why it is so important to leave revenge to the one who sees clearly what is not simple.
           I think this concludes the plot-sensitive portion.
*******************************SPOILER ENDED***********************************

           A couple more ideas are worthy of note. The first, as I referred to earlier, is the theme of fathers and sons. This film speaks to the importance of that bond in Ned and Steve, even Klaus and Jane, but also to the importance of not relying on it, of forging your own destiny in the absence, inadequacy, or loss of a father (or father figure). Steve captures this in his quote, "I always hated fathers and I never wanted to be one."

          The last bit of importance is encapsulated in another quote from Steve. He says, just as they're about to see the jaguar shark,  "This is an adventure." He's pointing to the simple idea of life as something to be cherished and enjoyed and not something to be suffered through. It's simple and unprofound, but not a bad way to wake up.

          All this equals a move from 8.5 for wisdom to a 9.25. It's far from perfect, but it makes good points and not very many moral castoffs.

          Lastly, I move to wonder. I have it a 9.5 like before. Wes' flair for set design and visual attention to detail is no less present in this movie than in his best work. But a couple items 

stand out. First, music: this is the most memorable film of his in terms of music for two big reasons. First there is Seu Jorge and his Portuguese Bowie renditions. Bowie is the musical muse of this film, but Seu, both playing the hilariously named character, Pelé Dos Santos, and playing Bowie is the mood setter for the whole epic voyage. Second,  

we have Mark Mothersbaugh, who composed most of the rest of the soundtrack, including the highlight, possibly of all movie soundtracks ever, "Ping Island/Lightning Strike Rescue Op." This electronica masterwork is pulse-pounding, hair-raising, get-you-out-of-your-seat music. Listening to this in repeat as I wrote this is probably why it has taken so long. Not great work music, But there's almost nothing I'd rather dance to.

           Dance break. 

           Sorry, I'm back. The very last items of note are the fun uses of claymation to make up crazy non-sensical fish species and the little scale/"production value" items that really sell the world: the boat and the island.

           Overall, a great film. I haven't done it in a while, but just in case, for those concerned, the film contains derogatory language along with other cursing, no nudity, only implied sex, and some gunplay. And death. Certainly not for anyone too young.

           I hope this film brings you joy and my review can be the cherry on top. Au revoir!

On the Second Day of Christmas: Elf** (2003) 9.5, 9.25, 9.5, 28.25

          There are two initial points to be made. First, I am aware that it is the third day of Christmas as I write this. I am referring to my initiative to watch my 12 favorite Christmas movies on the twelve days of Christmas.
          I might also note that I watched The Nightmare Before Christmas on Christmas Day and was very disappointed on a rewatch of what I considered a shoe-in for the top 12 list. Why did it fail to make the list? I'll try to briefly explain.
          When I first watched this film, I was definitely in awe of stop-motion animation as a concept. Because of this, among other things, I didn't seem to notice the shallowness of the characters and the way in which the non sequitur of the concept trivializes all holidays and the holy days from which they come. I find the trivialization of Samhain or whatever morphed into Halloween almost as frustrating as the general trivialization of Christmas. And the love story also seems haphazard or worse, terribly unhealthy. Overall, I no longer feel this one deserves 5 stars and definitely falls short of the overall top 12 Christmas films.
          Second, this is the first review in which I've used .25 increments. I feel like this has been coming for a while. I need more room for nuance in my rating system. I am also trying very hard to be harder on movies in general recently, because I believe that the system is currently too top heavy. 9's have been pretty standard for a movie of any quality and there is less and less room for differentiating quality on the top end of my scale. Some will disagree and say I haven't been tough on Elf at all, but hopefully I explain myself well enough that I win some of you over. Brave new world.
          "You sit on a throne of lies." I watched this scene four times, not least for my niece, and burst out laughing every time. I just imagined it and nearly laughed out loud again. Will Ferrell's character, Buddy begins harassing a department store Santa about not being the real Santa. He leans in close, with a child on faux-Santa's lap, and says, "You sicken me. You sit on a throne of lies." No one alive today delivers a comedic line like Will. This film, as is the case with many of his films, could not have happened without him.
          The other acting standout of this film is Zooey Deschanel. Though it's weird now to see her with blond hair, this is The first place I ever saw her and I was sold from the beginning. She plays the whole part from the now seeming standard awkward strange to the now strange aloof, too cool vibe that she uses with Will initially. And her voice is hardly a surprise as her career as a recording artist has become a big part of her public life. But boy does she sing.
          Ed Asner is Santa. I am solidly of the opinion that Santa Clause died many years ago and never had magic powers, but if anyone could convince me otherwise, it's Ed, er...Mr. Asner. A nod of respect to the craft of Bob Newhart and James Caan. They both have significant parts and play them in such a way as to always be useful and dependable.
          Clearly you know, I think the writing of this movie is good, but I could quote another five scenes that made me bust up. For all these reasons, I went with a 9.5 for wit.
          Wisdom is more of a mixed bag. My biggest problem is the sanitized Christmas. Unlike TNBC, which reduced the message Christmas to pure joy, Elf emphasizes faith (if one in something different), love, and hope as the values of Christmas, as well as good cheer. But there is no denying the desacralization of Christmas still bothers me here.
          But this film still has some great messages. One of the best is a balance between work and other aspects of our lives, like family or even simple enjoyment. To that end, it also encourage people to do something they love like they love it, a message very near and dear to my heart.
          But this sanitized Christmas still bothers me. I might have given a 9.5 for wisdom in another time, but I feel it would just have been a 9.27 rounded up. The 9.25 is much more accurate.
          I recently read an article about pratfalls and the cerebralization of comedy. This person argued that comedy has become largely the realm of brainy stand-up types like Woody Allen. They lamented the loss of people who were willing to sacrifice there body for a joke. They need to be watching more Will Ferrell.
           I am a big fan of the great old physical comedians like Chaplin and Keaton. And I think Will is living up to that here. He gets hit by cab two or three times. I've been clipped by a car while walking and it hurts. The pain won't end your life, but it'll linger. And this Anointed of the gospel of joy takes those hits so little kids and I can giggle. God bless him.
          Thanks also to those that created he elaborate sets and animated castoffs from old Christmas stop-motion flicks. Lastly a written applause for the music and Zooey and Will's singing. All in all this stuff earned a solid 9.25.
          I'll admit that I'm watching these Christmas classics in no particular order, but I've no doubt this is among the top 5, maybe top 3. If you haven't seen it, make time for it this Christmas season that ends 6 January.
          God is come among us. Happy Christmas.

La Jetée* (1962) 9.5, 9.5, 9.75, 28.75

          A little while ago, Netflix surprised me by offering me a free trial to the DVD by mail service that I had subscribed to for about six years, but have been too poor for since returning to the US. When my account started back up, they sent me two movies rather quickly and I failed to check my queue. When I saw this film, in its two in a disc pack with Sans Soleil, I wasn't particularly excited. It sat in my queue for most of the time I had Netflix, just waiting until I was up to it. I was so loathe to get on with it that I sat through the other unfortunate get from my queue, The Privileged Planet.
          I do not recommend that movie, by the by, because it is poorly made and even more poorly argued. First, I agree with the conclusion that God created us and that we're important to him. Agreeing with that, I find the argument totally unnecessary. There is nothing about the grand story of Scripture or the essential theology of Christianity that requires that we be the whole or even the center of God's great, cosmic plan. This is a return to pre-Copernican fear of heliocentricity. Dorothy Sayers, in her translation of Dante Alighieri's Divine Comedy, suggests that Dante would have found the heliocentric worldview more in line with his metaphors and his worldview, because it keeps man from imagining himself as the center of things and clarifies the fact of God as center. In this same way, I think that imagining man to be special misses the key point to the Scriptures, that man is only special because God loves him, coupled with the manifest fact that just because God is speaking to you doesn't mean he isn't speaking to anyone else.
          I find even more frustrating the lack of intellectual acumen used to promote vaguely Christian reasoning. While they make explicit reference to Sagan and other secularist scientists, they fail to note major arguments that shatter theirs advanced by these very thinkers. First, their entire theory is based on the idea that all the intelligent life in the universe looks like us, specifically is based in carbon, needs oxygen and water, etc. Sagan points out that its silly to think that a wide and varied universe might well have very different types of life, suited to their own environments. Second is the anthropic principle, which points out that most if not all of the arguments that suggest our environment is perfectly suited to us can be worked to support an Darwinian evolutionary perspective, because if there are infinite universes and an ever-expanding universe, eventually there would be a perfect place for beings like us to evolve and grow. Our planet/galaxy/universe wasn't designed for us, but we were designed by it. That's why we fit. I don't agree with all this reasoning, but I find it much more convincing than the arguments put forth by The Privileged Planet. Sorry to ramble, but this whole thing is very annoying.
          But on Monday I decided to finally sit down and try out this film, La Jetée. I was shocked. This half-hour film, if that term is appropriate (the creator called it a photo-roman, French for photo-novel), is one of the most impressive things I've ever seen. Let me break it down.
          For wit, I gave it a 9.5. I should point out that the form and length made me give it an automatic -.25 for each category, each for different reasons. I'll try to explain. My initial analysis of left me choosing a 9.75 for wit. The actors give great "performances," subtly using the handicap of single images to give us a pulled back view of two people falling in love. They do this with no dialogue and only one scene approaching full speed film. The same goes for writing. The narrator is pithy and eloquent, even occasionally funny. It would be a great film, if it had been filmed. But the handicap of the medium, the narrated, timed slide-show, keeps it from being quite as witty.
          For wisdom, I again chose a 9.5. Part of the trouble here is the medium. The narrator is so neutral that the majority of it leaves us with little to no message. The incidentals of the story are of a high quality though. Here we have a complex, beautiful love story told all in montage. Two beautiful souls giving themselves to each other in a limited, painfully limited way and coming away with no bitterness or reproach, only sadness when it is over. But no trace of selfish fling love of the post-modern variety, but pure, self-sacrificing, passionate love, without possession, but not without commitment. There is the briefest suggestion of fornication, but very forgivable, under the circumstances. Overall beauty, tinged with the sadness and evil of a post-apocalyptic autocracy that uses everyone and loves no one.
          For wisdom, I gave the highest, 9.75. This is in part because I had to do something to counter the -.25's, because though the medium keeps this film from perfection, it is one of the most interesting and beautiful directorial decisions I've ever seen and I wish more people would try it. But this exciting, novel method must get less than a perfect score, because it clearly avoids the trouble that would have accompanied trying to do these same scenes in full speed. This allows the post-apocalyptic scenario to be accomplished with less work and expense, which is a mixed bag. There's definitely some lack of "production value" here, to quote Super 8, but the film is truly fantastically made, from the music to the piecing together of the scenes to the amazing shot of the Arc de Triomphe bisected.
          The music, the work of Trevor Duncan, fills in the movement aspect lost within the medium and does it in a way that makes quite a bit more of it than it would be without it. The brilliant use of the still photos to speed up and slow down the pace and to give the film a beautiful simplicity and clarity is one of the most impressive things I've ever seen. The creation of post-apocalyptic Paris from stock photos is also inspired. Overall, this film comes in solidly at number nineteen all-time and thus gets into my forthcoming rewatch project for the top twenty-five.
          I hope everybody who takes me seriously about movies watches this film and enjoys it. It truly has taken my breath away. This is easily the shortest turn-around on a review since I've come home. Otherwise look forward to my first in the Rewatch series, the infamous The Dark Knight Rises (infamous only to me, because I chose to give it a perfect score when it first came out) coming soon. Enjoyez!