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.
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.
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***********************************
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!
No comments:
Post a Comment