I love Wes Anderson. Why? Because he’s a complete original.
You never know quite what you’re going to get when you walk
into one of his movies, but you know that it’s not quite going
to be like anything you’ve ever seen. The stories he tells are
quirky, but fundamentally human. They’re funny and sad, often
at the same time, concerning idiosyncratic characters and odd situations
that, somehow, seem completely believable because of Anderson’s
writing and directorial skill, not to mention his sterling ability
to choose background music that beautifully fits each scene.
While “The Life Aquatic”, Anderson’s latest work,
does not quite reach the heights of his best films (like “Rushmore”
and “The
Royal Tenenbaums” which, in my opinion, are nearly equal
in greatness) it’s still riveting entertainment. The subject
of “The Life Aquatic” is titular deep-sea explorer Steve
Zissou, played beautifully by Bill Murray. Zissou bears more than
a passing resemblance to famous deep-sea explorer Jacques Coustau:
he makes documentaries about oceanic creatures, he has a devoted crew
of explorers at his aide, even the names of his ships are comparable
(Cousteau’s ship was named The Calypso, Zissou’s is named
The Belafonte, after Harry Belafonte, who excelled at making calypso
music). Zissou, however, has some problems that we’ve never
heard mention in connection with Jacques. He’s something of
a womanizer (or, at least, he attempts to be a womanizer, but the
women aren’t as cooperative as he’d like), he smokes pot,
and, most importantly, his glory days seem to be behind him. As the
film opens, he is unveiling his latest, unfinished film at a museum
in order to get financial backing. In the film, his longtime friend
(Seymour Cassel, veteran of both “Tenenbaums”
and “Rushmore”)
has been eaten by a previously undiscovered species of shark. Zissou
wants the financial backing to track down the shark, destroy it (possibly
with dynamite) and make a documentary about the process. The film
does not get a favorable reaction. Shortly after the screening, Zissou
meets a young man (Owen Wilson) who claims to be his son.
Soon, Zissou and the young man are on the open sea, tracking down
the shark with a modest budget (most of which has been donated by
his illegitimate son), equipment stolen from a longtime rival (played
with droll aplomb by Jeff Goldblum), his devoted crew (which includes
Willem Dafoe as the insecure Klaus and Bud Cort as the “bond
company stooge”), and a very pregnant journalist writing an
article that might increase his cachet of fame, but might also lay
him open to world, warts and all. Let the fun begin.
Though essentially about a man finding himself very late in life
(or, at the very least, rediscovering what made him great in the first
place) and connecting with a son he didn’t know he had (or did
he?) the film is ostensibly Wes Anderson’s version of an adventure
film. Yes, it’s got a soundtrack filled with Portugese versions
of David Bowie songs. Sure, it’s about family and friends and
the things that really matter in life. But it’s also got pirates,
dynamite, shark attacks and daring rescues. It’s got moments
of true emotion and it’s got that weird, charming and bittersweet
tone and affection for characters (no matter how screwed up) that
sets Anderson apart from his peers and, for that matter, from most
of the filmmakers in cinema history. It’s got some very adult
themes, but it’s also got a childlike curiosity, wonder and
zest to it. It’s almost like a Roald Dahl fantasy/adventure
for grown-ups. Wes seems to make movies that are sadly lacking from
today’s cineplexes: bizarre, hand-crafted confections that entertain
fabulously but also manage to nourish the soul. They’re fun,
but they’re also good for you. The film is bursting with a wealth
of detail and care that will take a dozen or more viewings to truly
appreciate (like any of Anderson’s other films).
However, it’s not quite as wonderful as it could be. I understood
Anderson’s motivations for rendering the aquatic creatures with
old-fashioned, stop-motion animation techniques (and the techniques
are quaint, by the people who brought you the wonderful worlds of
“The Nightmare Before Christmas” and “James and
the Giant Peach”) but the animation doesn’t quite jibe
with the rest of the picture. Another small problem I had was the
film’s editing. It seems a bit jerky and jarring at times. The
editing seems to find a groove and flow by the halfway point, but
the first half of the film still felt like it could use a bit of tweaking
and manipulation. These may be minor problems, but I noticed them
enough that they disrupted my enjoyment of an otherwise wonderful
picture, so they are worth noting.
Though I must also note the wealth of great performances on display
here: Murray is in top form, better perhaps than I have ever seen
him (and remarkably better than his over-heralded performance in last
year’s “Lost in Translation”), Owen Wilson gives
a fine performance that isn’t the least bit showy, Cate Blanchett
does wonderful work, Anjelica Huston is magnificent with limited screen
time and Willem Dafoe, in particular, is absolutely great. The musical
score is eccentric but perfectly suited to the film…perhaps
it’s perfect for the film because it’s so eccentric. And
the script is, for the most part, fascinating. If not for the editing
and the odd choice of special effects, this would be a nearly perfect
movie.
As is, it’s simply one of the year’s best.
